User talk:Jytdog/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Edit war: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

I received a warning from you on my talk page about an edit war; specifically, the inclusion of a footnote that I wrote on the "amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" page. I would like to have a third party resolve this dispute.

For years, I have been fact checking Wikipedia articles; specifically, sections concerning the history of science and technology. I have found and corrected many mistakes during that time. I have also discovered that secondary and especially tertiary sources are untrustworthy. Consequently, whenever possible, I cite primary sources as references.

Furthermore, in almost every scientific review article, the article starts with the history of the subject. These sections cite primary sources. Most Wikipedia articles also include a "History" section. Presumably Wikipedia would like its history sections to be as trustworthy as those of professional publications.

In addition, I know that some authors resort to Wikipedia to do research on a subject. I know for a fact that some have quoted my findings, which were posted in Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have even received thanks from professional investigators, complimenting me on the quality of my work. Clearly there is a desire among Wikipedia's readers for the primary sources that I uncover.

Furthermore, if a student, author, etc., is looking for primary sources, why shouldn't Wikipedia provide them? If a reader wants to know precisely where Jean Charcot named amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, why shouldn't he find it listed in Wikipedia? Why should he be required to unearth an obscure secondary source when he can have the information presented to him within the article on A.L.S.?

In addition, what conceivable harm is done to Wikipedia by listing a few more references? Wikipedia's storage capacity is virtually unlimited. There are many articles — including such profoundly important articles as those on "Harry Potter" — that cite over 200 references.

Furthermore, one of the most frequent requests by editors that appear on Wikipedia pages are requests for "in-line citations". Since when does Wikipedia consider an in-line citation undesirable?

Frankly, this "edit war" should never have started in the first place. Primary sources should always be welcome in any trustworthy reference, so that the reader can verify the validity of the information presented.

If Wikipedia doesn't want primary sources to be listed, please post such a policy. I will then quit editing Wikipedia. I have better things to do with my time than to spend hours trying to find an obscure reference that confirms that Charcot did indeed name A.L.S. in 1874. Meanwhile, however, Wikipedia's administrators complain that fewer and fewer people are editing it. When you high-handedly toss a contributor's hard work in the trash, you're bound to upset him and drive him away.Cwkmail (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please bring this discussion to the Talk page of the article. You have been edit warring. Per WP:BRD, it is great to be bold and make a change, but if you are reverted, open a discussion on Talk. You are already at risk of being blocked for edit warring. Do it once more and you will violate 3RR and you will most certainly be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note that you are treating Wikipedia like it is something it is not. 1) Wikipedia is not full of scientific review articles, as are found in the scientific literature. That is a bad, inappropriate model. 2) There is a very strong theme of warning against using primary sources in the policies, WP:OR and WP:NPOV and in the guideline WP:RS and even more so in the guideline for health-related content, WP:MEDRS, and a corresponding very strong theme urging editors to use WP:SECONDARY sources (and for health-related content, that means reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major scientific and medical bodies. If you have been going around replacing secondary sources with primary ones, that is a big problem. You should not do that. 3) If you are posting "your findings" in Wikipedia you are violating WP:OR. Because of what you wrote above I am going to have to review your edits and see if you have damaged WP: i am afraid of what I am going to find. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, let me say that is will be too bad if you decide to leave. Although Wikipedia is indeed "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is not a wild west, and it is not free to re-make in whatever image you like. It is a mature project, and over the years, the editing community has created a set of policies and guidelines to guide editors and resolve common disputes. (you are not the first to try to remake WP articles into works of original research!) When folks join and start editing, they either figure the above out pretty quickly, and embrace what is here, or they ignore it (or try to) and end up getting frustrated and angry, and either leave or get tossed out (editing WP is a privilege -- one freely offered to all, and easy to keep if you follow the guidelines and policies, and most importantly, their spirit -- but also easy to lose if you just refuse to abide by community norms.) WP is language game -- if you want to play, you have to play by its rules (which include ways to change the rules!). But ignoring them is not a sustainable option. As I said, doing so will lead to you getting angry and leaving or you losing your editing privileges. It is your decision, of course. good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you review my edits, you will find that every one of them was thoroughly substantiated. I am very careful about performing fact-checking. Since you and Wikipedia are not interested in substantiating findings with primary sources, I have obviously been wasting my time. I shall cease my involvement with Wikipedia.Cwkmail (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry that you are upset. good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola article deletions

