Let99

Welcome!

Hello, Let99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, Let99. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on with the project! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog

Due to the volume of baseless complaints that have been made against Jytdog over the years, he is immune from Wikipedia sanctions, no matter how well-founded. This is especially true with regard to paid editing - his work in that area is such that he is above suspicion. Please withdraw your ANI request before you get blocked. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I haven't made any ANI requests. I'm just defending myself. Also, I don't know whether you are being serious or sarcastic. Based on Jytdog's behavior, I'm going to assume sarcasm, but let me know if I'm misinterpreting you. Let99 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're talking at ANI. Jytdog can play a little blunt at times but he's one of the very few editors keeping Wikipedia's health-related content at least not dangerously wrong. I've known him for years and can assure you that Twitter account is not him.

Regarding undisclosed paid editing: Somebody recently proposed we create a professional team dedicated to combating it at this email list. It remains to be seen whether anything comes of it.

That list, by the way, is where seasoned editors discuss Wikipedia's meta issues and you can sign up at the bottom of that linked page if you want. I (almost) never contribute but it's interesting to watch what's on the mind of the serious players. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks, I know that it's a fake account, but it was not clear upon first glance. Wikipedia is trying to make the site more friendly by adding a visual editor and things like that, but what would really get more people involved would be to cultivate a better culture among the editors. What Jytdog is doing should not be tolerated. I've seen it from at least four editors on this site, and they edit with the perspective of crushing whoever disagrees with them. Then they are given free passes because they are in The Clique and have an arsenal of obscure Wikipedia policies to hurl against people. My editing was rational and fair, yet I am the one being pulled up for review about possible banning. That's really terrible. Let99 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a similar experience in my early days here but wasn't nearly as civil as you've been. I ended up getting blocked ... twice. I'm sure you won't be very receptive to this now but, when I think of all (and there's lots) of the excellent work Jytdog has done here over the years, day after day - and I mean truly excellent - I've become a lot more sanguine about this shortcoming.

I think it's a product of the milieu in which he works. He spends a bit of time on fringe medicine and pseudoscience articles and there is a relentless stream of devious and infuriating folks trying to unscience those - often clearly pushing a commercial or ideological barrow. He and I and too few others here are especially sensitive about articles that may have a real effect on readers' health. That's not to excuse his occasional bouts of impatience and angry outbursts.

It is what it is, though, and I hope you're not too discouraged by this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let99, the content dispute was a run-of-the-mill content dispute that we could have solved any number of ways, per WP:DR. The subject of the ANI thread is not the content dispute itself -- it has nothing to do with whether the ref you wanted to add is OK or not.

Here is what the ANI thread is about -- it is about your unacceptable behavior at the article Talk page and at your talk page and mine - the way you tried to "win" the content dispute by trying to discredit me, by doing off-wiki research and citing it in WP. That is completely and explicitly out of line. The fact that what you "found" turned out to be a hoax that you fell for, only makes what you did more ugly (and provides a big win for the jerk who created the impersonating account, since what they wanted was to cause trouble). And the fact that you wanted to smear another human being that way, by so crassly using something you "glanced" at, is something you should reflect on.

I care about this for a bunch of reasons. Obviously I am offended and angry that you treated me this way, but in the bigger picture I care a lot about COI management, and people using accusations of COI the way you did, harms the overall effort to manage COI. I would be on you about this even if you had done this to someone else. Management of COI need to be handled carefully, untangled from content disputes; accusations of COI should never be used as a bludgeon like you did.

