User talk:Jytdog/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Recent editing

Your recent editing history at Herbalism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- EzekielT ^Talk 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (restored this and struck it; it was removed in this diff by EzekielT Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC))

So, User:EzekielT the above thing, is a notice, to make sure you aware of the policy. I gave you this notice, so of course I am aware of the policy. Giving me the notice as you did above, is a misunderstanding, and rather WP:POINTY. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK. There are numerous incorrect and undersourced statements that me and Zefr agreed to leave out, but they were added back by you and CFCF. First of all, none of the links mention phytotherapy, and none of the sources equate phytotherapy with paraherbalism. Second, as User:Zefr states: "the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE"

I had fixed all of this and Zefr gave me a thanks for the edit. However, CFCF reverted all of this. -- EzekielT ^Talk 23:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Note - never remove or edit something on a talk page, after someone has responded to it, as it renders the conversation nonsense for anyone reading it afterwards. if you want to change something that has been responded to, you need to mark it up, as I have done above, in this same diff. See WP:REDACT. Please follow that in the future. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Do you think this would be considered WP:PAID if there's really a COI here and not just someone who chose an inappropriate username? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Since it is a small troupe he likely does all the PR (and floor sweeping etc) along with writing, directing, and acting, so it is probably legitimately PAID, but the main thing is that he discloses and doesn't edit directly. We care most about behavior not precise classification.... Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you taking a look at this and following up on both the article talk page and Jmshoberg's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fright Night Play Addition to Film Page

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not sure how to proceed, as I am still not sure what I did wrong. All of the information so far regarding editing has been a little confusing to me. My addition was only an elaboration on something someone else posted originally, and that addition was factual and included a citation of proof. I merely elaborate on what was already there. That's as much as I could do. It also relates directly to the film. It was sanctioned as the original adaptation by the writer and director himself. It's existence is new and seemed like something people who sought out that page might like to know.

If it breaches some established rules though, I don't want to push it any further. I tried to make a case for it, but I honestly can't support it any more than I have (factually speaking). Thank you for your attention, but if, in some way, it causes a conflict by the measure of Wikipedia's rules, you can leave it off. Jmshoberg (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note!

There are two issues - your behavior, and the content. One at a time.

As somebody with a conflict of interest (as you acknowledged), you should a) disclose it (which you did) and b) not edit directly. The reason for b) is to ensure the integrity of our content and to avoid "edit warring" and other behavior that is not good in Wikipedia. (I won't bore you with the details). Instead of editing directly you should propose content on the talk page -- at Talk:Fright Night.

With regard to the content you wanted to add, it was too much detail in the judgement of me and another independent editor (the issue is what we call "weight" -- see WP:WEIGHT). We have just one source, from a local newspaper. So a brief description that the stage adaptation exists, who wrote it, who performed at its debut, is plenty. The source is cited there for readers who might want more detail. You can see that discussion here: Talk:Fright_Night#Stage_play.

Does that make sense? (by the way, if you want an as-brief-as-I-could-make-it overview of what we do here, and how, and why, please see User:Jytdog/How) Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding the issue or what I can do to correct it. I find the whole process to be very confusing and unclear. I'm just going to withdraw my interest in contributing further. Thanks for getting back to me. Jmshoberg (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing that needs correcting... I'm sorry you find this confusing. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick Note on Crypto General Ban

I've read what you've posted on my [page]. Everything you said sounds fair. But why did you place me on the [[1]]? Could you point to any of my previous edits that are perhaps live, which you believe are not well sourced?

I understand and appreciate that the broader blockchain and crypto space is fraught with peril. That doesn't mean all editors are to blame. I've been very deliberate and careful in adding proper sources to everything that I discuss (e.g. see my page edits on CryptoKitties and Non-fungible token). I might have slipped up on an occasion or two (happy to have that pointed out by you, if you find any), but I don't think it is fair to say that as a general trend. Btcgeek (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "ban". There are general sanctions (GS). Part of how the whole system of discretionary sanctions (DS) and GS work, is that a person must be notified that a specific "sanction" is available on a topic, before that sanction can be enforced against that person for their behavior on the topic. GS and DS are kind of a sword of damocles dangling over controversial subjects. The community created this system for controversial topics where people come in "hot" and if they won't be cautious, they can be swiftly stopped before things turn into a conflagration.