Hi Jytdog. You seem to be a central figure in the current cull of non-notable Ebola articles, so I bring you other similar articles you may like to consider nominating for deletion: Ngoy Mushola, Sheik Umar Khan, and Ameyo Adadevoh. Is it standard practice to remove links to articles that have pending nominations? JKDw (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks! I just redirected the Mushola article. In my view the other two are marginally OK to stand but I would not oppose redirecting them. Maybe ask at project med? Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please

Please stop editing User:Cirt/Gutting for a while.

You've made some very helpful suggestions both on the talk page and editing the essay itself.

But I'm going to make a more major change soon that should please a lot of users.

Just experiencing some power outage problems right now but will try to do it soon.

I put the {{WIP}} tag at the top of the page.

Will try to do something that will address everyone's complaints quite nicely.

Will update soon.

— Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've changed the format entirely. Can you please help to edit User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting so that it only refers to the possible good faith motivations of Gutting, and I'll edit to tone down the other one so it's much more matter-of-fact, and we'll go from there? Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've gutted the gutting page at User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting. Please add more there, I think it needs a bit more content and explanation for the reader. I'd like to move all 3 pages to Mainspace as regular ole' essays for the community at some point soon in the future, so let me know after you've edited User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting a bit more? — Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

will do. thanks. i know you are working toward providing help for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! MelanieN is helping as well but the pages still need further improvements and I'm very willing to modify them and take into account suggestions. — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting to look a bit better after some helpful specific suggestions by MelanieN, let me know what your other ideas are, please, to further improve these pages so they might be moved into main essay space at some point in the future. — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, i took a stab at the "good motivations" one. hopefully it makes sense to you. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks much better, thank you! Do you have any advice about User_talk:Cirt/Gutting/Possible_motivations_of_bad_faith_Gutting#Examples_of_essays_on_similar_subject because I'm trying to respond to specific suggestions other than simply that someone doesn't want the page to exist at all and wants to delete an essay about deletion? I want to improve these pages further to move to essay main space, I'd appreciate any other input you have. — Cirt (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Responded to your suggestions

Responded to your suggestions, at User_talk:Cirt/Gutting/Possible_motivations_of_bad_faith_Gutting#comments.

I had no problems with any of your recommendations and they were all helpful, so I just directly implemented all of them. :)

Now the next step would be to cut down on repetition on the page, while keeping the educational content including the suggested additional sects you recommended.

Perhaps you could make some specific suggestions on what is repetitive that I could trim down?

— Cirt (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the notice, John. I only recently got involved and only then to resolve a pretty simple problem. I am unlikely to stay involved as altmed articles are generally toxic POV-war zones. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Greger edits

Thanks for chiming in! I was beginning to feel like I was edit-warring, so it is good to find that there are others who think I was doing the right thing. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

) Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

wp:lede

Why in the world would you as an experienced editor delete RS-supported lede material? As here? Please read wp:lede. And take this as a warning for an inappropriate no-reason-given deletion of RS-supported material. That's not acceptable. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

we disagree - please see the article Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Where on the article talk page did you say anything about your removal of RS-supported material from the lede. That's not acceptable. And your removal lacked any edit summary explanation. That's not appropriate, and is especially wrong-headed when deleting RS-supported material, an obviously controversial edit. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies -- that comment was incorrectly leveled at you. (though it is a comment for another editor, who did what I was describing here). Too many edits/adds/deletions at the same time; mea culpa. Tx for your contributions. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

s'ok, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologized at the AFD diff, I'm sorry if you got the wrong idea of what I was trying to communicate.

I review a lot at WP:GAN and I nominate a lot to WP:GAN.