But back to this situation... As several people have told you, what the community is looking for, is for you to acknowledge that your approach to resolving the content dispute was completely wrong. You keep insisting that your behavior was fine, and if you keep doing that, you will very likely end up blocked, as the community will not risk you continuing to try to solve content disputes inappropriately. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, please stop with this whole thing. You are the one who is treating me badly. If you find that you are frequently getting into conflicts with a lot of other users here, the behavior problem might be largely with you. Maybe step back for a minute, and think before doing things that make Wikipedia unfriendly to other users. Instead of reverting someone's post as if you own the article or are the gatekeeper of information, bring it up on the talk page and try to approach communication from a collaborative rather than confrontational perspective. This edit of yours, where you went as far to remove the sentence that I was trying to cite, was especially petty. And stop talking down to people as if you are Wikipedia and the person you are debating is some other entity. This site is created by all of us. Let99 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, culture trickles down from the top, so I think that admins should take an active role in trying to encourage a culture of cooperation rather than confrontation. It would greatly reduce the number of long-time editors who are way too aggressive and who wield Wikipedia's policy gobbledygook as a weapon to try to crush anyone who disagrees with their opinions. The culture on this site is totally broken (edit: search Google for things like "wikipedia toxic editor culture"), and this incident is a perfect example. I understand that there is a lot of woo that needs combating, but ordinary Wikipedia editors should not have to suffer through this kind of treatment. People need to know when to use diplomacy rather than cannons. Let99 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that a sincere apology thanks, or does that mean that you're running over to the admins to try to get me banned? Let99 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I'm also going to leave this Jimmy Wales quote here for reference: What is Jimmy Wales doing to solve the toxic editor culture at Wikipedia? @Anthonyhcole:, you should read this, because it's related to your partial defense of Jytdog.

One of the classic problems we have is -- and we have this a lot in English Wikipedia -- is the annoying user, who at least allegedly produces good content. There are users in the community who have a reputation for creating good content, and for being incredibly toxic personalities. This is a tough issue because [fixes slide problem] but my idea is very simple. Actually, on this issue, I have a very simple view is that most of these editors actually cost us more than they're actually worth, and we're making a big mistake by tolerating people who are causing us enormous --

[prolonged applause]

Wow. Um, I thought I was going to be pushing an agenda here.

[laughter]

Apparently I'm fulfilling my role as the symbolic monarch of just speaking the thoughts that have bubbled up through the community.

A lot of them, they really cost more than they're worth, and they should be encouraged to leave, and not in a bad way.

That's Wikipedia's major problem at the moment, and it isn't getting addressed. Let99 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was in the audience when Jimmy said that. I've been following the civility debate closely for years. Jimmy was then and is now out of touch with the editor experience. The community is evolving, learning how to be. We have a way to go, but we're getting there.

You've learned something about WP:LEDE (If it's not mentioned in the body and supported by a reliable source, then it doesn't belong in the lede), and a bit of nuance around WP:SYNTH, something about WP:BRD, and something about dealing with suspected paid editors. That's quite a lot to take away from this experience.

Wikipedia's woo articles are a battlefield, and there is collateral damage, but it is improving. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, This issue was not about things like WP:SYNTH. WP:BRD applies to Jytdog's actions, not mine: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." I was trying to work towards refinement, but Jytdog was acting as an owner and gatekeeper, deleting any attempts to come to some kind of compromise. All of my edits that led to this situation were justified. Special pass is being given to Jytdog's terrible behavior. It's hard to believe that you're still talking to me like I needed to learn something about editing Wikipedia (I did nothing wrong there), while nothing has been said to Jytdog, and he/she is still running around attacking other users in ways that are killing Wikipedia's community. Let99 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BRD, there was no obvious refinement that would justify the use of the source you added to the lede. When someone reverts your edit, open a discussion on the talk page asking them to explain, don't revert them in return and expect them to open the discussion. You need to learn this.

Citing a source (say, source A) that doesn't directly address the main topic (except in instances where an appropriate existing cited source itself cites source A) is almost always WP:SYNTH - the policy Jytdog linked you to in his edit summary. You need to learn this.

In this dispute Jytdog was right and you were wrong regarding speculation about paid editing, WP:BRD and the content (WP:SYNTH and WP:LEDE). Jytdog might have spent a bit more time explaining things but his abruptness pales when compared to the significant breaches of Wikipedia norms you made.

All of this is far more important in controversial topic areas. In a high profile, highly contested article like this, policies and guidelines rule. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That revert that you mention in your first paragraph was a petty edit done by Jytdog simply to crush the other person. I don't think that you can seriously make an argument that it had to do with the link I added. The sentence was removed, simply because of Jytdog's need to "win." The problem here is that the admins are ignoring the kind of behavior that drives people away from Wikipedia. It appears that there is a clique of people who understand how much power their control of Wikipedia's content gives, so you all casually work together to maintain it, seeming to justify it to yourself by thinking that the toxic people are keeping away woo-lovers, and that that is a worthwhile tradeoff. It's shameful behavior, considering the mission of Wikipedia. Let99 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Let99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Let99. 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)

Proposed deletion of Jazz Hostels

The article Jazz Hostels has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to find significant coverage of the company

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)