User talk:Jytdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Notifications


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

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello there,

I received a message today that you have reverted me on the Wikipedia-conflict-of-interest topic; may I ask if you can explain to me your reasoning for doing this? I'm afraid that keeping those links in may serve to bias the article from a Wikipedian point of view, as Wikipedians are wont to do, because the proposals primarily point out the merits and demerits of allow conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia rather than leaving the outside reader to judge it for hisself/herself. The proposals by nature are non-neutral, and including them in the article would violate Wikipedia's spirit of "No original research" and "Neutral Point of View". Cheers, --TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree and would be happy to discuss! May I copy your content to the article Talk page, and respond there? Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure! You may copy any part of my message as you wish. --TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

LinkedIn COI edit[edit]

Hi Jytdog, I've really appreciated your help and responsiveness concerning my COI edit request for LinkedIn. It took me a few days to respond, but I've worked up a new draft of the proposed section and would hugely appreciate if you had a chance to take a look at it. Thank you so much for working on this with me. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis[edit]

Are two references enough? Dan Watts (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent undo at MEDRS[edit]

Hello Jytdog. When reverting here, I'm not clear whether you were aware that the edit you undid was basically a clean-up of a concept which was introduced here (along with some other changes, which had already been already "reverted"). Or maybe I've missed something? As I also hinted in my edit summary, I agree that talk would be good there. Best wishes, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

nope, I don't understand what you are saying. Your edit appears to me to be completely unrelated to the prior edit about citing full source with or without a source behind a paywall. Guidelines shouldn't be changed without discussion on the Talk page, in any case. I might agree with you but please discuss it first. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please look again at this diff (by NuclearWarfare) again. If you scroll down, you should see the change I was trying to "clean-up" (or interpret/contextualize) was the change from

Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources (these sections are often incomplete

to

Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain sections that place their research in the context of previous work. These sections may be considered secondary sources for the purpose of this guideline, but note that these sections are often incomplete

Right now, that change still stands. Adding: Perhaps I should also clarify that I came to your user talk page rather than the article one because I suspected you may not have spotted that change. The current wording seems to me to imply that such content may be considered an acceptable secondary source under certain circumstances. Since no-one else had immediately reverted, and given that the question has been discussed before, I inferred (perhaps mistakenly) that there was probably some consensus for this. At the same time, I felt the wording and positioning needed some clean-up to avoid unintended interpretations. Hence my edit. (Fwiw, I don't have strong feelings on this, though I would tend to support a flexible approach in such situations.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is a community-wide guideline - this is not between you and me. Feel free to copy this entire thread to Talk:MEDRS. Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I will make no substantial response here. I will at Talk:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, agree. Could I ask you though to copy the salient bits, as I wouldn't want to make an unintelligible mess. Or if you prefer, I'll just start a new section to summarize the question - better perhaps? Or maybe you'd perefer to do that? Thanks, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i'll just copy the whole thing - it is all typical talk page discussion. if that is OK with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To save everyone unnecessary time and effort, would you let me try? If you don't like what I can do, please feel free to copy everything. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
knock yourself out! you already have permission to copy anything i wrote there Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cheers, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RightBackAtyja[edit]

Hey Jytdog, I just have little understanding of the workings of the deeper layers of Wikipedia. I haven't, even after a decade, taken the time to learn the entire programming language. That's too time consuming. If I need to redesign a page, I do research on the code of well-designed similar pages. So actually, I don't even know how to find the conversation you're talking about, but I would love to continue it if you reconnect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleroinferno (talkcontribs) 09:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