I've helped improve one-hundred-and-thirteen (113) articles to WP:GA quality.

So my perspective of looking at this is from the WP:WIAGA good article criteria of Stability, and I used the words about disruption in the edit history from that way of looking at things.

Maybe I should have just said "the article right now is unstable so I don't want to perform a Quality improvement project on it for fear of delving into that instability".

Again, my apologies if I have upset you and I hope you understand my perspective as one who engages routinely in Quality improvement projects to bring articles to WP:GA quality.

— Cirt (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the apology; that is very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) I hope you're beginning to understand my mindset regarding how I look at potential Quality improvement projects. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

i am really confused, actually. (please pardon me, but i tend to be direct. not intended to be rude, but just direct and clear) there are 2 things i don't understand. 1) why you would ignore it when two editors independently arrive at the conclusion that there are no good independent sources and communicate that (and i really mean ignore - as though each of hadn't even written that)... especially when I directly asked you to respond to that; 2) how you could go even further, and claim that you could raise an article to GA status where there is a reasonable chance that you too would not be able to find independent sources even showing notability. i really don't get that. and you are otherwise so wonderfully communicative. i don't like to assume, but i can only assume that you don't believe each of us, or that you think that one or both of us is acting from bad faith (or don'tlkeit) and not from an good-faith interpretation of notability. can you please explain? there may be an underlying inclusionist/deletionist thing going on, but we still should be able to talk about it! Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I come from a perspective of can I start a Quality improvement project at that page. I can't if the article is unstable. So I stop before I even am able to start adding sourced content to the article, because of its instability, most unfortunately. I hope you can understand how I wouldn't want do delve into an unstable page like that. — Cirt (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

oy! still not responding to the direct question. now i am totally confused. ah, well, you don't want to talk about what i want to talk about. that happens. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you can understand how from my perspective it seems like you don't want to talk about what I want to talk about? — Cirt (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

wait, revising. i completely understand that you wouldn't want to work on an article you judge as unstable. (i don't view it that way, but i understand how you might judge it that way.) i do understand what you are saying. that leaves me out in the cold still.... Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks because it seems we are both pro-SCIENCE and pro Scientific method and pro Scientific skepticism. :) What I have found, from my experience, is sometimes citing sources at AFDs doesn't work. What is much more effective is to actually go and take on improving the Quality of the article at AFD itself. I could do that. I could try adding sourced content to this article while it's at AFD. But again, I fear doing so because of its currently unstable state. — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

here is what would make me happy and help me understand you (which i would like to do!) if you wrote something like; "I hear it, that you and Lesser looked and didn't find any independent sources showing notability, but....(please fill in the blank!)" THEN i would have some insight! if you like.... Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the way I personally evaluate that, part of my methodology, is in the process of Quality improvement and adding sourced content to the article, itself -- rather than spending time adding sources to the AFD, that could instead be used to add to the article. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, i am going to read between the lines and fill in the blank. i think where you are coming from - the way you would fill in the "but", is - "I don't tend to take other editors' word for it about available sources, and I believe that I can turn an article on most any topic not only into something decent, but actually GA." that is what i am hearing. which is interesting and would make you a very strong inclusionist... to the point where you would tend to vote "keep" and ignore what other editors say about lack of notability if something is presented that looks promising enough. that is about the only conclusion i can draw at this point. i am holding it tentatively of course. anyway, all this is reminding me that i have spent way too much time on Talk pages this weekend and have done nothing on my WP to-do list. easy to get lost that way around here! anyway, thanks for talking, and good luck in all your work! Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) (striking per below Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. Please don't make assumptions and please don't say things that other people haven't said. That is not what I mean. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, now it is my turn to apologize! I did say it clearly that it was a guess, and a tentative one. I am sorry and have struck it. would love to hear you answer but you clearly don't want to give it. i cannot know why. anyway, my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is very frustrating. I'm trying to give my answers to you. Repeatedly. I think that even simply trying to improve a page to WP:GA or WP:FA is a worthy goal, and a good way to go about approaching analysis, yes, even at AFD. But it becomes much more difficult to perform Quality improvement projects on pages that are already unstable, wouldn't you agree? — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cirt I already acknowledged that - you have no cause for frustration. I have asked you directly several times why you have not even acknowledged the statements by Lesser and me that we can't find any good independent sources. So now you are not only ignoring our initial statements, but are ignoring direct questions about that. You clearly don't want to answer, nor even to tell me why you don't want to. (and "I want to improve the article" is not a direct answer to the question - it is some kind of indirect answer that leaves me hanging). So, I am done here. good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to acknowledge anything and I'm most certainly not ignoring anything. I just have a totally different process of Quality improvement for articles than you do, apparently. It seems you just don't understand my thought rationale. I've tried to explain it several times. Sometimes it takes me weeks or months to completely research a topic. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bjp