So you were notified, and the list on the page, that I added your name to, is just a list of people who have received the notification. (DS notifications are automatically logged; GS notifications need to be manually logged). It is not a list of people who have been sanctioned or have been banned. That list is down further on the page.

Makes sense? Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense. I acknowledge the general ban in these topics. I'll be extra careful if I am editing any articles here. Btcgeek (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are lot of "technical terms" in Wikipedia - words mean specific things here.

A "ban" is an actual thing in Wikipedia that means something completely different (people can get "banned" from the whole project, from editing about a topic, or from interacting with a person. Those are "bans".) If you want more detail see WP:BAN and the related but different concept WP:BLOCK.

The "sanctions" system is different - again it is sort of "sword of damocles" hanging over specific topics. Under the sanctions, someone can be banned or blocked. These links are above but again see WP:ACDS and WP:GS. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Updated as Requested

Hello Jytdog I have updated my page as requested. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. CryptoWriter (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Stromal vascular fraction

Just a friendly heads up. I see where you're coming from on Stromal vascular fraction, but this is something that's better to go through AfD than speedy. Cheers!----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you

It is my honor and privilege to join 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:81B8:A314:4A73:70AF in recognizing your superhuman dedication to Wikipedia. After your daring feats, including but not limited to daily sixteen-hour edit sprees while maintaining a full-time job and 60 hours of continuous* editing within a 7-day span, you deserve a cold one or two. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

*Excluding breaks

DRN thread - European Graduate School

FYI, a thread is open at the DRN which I am working on a resolution for as a volunteer. Would appreciate your input. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#European_Graduate_School. Steven Crossin 05:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove your inaccurate sentence

Regarding the review article about the WHO tetanus vaccine controversy, it was John W. Oller, the lead author of the article, who withdrew it and one other article that he had submitted to the same journal, and that other article did not have anything to do with vaccines.

After editorial concerns about the tetanus vaccine article were addressed, it was John W. Oller who resubmitted the tetanus vaccine article and his other article. The vaccine article was then published and it is still being published (please click on the link to confirm that).

You added a sentence to the end of the paragraph that I wrote. The sentence that you added is inaccurate. Please remove the sentence that you added. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you post the above at Talk:Christopher Shaw I will reply there. In the meantime please do not remove that source again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (strike - see below, Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)}}

Jytdog. did you mean Talk:Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist)? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

yep! Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will repost it there. Please note that Oller is the corresponding author; i.e., his e-mail address is stated in the article as "Email: joller@louisiana.edu". Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen

Hi Jytdog How are you from this fine cold morning from Houston, Scotland (I wish it was colder). A brand new SPA has come in and added 3k to the criticism section of the article. I have looked at it... scope_creep (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm, WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Jytdog,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

The "Research" section of the article is merely discussing the current state of research on this plant. It is not drawing medical conclusions. If one is only reporting that the FDA has approved a human clinical trial on an investigational new drug that is derived from the plant, would be be acceptable to cite from Clinicaltrials.gov, which is a FDA administered website?

Also, if I understand correctly, I presume a review article discussing and evaluating the current state of research, which is not the author's original research, would be considered a secondary source, and therefore, would be considered acceptable, correct?

Thanks!

Fancyfeller14 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for talking. I'd be happy to discuss at Talk:Arum palaestinum if you post the note above there. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Univ Cincinnati project

FYI - Students from Univ Cincinnati Environmental Public Health have been let loose on a number of projects, include Opioid epidemic and Diseases of affluence. That includes Santanke and Aemak18 on opioid. This looks to be the last week of the class, so probably no time left to advise the students, but I suggest you look at what Admak18 has been up to at opioid. At Diseases, I left notes at the students' Talk pages, explaining my reverts and edits. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. i looked this morning. lots of bad sourcing. such a shame. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the crypto/blockchain cleanup and proposals. I apologize I misunderstood you the last time we communicated. Always have appreciated your eye on these topics.

Btcgeek (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Specific Carbohydrate Diet

Hello,

I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD. I have provided 23 references with gives greater depth and understanding to the reader. I do not seek medical advice on the internet but as some patients do, it is important for the information to be as accurate and up to date as possible. I will seek discussions with the dispute resolution board to have a fair and accurate evaluation of the information.