i replied on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Thanks - every time someone mentions me as an example worth following, it gives me a little feel-good encouragement. I think within a year or two, I'll be the primary source of new GAs on company pages and I don't know any other paid corporate editors churning out GAs. That's pretty neat when you think about our best corporate pages (rather than our worst) being churned out by a paid editor, not just anecdotally, but at-scale. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you for being so transparent. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Meh, there are apparently some people who do not feel I am transparent enough. Back when COI+ was being discussed, I was saying what is needed is a certification-type situation that required a nomination and consensus comparable to RFA (but maybe not so harsh). CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you are not as transparent as I thought! :) I have ~some~ familiarity with your work and watched your comments on the discussions about paid editing and found the work and reasoning generally reasonable, and every time I have looked you taken great pains to be transparent, but I haven't closely followed everything you do. How do you and the Donovan people differ? Them disinviting you was a surprise to see! Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
They won't let me join unless I disclose my real-name and employer and I don't care to. The new Terms of Use have this problem too (see here). Considering some of the participants have Wikipedia articles written by me, it's pretty much out of the question. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OH. Wow. Thanks for explaining. The ToU doesn't really take self-employed paid editors into account, does it. That basically obligates you to out yourself. I see how that is hard. I am sympathetic to you but on the other hand i think there are trade-offs everywhere you go, and I could see being self-employed as worth the self-outing.... but I certainly see why you don't care to. Why are you talking about articles you did in the past? The ToU and the Donovan pledge are all forward-looking, aren't they?Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a trade-off; just a sacrifice with no upside. I think the issue would remain even if I was employed by someone else. Earlier in my contribution history I did disclose my real identity and I got harassing messages on Twitter. I don't really want Waggener Edstrom (one of the signers) to know that I'm the one that brought their page up to GA, after they removed well-sourced criticisms and added promotion - or for the PRSA to know I replaced their link-bait version of their article with a controversial one. It's not like anyone is going to bother me about creating GA articles with a COI, because I did not out myself in the process. It's more or less a minor technicality in that the TOU are not well-worded and representative of some deeper issues that are mostly the community's fault. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh I meant the trade-off in a world with the current ToU where you work for someone else and don't have to disclose your identity or you work for yourself, and you do have to disclose your identity. I do sympathize with having to out yourself, a LOT. there a lot of assholes in WP and i value my anonymity for sure! Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh yah, I hadn't thought of that, the TOU doesn't require a real-name, so if you work for a bigger company, you can disclose an employer with less outing. "there are a lot of ass holes" ha, yah, on the internet, or in the world really.
Anyways, if you ever have time to chip in on an article where I have a COI, let me know. I am constantly asking (read harassing) editors for help/collaboration, because I work on such a large number of articles in a COI role and require a non-COI collaborator on each one for Bright Line(ish) reasons. People are constantly retiring or being banned faster than I can find editors that enjoy popping into random articles and it usually takes a while for editors to learn that I'm actually reasonable to work with. CorporateM (Talk) 03:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you know, but just a reminder[edit]

There are a very limited number of exceptions to the WP:3RR brightline, and I don't see anything at Biochemistry that clearly qualifies your edits into one of those exceptions. In those situations, it's probably best practice to get assistance via WP:AN3 for repeated insertion of contested or problematic material. —C.Fred (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we got home. Newbie user, angry one. Rare! But I appreciate the warning - you are right. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pings[edit]

I was following the discussion so I was aware of your most recent post, which pinged me and other users. However, the ping itself did not work. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. that is wierd: according to Wikipedia:Notifications the template i used Example when i made the edit should provide notifications.... Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere that those pings only work at the start of a post. I think you came up with a good idea and I hope it flies. I don't see how it can't, really, as it is commonsensical, it meets the guideline requirement, and it has stern warnings against harassment. I am going back to work tomorrow, and to ensure that I am not distracted by Wikipedia I make it a practice to not even use the same browser, so I will be completely incommunicado for a few days. Not neglecting the discussion or snubbing anybody, just blissfully unaware of it! Addendum: for the sake of absolute completeness you should add User:Davidwr, who posted at [1] Good luck and thanks again for your good work. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Notifications are supposed to work any time the user: or user_talk: page is linked to directly or by some other means such as a template, provided that the recipient has his preferences set to get them AND there is a ~~~~ somewhere in the post. I'm not sure if the signature can be anywhere, if it has to be a the end, or if there is some other restriction (e.g. anywhere AFTER the link to the user: or user_talk: page). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I hope you don't mind my using your name in vain above. I think that you are acting commendably by your disclosure, both the one on your page and in the COI talk page. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My page? I didn't disclose my COI on my user or user-talk page. Oh, you must mean the page in which I have a COI in (including related discussion pages). That's not "my" page, that's an article page. I didn't create it, and in the 7+ years I've been here I've made very few edits to it (although I did make a HUGE copyvio-enforcement rollback undoing years of others' work). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)