"Would you please explain your relation to the BJP? Thank you. Jytdog"

Of course :)

i am not a paid affiliation Of the Bjp nor any other goverment group, i do not work for self interest or paid interest, No relationship is linked For political gains and I am Not govern By anyone.

I hope this apparent conflict of interest is now put to rest, to make clear once agian:

1. I am Not the Bjp 2. I do not represent the Bjp 3. I have no affiliation with the Bjp 4. I am not paid by the bjp or any other person

What i can declare is that I have a interests in the Indian history and Indian culture, aswell as finding bias editing of wiki editors who favour the use of possible harrassment and a fetish of control to keep indians under tab, I also like to screen record editing and place them on youtube for private viewing for future concerns. Glad we had this chat, have a nice day.92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

as i wrote on your Talk page, "In this edit, you wrote "The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page of the product used in the american studies, they wish to know what you mean by "Ayurvedic products" as this is too vague. " Please explain what you meant when you wrote "The bjp Of india asks"... and why you wrote that. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A indian News channel spoke about how the Bjp of india is looking into controlling the safty of Ayurvedic products by finding out the products which are seen as hazardous, hence why i put "The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page", Have a nice day92.236.96.38 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

this explanation makes no sense. it is what it is, i suppose. thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

especially in light of this and this. You appear to have an issue with WP:ADVOCACY at the very least. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

and the circles thing you are asking people to join is an instrument of the BJP, per this. I am sorry but I am opening a COIN case for you. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a Coin case for me, im sorry that the case did not work out in your favour. I see you have popped up On the christian extremist talk page, Will you be a good sport and add "the chinese" christian extremist section To that page? Here is a nice ref which went global this year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-28641008 92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Your revert was unjustified

The edit you reverted is from an article from Geoffrey Miller Evolutionary psychologist, NYU Stern Business School and University of New Mexico; author of The Mating Mind and Spent. Edge may be in the blog website style, but it is from professors and experts. Publiceditz (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

we can disagree on that. per WP:BRD you should open a discussion on the article's Talk page. That is what we do here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Hi there, would you be interested in taking a look at the article? The article has been a tremendous challenge due to its speedy increase in severity, requiring constant watching (going over all additions of unknown editors) and updates. While we have an extremely good working relationship as a group, there are very few editors that watch over the upkeep of the article. The article is now well beyond the WP suggested length and a split is being discussed. I know from past work with you that you have a good eye for assessing an article's improvement needs and it would be good to have fresh eyes take a look at it and offer suggestions. If interested, see the last few sections of the talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

i would be happy to. thanks for your kind words! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You said on Brian's talk page:

right so "paid member of pubmed" is nonsense. that is what i thought. writing nonsense is not helpful to anybody especially when you do it in the course of trying to buttress your credibility as you did in the dif i provided above. I am going to read what you write on Talk and add to the article with greater scrutiny going forward and i suggest you avoid this sort of thing going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't possibly imagine what you were thinking to treat an editor like this. It is totally unacceptable. We have all had an excellent working relationship at the article and this sort of behavior pretty much will put an end to that. You're going to more closely scrutinize his edits, indeed. May as well say he's a liar so you'll need to watch him. I'm embarrassed that I was the one that asked for your help at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