I have shared my credentials for evaluating medical literature. Please provide yours.Beall4 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Your credentials (whatever they may be) are not relevant in Wikipedia. Would you please review the orientation material I placed on your talk page? It is here: User talk:Beall4. Please let me know if you have any questions after reading that material, and reviewing the version you generated (which you can see here). There are many, many problems with it, based on how we do things here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we go through it line by line, as I do not see problems with it given your guidelines of process? Every line is well referenced and it is far more thorough than what is presently there. If there are specific changes to meet your guidelines, please edit them accordingly or educate me on the process, but do not deny the public to the most accurate and up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If you see no problem at all then you have not made a good faith effort to understand MEDRS and MEDMOS. I will be happy to discuss your edits after you do so. We cannot have a rational conversation if we are not following the same guidance. The simplest place to start is MEDRS - the sources cited should be recent (within the last 5 years or so) secondary sources (like literature reviews in high quality journals). No research papers describing labwork or clinical trials. Look at the sources you used, for a start. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. Let's put the references side by side from the original versus the updated version. Far more articles are listed the majority of which have been published in the last 2-3 years in peer reviewed medical journals. Please list the sources that you feel do not meet this criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your replies by putting one or more colons in front. You can see this in the edit window. Indenting is basic etiquette here, like "please" and "thank you". I have fixed each of your replies above; I will not fix future ones. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004, and the fifth was a spam link to the website of the author of that book. These citations have nothing to do with the criteria described in MEDRS. If you write here again without reading MEDRS and engaging with the edit you actually made, i will close this discussion and will ask you not to post here again. This is not a matter of "feeling" - MEDRS offers objective criteria and you need to actually engage with it. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The first reference is actually the same that is currently used on the existing page, and the second two are from medical journals written by the founder of the diet. The fourth is the same reference currently used on the existing page and the fifth links to the author. Are these the only references that you have concern with as to not meeting the criteria of MEDRS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not act like a vandal

Please do not vandalize talk pages by censoring them. You don't have to participate in a thread I started, but do not close it. In my 10+ years here I haven't seen anyone act in such a way. I'd have thought someone with your experience wouldn't behave in such a rude way towards others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The comment you made was mostly inappropriate. Your personal opinions have no place on a talk page about a contentious subject. If you need to please review WP:TPG and WP:Controversial articles. But please restrain yourself, or the community will do that for you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Censor me or others and I am sure there'll be a need for the community to review your behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

On my user page you mentioned "You may want to read Confirmation bias, fwiw." I read most of that article, very interesting stuff, do you think it's possible yourself and the majority of the Wikipedia community need to read that Confirmation bias article? I had a very different mindset just a few years ago but I started listening to other points of view and improved as a person, maybe you should try that. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is a very human thing; every person is prone to it. I posted that link for you because you wrote Honestly I was told Wikipedia was infested with rabid sJW leftists incapable of critical thought but I imagined they were simply exaggerating. after you had made what, 25 edits or so -- a very limited base of experience from which to judge. You initially acknowledged that you are new here and learning the ropes. Please give yourself (and the editing community) time before you start confirming what you were told. Once you understand how we do things and can focus your efforts more productively, your experience will be different and your judgement will probably be different as well. I do encourage you to read User:Jytdog/How which I wrote to help people who are in a hurry get oriented. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jytdog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaky Gut Syndrome

Current western medicine based on big pharma and corrupt industrialists and governments that are increasing toxins in environment and all living species on earth leading to chronic diseases of all sorts will come to an end soon. Not to worry. Truth about real pseudoscience will be out in no time to everybody soon. Outcome of Karma is inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKapoor (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Problem solved.[2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Signing unsigned edits

Regarding your edit to sign another editor's comment – the generally accepted method for this is to use {{subst:Unsigned}} – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes i know. But they did sign their initial post, see? they just forgot to take into account that their comment would get split apart by subsequent comments. So here I just copied their original signature to the topmost part. If you want to revert that or change it to a sign unsigned have at it.Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

{{unsigned}} is such a pain. Especially when one's date/time format is 2018-11-20T17:58:50 Need a bot to do the legwork and fill in at least the time and date if not the editor. Jim1138 talk 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I use {{unsigned2}} after it was kindly pointed out here back in January by Tryptofish. It is a little less of a pain since you don't have to flip the date-username order. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