yep - i do have little tolerance for editors puffing themselves up personally in disputes like he did in the dif I pointed out to him, and when they do it with pure bullshit that is even worse. I was hoping when I made my initial inquiry that he would say something very sensible like "oh, i meant elsevier not pubmed" which would have put an end to it. he didn't. so i pushed. getting something that basic that wrong is indeed worrisome. i am of course sorry he folded up his tent and ran away but that was his decision and it was surprising. it wasn't my intention. and i am sorry to disappont you. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog i notice this today your response to gandy...You never bothered to mention to Gandy that i have explained it all on my talk page nor did you notice that i put this on the main ebola page as well In my haste to respond i made a slight error this should have read "i am a paid member of pubmed subsidiaries" and not "i am a paid member of pubmed". and then you come forward with a fake apology. I have added nearly 50% of the info to Ebola page and never asserted ownership. I timelessly updated all the info as it came along taking into consideration the other editors. . Gandy ask you for help and the first thing you do is attack the one of the main editors. I thank my lucky stars that i decide to leave wiki. Every discussion that started problems i handled with civility, but you approach it different. I tend to agree with SW5 dl3. You have a strange way of dealing with other editors. I could further respond by sending you my credit statements where all my deduction goes of to Elsie, Science.org etc , but quit frankly it's not worth it. 41.13.100.66 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Forot to put my name here Brian

If you really feel feel that your apology is sincere then add it to the Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa page - Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

hi brian. gandy copied that text above from your talk page - she read everything that was there. interactions with other editors on wikipedia can indeed be frustrating and sometimes hurtful ( it has been both for me as well at times) and editors do get upset and leave, and then decide to come back. as i wrote to you, gandy especially has valued your contributions and I do hope you decide to come back. i took up the conversation with you about "paid member of pubmed" off the article Talk page because it had nothing to do with the article's content (see the talk page guidelines. i also apologized to you off the article's talk page because that has nothing to do with the article's content. my apology was and remains authentic. i am sorry. best regards. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog apology accepted and trust me all my input is credible. And trust I will never put in something that is not in a source and verified. BrianGroen (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much! it will be great to have you back!! Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies from my side too. My behavior was also not acceptable... BrianGroen (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

yes i am glad brian is back. i understand your frustrations with the other editor but please don't write negative things about other editors on my talk page (this sort of thing has upset me before, when you have done it about me...) but feel free to email me if you want to blow off steam. i stepped back from the article so as to be very sure not to upset brian again and let him get his feet down again, compounded by being crazy busy at work. i will come back soon! Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

you are free to do as you like! you didn't know i would object when you wrote it. i will try to get to that split soon - but if somebody beats me to it that is OK by me. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The lines" Both workers received the drug (ZMapp) and were transported to the US, where they recovered and were then released from the hospital." suggests that the sole reason for these two workers to survive is ZMapp, which is not true. I would like to add that in addition to ZMapp, these workers received convalescent/or other blood transfusions that could have helped them recover.(Truthaboutebola (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

About ZMapp

Jytdog, you've been doing great work on the article, but you've made three reversions to it today. Unfortunately, your reversions are not of the sort to qualify for an exception to WP:3RR, so please don't do any more reversions until the 24 hours are up. I'd hate to see you get blocked for it, and possibly be out of commission when the DYK submission hits the main page (which should be October 23 at 12:41 UTC, if the schedule holds). Leave it to others to take care of. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

i hear you. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have a problem with the sentence "Both workers received the drug and were transported to the US, where they recovered and were then released from the hospital." This sentence implies that ZMapp was the sole reason for them to recover. If this were true, then the drug wouldn't be in experimental stage yet, would it? It would be less misleading to add that in addition to ZMapp, a few other factors could have contributed to their recovery. !. Convalescent serum, 2. Blood transfusions, 3. Proper hydration and good care.(Truthaboutebola (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthaboutebola (talk • contribs)

the place to discuss this, is the article Talk page. I already left a message for you there. (here) If you reply there, I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

students

Hello, we are Medicine students from the University of Barcelona in Spain. Currently we are doing a Chemistry project and we have been given a user name from our teacher. The user name is nothing but our class number, our initials and surname. You may also have noticed some users have logged in with similar names lately: they are our classmates. We are edyting an article (Asparagine) at the same time, because we are working in groups, we are not in an edit war. The information we posted is totally reliable and is going to be reviewed by our teachers. We would be thankful if you told us if you disagree with some of the points we're expressing. However, this project is due to this Friday and we would like to be free to post our work.

Thank you in advance, BQUB14-Cplaton BQUB14-Lpuig BQUB14-Asegui

BQUB14-Cplaton (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)BQUB14-Cplaton

I am sorry but the edits you made are not OK, which is why I reverted them. It is great that universities are offering courses that include editing Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does not exist so you can get a grade in a course. That is a direct conflict of interest with Wikipedia's goals. Do not replace well-written text with poorly-written text. Please feel free to provide sources for anything that is in the article, but not sourced. If you introduce new content, provide a source for it. Our sourcing guidelines are described in WP:RS and for anything related to health, in WP:MEDRS. Your instructor should be in contact with the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education if he or she is not already. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

by the way, i posted a notice of your activities at Project Medicine here. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents. There are WMF staff who can do outreach to the class. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BQUB14-Ebuades

I just saw your message. Since you spotted the edit warring and the message sequence has gotten a little complicated, I suggest that you carry this forward. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done not happy. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not happy? Donner60 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

never happy when people won't listen and play nicely. (not unhappy with you! sorry if you took that away) Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I took it the way you intended it but was not sure about your reason so I thought I would inquire. By the way, this guy appears to be a sock. Very similar user names are editing the same two or three articles. I think I will report that but I am going to log off now for a few hours so I will not do that until I log back in. I have reported many vandals over time but this would be the first time I reported a suspected sockpuppet so I am not sure if it will take longer than a minute or two. Donner60 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

if you see a few sections above, they appear to be members of a class - medical students in Spain. like many students working on WP, they often don't care about WP at all - just posting some piece of crap they can get a grade for. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I noticed the multiple user names on Pancreatic elastase where they have made multiple edits today. Donner60 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And if I had read the above message first, I also could have said that it appears that reporting them probably would do no good. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:) one does what one can. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Been watching the situation for awhile now, and I don't see an easy solution either if the behavior continues. A block could be pursued if these students are editing from their college internet and have very similar IPs, but that's pretty drastic too. It'd be nice to get in touch with the professor instead, but I haven't found anything that would lead us to contact info either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have brought this situation to the attention of the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, and I have reached out to BQUB14-Cplaton (talk · contribs) to see if they can identify the instructor so we can nip this issue in the bud. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

that is lovely, thank you. these students have been almost completely uncommunicative. :( Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Christian terrorism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Atrazine

Hi, I put back the material and added 2 review studies. A user called "Formerly 98" immediately deleted it all with a comment that makes it seem he has a view that differs from WP:MEDRS and has divergent views about information that he's prepared to impose on the project. I don't want to get into an edit war with him so I leave you to decide if what he has done is correct. MLPainless (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the effects I reported (e.g. delayed puberty in mammals) are also included (inter alia) in an EPA report [1]. So there's ample secondary and tertiary evidence. I may revisit this issue and re-edit. MLPainless (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christian terrorism, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Pseudoscience Ayurveda

Are you absolutely sure Ayurveda is/can be classified as a Pseudoscience topic? How can you disprove the effectiveness of the treatment and its success in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly437 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2014‎ (UTC)

hi deadly437. please sign your posts on all Talk pages with 4 tildas (these things "~"). I replied to you on Talk:Pseudoscience and the discussion should stay there. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for all the hard work you put into this encyclopedia. That you step up and dive into often harshly fought articles is a credit to you. Keep up the good work. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

that is very kind of you Yobol, and i really value that coming from you - you do so much great work here. thank you for that! Jytdog (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A question