{{xsign}} FTW - straight up copy and paste from history. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition to JD's link above, have a peek at User:Roxy the dog/sandbox, where I have copied the Trypto stuff etc. because it is so damn useful. I was shocked to see some of my recent contact with Boris too. I don't know how to react to that sad, sad news. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 18:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentions, and I too was shocked about Boris, so sad. But there's actually a new and improved way to fix unsigned posts. You add a line to your Common.js file, and it adds a super-easy clickable "unsigned" button to your edit screen on talk pages, just below where it says "Insert" and above the edit summary line. Then, all you have to do is put your cursor at the end of the unsigned post while editing the talk page, click "unsigned", and it gets fixed automatically, with no need to use any template. I've entirely switched to doing it that way. Here's the diff of how I added it to my js file, and all you have to do is make the same edit to your own file: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your introductory message

It's interesting to finally see how Wikipedia works, I am very happy to be on board. At first I was flustered about the general sanctions because I thought it applied to me specifically, but when I read it more closely I understood.

I also checked out your user page- a lot of interesting information there! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetazic (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am glad you found that stuff useful! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit of the article about trehalose

Why did you remove it? It was a quote from and reference to Nature magazine and relevant to trehalose consumers.RussellBell (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

see here. Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

I don't appreciate the accusation of advocacy and competence issues you made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Editor_violating_Religious_rights?

Can you point to a wikipedia policy post that would make me guilty of these charges? If not then I will try to dismiss it as a malicious baseless comment.

Even secondary scholarly sources on the Bible seem to be in violation when considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laban_(Bible)#Copying_text_I_deleted_about_Balaam_and_Laban I tried to learn from the commenter but he insisted I put quotes around something that was not a verbatim quote, just referenced because the idea did not come from me. Even the commenter admitted it was probably a credible source but has not given any rationale for why he wanted quotation marks that would have made my edit wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage67usa (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

They are not "charges". I left you a note on your talk page, here: User_talk:Mage67usa#Working_in_Wikipedia. Please do read what is there. We can discuss that stuff further at your talk page, if you like, after you read that, and the links in it. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Happiness is finding an unused username#Welcome

Hi Jytdog. Would you mind taking a look at this when you have a spare moment or two? Perhaps you can provide some more specific advice regarding this editor's apparent COI. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

How does my section in Rick Santorum's talk page contain BLP violations?Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See the note I left you here. I'll post a note at the talk page for you, along the lines I recommended you to do, in order to cut to the chase... Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

AHHHH!

Too much ick today. Signing off. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, Complaints are welcome in the now-active IRC #wikipedia-medicine. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  - TNT ^💖 20:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You may have made assurances that you "will not do [this] again.", but we've been in similar situations before - this was a clear violation of the harassment policy and shows a worrying lack of judgement. I'm not sure of the way forward here. - TNT ^💖 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, were you aware of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact? Assuming this is the incident in question, while it should be obvious from my comments there that I think in general this kind of thing is grossly inappropriate, it does appear that Jytdog genuinely believed that he was acting within policy in this instance. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Yes I am aware of the thread, and read it in its entirety before acting - I cannot take seriously anyone who believes these actions are within policy. It's clear they are not, and although this block is not a punishment (WP:PUNITIVE etc), there is a trend in issues, and I genuinely believe it will continue if not dealt with. As I said above, I'm unsure of where we go from here, I imagine ArbCom? - TNT ^💖 20:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jytdog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see discussion at WT:HA, for those interested. Requesting unblock per what I wrote there, particularly diff: The situation went very downhill today (they edit warred against 2 3O helpers) and as it did, I thought about how to help them. I checked and they do indeed not have email enabled. I had already gone and found the abstract to try to understand where they are coming from (what they are doing is baffling), and it has a phone number. I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. At the start of the call I introduced myself and asked if they were willing to try to talk, and they said "yes". I asked for consent and obtained it. I would not have been surprised, had they said "no", and was ready to end the discussion there.

and here

Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again.

and here: I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again

I did not mention at WT:HA, that at their talk page, I had asked if they wanted to talk, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself, I went ahead and just tried to call them. After the call, I removed that note. I should have waited for them to respond there, instead of just calling.

Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; handled below. Please do not substitute {{unblock}} templates (well, I hope you won't be needing them again any time soon). Huon (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness" - this is one of the main reasons why you won't do it again? Not the fact that it's blatantly contrary to our harassment policy and downright inappropriate? - TNT ^💖 21:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: I don't see the point of indeffing and then (vaguely) recommending ArbCom. Why don't you unblock and go straight to RFAR? Bishonen | talk 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC).

I have reduced the block to 24 hours (which, to this editor, will probably still feel like an eternity). Mistakes were made, and have been acknowledged. Jyt, take a break and come back fresh tomorrow afternoon (or whatever time of day that will be in your time zone). bd2412 T 21:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TNT, No that is not the only reason I would not do it again. TNT you seem very upset. I am not sure what you understand happened, but I did not "track down" their phone number nor did I call them to continue the dispute. I already had the number days before (from the booth listing in the conference program they referenced), and yesterday they were floundering on the platform and heading into a block. I really did call to try to help them. When I did call, the first thing I did was ask if they wanted to talk and would have stopped right away had they said no.

I do understand what everybody is saying about not using contact information that people do not explicitly post on-WP. Absolutely I hear that and understand the reason as well. I tried something boundary-pushing to try to help someone who was melting down, and it blew up in my face, and yes there is no way in hell I will be doing that again. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412. All admins please remember the wheel war policy now. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC).

• User:BD2412 I accept the 24 hour block, thanks for that. I don't know how to withdraw my unblock request. But I withdraw it. I am signing out. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jytdog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see discussion at WT:HA, for those interested. Requesting unblock per what I wrote there, particularly diff: The situation went very downhill today (they edit warred against 2 3O helpers) and as it did, I thought about how to help them. I checked and they do indeed not have email enabled. I had already gone and found the abstract to try to understand where they are coming from (what they are doing is baffling), and it has a phone number. I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. At the start of the call I introduced myself and asked if they were willing to try to talk, and they said "yes". I asked for consent and obtained it. I would not have been surprised, had they said "no", and was ready to end the discussion there.

and here

Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again.

and here: I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again

I did not mention at WT:HA, that at their talk page, I had asked if they wanted to talk, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself, I went ahead and just tried to call them. After the call, I removed that note. I should have waited for them to respond there, instead of just calling. :Please unblock.

Accept reason:

Reduced to 24 hours, per discussion above. bd2412 T 21:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ARC

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - TNT ^💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

With due respect to the fact you are currently blocked - TNT ^💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, would somebody please post the following to the case: (I am not indenting it, to save whoever does that hassle)

Context: The person whom I telephoned is a WP:SPA who has edited one article, Specific carbohydrate diet (SCD). Their first edit rewrote the page into an advertisement for the diet complete with the closing selling statement. The edit note refers to a specific conference. Their edit was reverted by me and then by another person. I gave them the WPMED welcome. The editor opened a discussion at my talk page, which you can see here. I assumed that what they wrote in that edit note was true -- that they are a "doctor of pharmacy" and understand the medical literature. As the discussion at my talk page was bizarre, I went and looked at the conference page that the user pointed to, and indeed an organization advocating for SCD was listed there as an exhibitor, with a phone and address. After a few days the person copied the discussion from my talk page to the article talk page, and sought a 3O. I removed that pasted content and left a link to the discussion at my talk page, and warned the person not to do that in the future. A few days later yet -- yesterday -- they melted down and ended up edit warring to restore the pasted discussion and requesting more 3O, as you can see in the history of the article talk page and their contribs. I filed an EWN case which is here, but it was also clear that the user was floundering, and thought talking could help.

I first asked if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have never edited their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond. I recalled the number from the exhibition booth, and went ahead and just called them. Please bear in mind, that this is a phone number that was posted for the advocacy organization for the diet, and this person had posted an advertisement for the diet in WP. I expected that they would want to talk, as odd as that might sound to folks here.

I introduced myself, and asked if the person wanted to talk about what was going on. The person said "yes". I would have ended the call, had they said "no". In any case, after they said yes, the conversation very quickly went south - what happened on the phone was pretty much a duplicate of what you see on my talk page. I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call. It is entirely my fault, that I allowed myself to do that.

After the call, I removed that note, as it was now pointless.