Hi Jytdog. I know you know I stalk. This is a late night after beer question. Why do you thank bots in your edit summaries on this page? Just curious. best. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

if people just delete things off their talk page it is generally a sign of disrespect. i started to delete it the first time, it felt weird so i wrote "thanks bot" and now it is just a silly habit. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A nice harmless silly habit. ;) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If I knew how to create a bot, I'd make one that would reply "You're welcome", and unleash it on you on April 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

laughing. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tee hee. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I hope you realize that you are now committed to always thank the bots. If you don't, people are going to notice. :) Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And not just people, but the bots are watching. They're watching. And watching. All the time. You cannot escape. They are in charge. We just work for them. Respect their authority. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." AutobotRoxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict!

I know - I saw that comment. :) Jytdog, I am VERY impressed with how hard you tried to improve the article and keep it from sounding like an ad for this drug. I will write more later. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove your comments? I got into an edit conflict as I was adding the above. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was also working on an award which shall appear shortly. I could have used a generic "Thanks for upholding the Wiki!!! barn star, or some such, but chose instead to make it more personal. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Wikipedia Rat's Ass Award

	You have won the 2014 Rat's Ass Award!
	Congrats Jytdog! The phrase "rat's ass" is one of my favorites, but due to PC I try to hold back on its use. But noting that you have used it on a talk page, from now on I shall use it proudly. Letting a mild cuss word slip through now and then can only improve our encyclopedia and you are to be commended. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you gandy! Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw that on my watchlist, and I came here expecting something awful. Whew! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

happy to get pleasant surprises of kindness rather than rancor, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I'm curious. Where did you say it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

i reckon gandy was talking about Talk:ZMapp/Archive_1#more_detail_about_one-offs -- bit of walloftext there - it is in item c) of the post that opens that section. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I have a feeling that about 90% of the stuff on Wikipedia that shouldn't be on Wikipedia comes from someone wanting to add the ephemeral news of the moment. (And now I'm going to drag you to ANI for incivility. No I'm not.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, that, but mostly this: Don't know how this works, but I oppose this DYK. The Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is a serious problem with thousands dead and dying. Picking out from this disaster, some one-off results from a drug that may or may not turn out to be effective and safe, is to me both foolish and well, ugly. How about having a DYK on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa with "On 3 September, the International president of Médecins Sans Frontières spoke out concerning the lack of assistance from the United Nations member countries in the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, saying, "Six months into the worst Ebola epidemic in history, the world is losing the battle to contain it."? Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (striking ignorant comment, sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC))

I have a very warm place in my heart for passionate speech. I seem to have been born this way.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with a COI topic?

Hi Jytdog, I don't recall if we've crossed paths on-wiki before, but I've seen some of your recent work on COI/N and thought I would reach out to see if you'd be willing to take interest in a situation I'm trying to work through. Shortest version possible: I am working on a consulting basis for the South Beach Diet brand; the current article I believe is very poorly written, out-of-date, inadequately sourced, and so forth. Because I wish to go above and beyond the requirements of WP:COI I follow Jimbo's "Bright Line" and do not make direct edits in such circumstances. However, my efforts on this article have gone poorly so far, due to a combination of indifference and disagreeable replies from one editor in particular. At present, I am looking to establish consensus that one section of this article is a problem that should be addressed. Would you be willing to take a look at my recent posting about this and offer your view of the matter? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

sure, will look into this later today. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll take a look too. As it stands, there are some obvious things which need attention ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you alexbrn. this is right down your alley! Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks so much for being WP:BOLD, Alexbrn. Your trimming of the article has certainly improved it. Before I go any further, I should say that I think your skepticism of the South Beach Diet (which I completely understand) has introduced more POV than is warranted, for example calling it a "fad diet" in the very first sentence. That said, it is nevertheless a significant improvement on what was a pretty terrible article before.

Since you have some expertise in this area, I wonder if you would be willing to look at the draft of the article I had prepared earlier in the fall at User:WWB Too/South Beach Diet and see if you would consider using any of it. In particular, my History and development section is much more informative than what is there now, and I believe properly sourced and non-promotional. Let me know what you think? Jytdog, your feedback is welcomed, too. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no expertise really - just what I see in sources: that this is a.n. other fad diet which is a mixture of some sensible stuff and some BS, all heavily promoted on the basis of mostly iffy evidence. In my view a few paragraphs on those lines would be due, and your draft is a bloat built on flimsy and poor sources. Still, I woudn't object to more info in the article necessarily - but anything which touches on health needs to be WP:MEDRS. Also, there's some worrying stuff here; why does Rosedale Inc. have its own top-level category (and a template) on Wikipedia?! Anyway, this discussion is probably best continued on the article's Talk page ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'd noticed you were a member of WikiProject Medicine and figured you might have some experience in this area. I'd be fine if some but not all of what I've presented was used; I would say "thorough" rather than "bloat" but of course it's a matter of perspective. As for sources, I believe I've used mainstream news publications—NYT, WSJ, Time, &c.—not to make pronouncements on the kind of health information that WP:MEDRS is about, but rather information about the brand and its development. This kind of information wouldn't normally be included in medical sources, anyway; some aspects of this article are more medical, some aspects are more business. Anyway, if you're open to discussing more on the article's Talk page, I'd be happy to move it there and see what else we can do with it. I'll aim to post something there early next week. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the article, Jytdog. It will be a big help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome! looks like deadon perfect MEDRS source. nice find. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I understand now. Thanks. 73.49.119.57 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome, marc! Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh

I've just been bold and delated all of that. From the sig I'm sure it's a sock, I just can't remember where else he's been using that and similar sigs. Hope you don't mind. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

have at it! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It was User:Brad Watson, Miami - an SPI was raised by Ian.Thomson who remembered him, and I've blocked and closed the SPI. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

COI Draft

Hi Jytdog. I noticed you've been active at COIN and thought I would ping you to see if you had an interest in taking a look at my COI work here. There doesn't seem to be anyone with the article on their watchlist. The draft is very focused on products. This is because the company is not notable, but its products are, but not notable enough for separate pages on each product individually, so a page on a "brand" of products. I've added it to WikiProject Brands.

The current article only has a few decent sources and is mostly original research. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hey Jytdog I'm a new editor on wikipedia so I am still learning the online etiquette. Since you have more experience I was hoping you would help me understand why you deleted my comment on the Manual of style/medicine. Thanks. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

did you intend to delete most of the page? (here is your edit) Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Thank you. That explains it. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

it happens! i would have restored your comments but I couldn't figure out your intentions. new comments go at the bottom of talk pages, by the way. if you click on the "New Section" tab at the top right side of a Talk page it automatically opens a new section for you at the bottom...Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

List of local anesthetics

This particular one was not created by the banned user, tho is was extensively added to by him. UnlessI'm mistaken, the banned ed. was not banned until [01:39 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALuklear&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Nov.2, so there is no reason to remove edits prior to that date; no such are presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

you are correct. thanks for correcting that! Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

re OK, another one!

Why do you keep notifying me of these?

Why don't you just nominate them for deletion, yourself?

— Cirt (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curious and confused is all, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

i wrote to you on your Talk page some time ago that I am pretty new to the whole AfD thing, and am interested to learn how people think about that activity. I've asked you questions about whether you think an article should be nominated a few times now, just expecting that you would reply and tell me what you thought. I wasn't notifying you of anything and wasn't expecting you to take action. (each time, your action is what I thought should happen) The reason I am asking you, is that (as I mentioned before) our interaction on the AfD discussion about that apnea database confused me, both about you and the way people generally think and behave around AfDs, so I am killing two birds with one stone by asking you in particular. I will for sure stop asking you eventually; I will stop now if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I didn't know you were newer to the whole AfD thing, that makes more sense. Yeah, I'd kinda appreciate it if you'd stop asking me and maybe you could ask at WT:MEDICINE instead. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK! Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:TWINKLE? That might help you in your deletion type activities. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)