So:

• I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge, a lot, on WP. Sometimes it goes badly. Often it goes well.
• I should have waited to see if they accepted the invitation at their talk page, instead of just calling them.
• I should not have taken the multiple risks of calling them, and will not use contact information someone does not themselves post on WP, ever again.

--Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done [5] Bradv 🍁 02:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked

I’ve gone ahead and unblocked your account so you can properly participate in the ArbCom case request. It’s a 24 hour block and given the circumstances, the likelihood of a reoccurrence in the next 20 hours is slim to none. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. I see no prevention value in your sitting out the remainder. —kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think you should have remained indef blocked. But since it was shortened to 24 hours, I believe there is little value in it, what with the case request and all. —kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, and for clarifying your position. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The things that happen while I sleep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice that you're back. Mathglot (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see where this goes... Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lulu and Nana's CCR5 seqs, Twitter

Hi there, I am the person who added the paragraph about the changes induced by He. I figured that there needs to be something about what He did and what that may mean.

The reason Twitter is necessary is that He did not publish anything about these things anywhere else -- He only did the technical details in his presentation, and if you dig around the interviews He actually does not want to put the paper on biorxiv or any sort of preprint sites. And given the blurry nature of the primary source (the presentation and its screenshots), it definitely helps to have an actual geneticist do the interpretation even if it comes in the form of a Twitter thread. (And yes, I can get raw sequences from the slides themselves, but it takes someone else to reliably compare them to other things.) Artoria2e5 contrib 00:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please no twitter stuff on a topic like this. We can wait. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest note: Morpholino

Good day Jytdog,

I edited the Morpholino page to remove a claim recently called into question by new publication (lack of innate immune response - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/11/27/479188). After doing so, I noticed your note directing me to cease editing the Morpholino page directly; my apologies for executing the edit prior to seeing that message. I'll remain hands-off for direct editing of the Morpholino page going forward. Hopefully an editor competent in that technology will pick up the slack.

JonMoulton (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your message. I think you are talking about this note? If so, yes please do follow the editing community's procedure for managing conflict of interest. That would be great. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

PARP inhibitors

Hi - re PARPi page - thanks for the tips re secondary sources. In terms of PARP1 trapping, the reference I put in (which you removed) is a secondary source (the existing reference is a primary source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monvert1 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will double check that! Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure which ref you understand is secondary. The only secondary source I found that you added was PMID 28302823 but maybe I missed one...(btw the pages you added are full of bad sourcing...) Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

An invitation

Obviously you have a lot on your plate at this moment and the time is probably not right, but I would like to extend you an invitation to participate at Wikipediocracy (the island of broken toys). Admittedly, your initial reception would not be balmy, you being a controversial Wikipedian. However, I trust you will be able to give at least as good as you get with your detractors. I suggest to you that an off-wiki platform might be a superior foil for the public identification and eventual correction of COI editing than on-wiki activity. I think you probably have some interesting things to say about the "open registration" and "anyone can edit" doctrine in vogue at WP.

Good luck to you in a very difficult time. You've got my email, don't be afaid to use it. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your good wishes, very much. However, I will decline your offer to rejoin WPO. There is still too much raw, uninhibited ick for me. I do hope for the sake of WPO's stated mission that at some point you all clean that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep the venue in mind, the world may look different in 2019. You're all clear to return to WPO with the boss units if you ever wish to do so; it's certainly one possible way to shine a spotlight on undeclared paid editing in a less stultified environment than WP. Best of luck. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are far too many kooks, creeps and cranks actively involved in that website. They sure make you look good by comparison, Tim, but that is a very low hurdle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to learn (1) that WPO actually bans off particularly malevolent souls; and (2) that it is itself criticized by more extremist "Hasten the Day" criticism sites for being so friendly to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. This doesn't change the fact that it can get rough there. Still, the reputation and the reality are two different things. Carrite (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am too old to be easily surprised by anything, Tim. So they keep the run-of-the-mill malevolent kooks, creeps and cranks but sometimes ban those who are particularly malevolent? And they are somehow acceptable because the ultra-extremist websites attack them too? I judge them not by their reputation but by the obsessive vitrol that I see there every time I take a close look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Praising with fair damn. What is "boss units"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

people with admin status, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

...so wou were banned at WPO? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep.

Tim, I do appreciate the good intentions of your offer, and your good wishes. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Respect! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

AE report

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jytdog_violating_GMO_topic_ban_and_harassing_users. --Gwern (contribs) 17:20 4 December 2018 (GMT)

seriously??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to put myself on the record as saying that this AE filing was deplorable, as were the comments at the now-closed ARCA RFAR about a "reign of terror" and a "pity party". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I support what Tryptofish says. This is a sad and undeserved outcome, for Jytdog and for Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to request, Tryptofish, that if you are going to talk about other editors, they should receive a ping (unless it is such general terms that no one knows for sure to whom you're referring). petrarchan47คุก 22:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted. In case anyone is confused, you are the editor who referred to this talk page as a "pity party". The editor who referred to a "reign of terror" is being discussed elsewhere, and is aware of the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you simply didn't talk about me at all. Anyone who is confused can do an easy word search, but I think you already knew that. petrarchan47คุก 23:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure no one would mind if you stayed off Jytdog's talk page. And by the way, I didn't talk about other editors until you raised the issue: I talked about the content of some edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything relevant at ARCA, Tryptofish. Just in case people want to look and depress themselves, I think you meant this RFAR. That's where the comments about "reign of terror" and "pity party" are. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that's right. I've gotten a bit swamped with alphabet soup. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I think if I had quoted you in a similar way, you would not sit idly by. You would show up and ask me to stop, or take me to a noticeboard. We are not terribly dissimilar. IMO, you were talking about other editors when using direct quotations, which makes identifying the source a one-step process. If you'd spoken in more general terms, I wouldn't be here. petrarchan47คุก 09:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Check spamming done by View, Inc. COI editor

Can you please check the editors of paid editors of User:Gortathammer, User:Ma11ard and User:Ritditdit. They are probably socks and needs an ivestigation. 115.178.100.18 (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll start an SPI later today. (See above) SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already revised the article somewhat. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE, did you got a chance to file SPI? 115.178.100.18 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@115.178.100.18: Yep see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ritditdit. Inconclusive however. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry X-mas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thank you for your teaching in the past! It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Season Greetings

Merry Christmas Jytdog


Hi Jytdog, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:American Jewish conservatives has been nominated for discussion

Category:American Jewish conservatives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Donald Gary Young

There is a dispute on the TPG[6][7] and was told you were pinged for input, so just wanted to make sure you were in fact aware of the discussion taking place. Best. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Jytdog is indefinitely blocked. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? What happened? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the thread above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT with RIR)He walked away from the haters. The block came after he left, like an incredibly bad taste afterthought. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I know you're not around anymore, but in case you happen to see this, the AGF section of your user page made me literally laugh out loud. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I just wanted to say thank you for helping and introducing me to medical articles editing, with patience and pedagogy. I don't understand exactly what happened, but I will miss you on WP. Wish you the best. Signimu (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconding this, missing you. – SJ + 14:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Returning with a smile on your face

Hi @Jytdog: You know I was thinking about today, all of the sudden. I have a strong feeling your coming back and welcome you. I'm looking forward to seeing you. Your sorely needed. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I wanted to thank you for your amazing "How" page that I found by chance. Honestly, contributing to Wikimedia projects is a little overwhelming, and this was a headstart for me. GunDayioglu (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Garden State Plaza

Hi. Another editor has removed valid citations from the Garden State Plaza article, and replaced it with non-valid citations that do not support the material, and has de-templated other citations (taking them out of citations), claiming that since he edited the article in the past, that non-template citations are the "established style" of the article. I have tried reverting these edits, but he continues to revert them back. Since you have edited or discussed that article the past, could you help resolve this by participating in the discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream Nope, he's banned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 15 August 2021.

You have been invited to take part because you are one of the top-ten contributors (according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo) to three of the articles in my corpus: Archaeology of Israel, Israel, and Jews. If you believe you have been invited to fill out this survey in error, my apologies and feel free to ignore this. If you are no longer active on Wikipedia, you are still eligible to take part in this survey.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sarabnas Just so you know, Jytdog is banned from WP and will not fill out your survey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I saw he was banned, but hoped maybe he might still check his talk page and see it anyways...oh well! Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 14:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sarabnas That is not impossible. Nothing prevents him using the email at your meta-wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Under Armour sponsorships for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Under Armour sponsorships is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Under Armour sponsorships until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)