User talk:Jytdog

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


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)

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [1] Your position is not supported by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated WP:VERIFY and also didn't follow WP:LEAD, as described here. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog. Apologies this got a little overheated. While we may disagree some I think we agree on most things and hope that we can find a compromise on the bits where we disagree. The work you do here is exceedingly important. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Doc James: I'm glad to see that. I've been watching with concern, especially since I have high respect for you both. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
oh so happy! thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psychedelic therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and putative clinical roles. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014 Aug;4(4):156-69. Review. PMID 25083275 [ PMC 4104707/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

MDMA article[edit]

I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate.

I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article (i.e. MDMA). As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article.

Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in?

It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in.

Thanks for your thoughts and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to create an account and join the discussion. When you do, please own the various comments that have been yours. I cannot tell who is who among the IP editors commenting and reverting on the article. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Special barnstar[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to advise new editors in a patient way. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass blanking of talk page at Vani Hari[edit]

I note you blanked a significant amount of content on that page and then set a "bot" to blank content from the talk page as well. Please return to the talk page and explain yourself. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

i replied to you on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Toning it down[edit]

Would be good to tone things down a bit. You have made comments such as "you took out content that everybody but you agreed to; and above you are personalizing the discussion. Both are out of line." with bolding. Than when the RfC comes around [2] the community is not in favor of your position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended and will work on that. I would appreciate the same. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Owe you a reply[edit]

Hey Jytdog I owe you and everyone (likely many of your stalkers here) a reply at the WT:MEDRS discussion, I simply haven't apportioned enough time yet to do it. Still lots to read. Zad68 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

so thoughtful -- thanks! i an sure you have seen the real world laboratory of that discussion going on at the Oseltamivir article... super interesting. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

oh for pete's sake! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

PTSD article[edit]

Hello, I was just reviewing the "Domestic Violence" sub section on the PTSD page. I want to know why you reverted the work that I contributed. I understand that we should not use primary sources but those sources were not primary as they were literature reviews and meta-analysis. I am new to wikipedia and would like a clarification on this. JambaJuicy (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

please open a discussion on the article's Talk page asking about this. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to restore my edits; I warned the student, and pending discussion, was just identifying primary sources inline so they could be addressed later. Don't let a student upset you into 3RR ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

) i put your tags back at the top. i see that what you had MEDREFFED was deleted anyway. thanks for all your great work!! Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove load of content based on primary sources[edit]

I had my most of my article on TAS-102 deleted and the explanation was "remove load of content based on primary sources". I was wondering what that means? I felt the information was relevant to the drug and explained studies pertinent to its development and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The sources I obtained my information from were also from legitimate scientific journals. --Ukystu85 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking and asking! Please bring the question at the article talk page so everybody who cares can participate. I'll be glad to answer there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I included my question on the article talk page. Thanks! Ukystu85 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
is this where you put it?: User_talk:Ukystu85? oy Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to article on antibiotic resistance[edit]

I added a good infographic to this article because there doesn't seem to be much about the public health impact. It was immediately removed. I have left comments on the talk page about plans to try to improve the article. Changes will have to be a piece at a time. I am open to comments and critique. juanTamad 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talkcontribs)

WP:COPYVIO is not something to mess around with. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The graph I added today is in the public domain. I added that information when I upload the file. If you check the page it's there: It's from a PDF I downloaded and it states on the last page: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. I understand the necessity for copyright. What else am I supposed to do to indicate that it is not copyvio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • juanTamad 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)contribs) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that you claimed it was licensed under CC4 but when I went and looked at the source you took it from, I did not see that there. You cannot take someone's material and claim it is freely available - they have to license it that way. Do you understand? (and PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. This is the second time i have had an edit conflict with the bot signing for you. Please do not argue while you are still learning the basics. Ask questions. Real ones. Thanks.) Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it's on the last page of the PDF here: Should I use that URL as source when I upload? I thought it said to use the web page it came from, not on downloaded materialjuanTamad 15:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talkcontribs)
good, i will resinstate the image. ONE MORE TIME ON THIS. SIGN YOUR POSTS Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
ok, juanTamad 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talkcontribs)
do you know what I mean, when I say "please sign your posts"? again, the bot has signed for you. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Dear Jytdog,

I'm not a sock of Nuklear. What's the problem with him? I just know him for creating dozens of drug syntheses PNGs.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi you will see I reconsidered already and self-reverted because I am not sure yet. I then reverted on the basis of WP:VERIFY. You should avoid behaving like him, whether you are him or not. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been curious since I've seen this name come up a few times in reverts, but never saw an obvious reason in the reverts at a quick glance that would indicate a sockpuppet. Is there an archive somewhere that explains what's going on with the user? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear/Archive, inveterate copyright violator... Zad68 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks! sad case acually. :( Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Had all his lab equipment taken from him as he was trying to make drugs in his house. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please unblock him, it will save the UK some water!--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're doing at G. Edward Griffin is still considered edit warring.[edit]

I have asked you to please stop reverting my edits, but you continue. Consider this a friendly warning. You have no valid reason for reverting any of my edits, including your take on MEDRS because the sources I cited are from reliable, peer-reviewed journals, including PLOS. If it is your intention to keep reverting my edits, and preventing me from correcting a BLP violation and updating the article, please tell me now, and I will save us both some time by taking the issue straight to ANI as a conduct issue. AtsmeConsult 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I shouldn't do that if I were you, unless you have your boomerang deflection field operating at maximum strength. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Atsme. Sorry you are unhappy. fwiw, I suggest you make small edits, one by one, and avoid puffery. If you do that, you will find that more of them will "stick" and we will all be able to work on specific language on specific things that turn out to be actually contentious. And generally, it is a good idea to concentrate on the body of the article, and only work on the lead once the body is settled. Adding a bunch of contentious content to the lead only is highly likely to be reverted on multiple grounds. Take it slow! There is WP:NODEADLINE. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
On more thing, Atsme I appreciate you talking to me here about what you see as a behavior issue but you have barely used the Talk page of the article to discuss the changes you want. You have discussed the health-related content a bit, but not the other issues. You are not going to get much traction on any behavior board, if you haven't made calm, good-faith efforts to work through the content issues, deliberately and clearly, on the article Talk page. So really, I recommend you just take it slowly and deliberately - think about opening separate sections on Talk for each piece of content you want to change. Talk it out. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
All good advice, Jytdog. Hope you are paying attention to it as well. You and I both know the Griffin article is an abortion, and represents the exact opposite of what WP expects of its content. The article is riddled with POV and undue weight issues, and as a GF editor, you should have already recognized the BLP violations. With reference to a comment made by one editor at the BLPN, the BLP debate actually does appear to be a contest, only I see it as a one-sided contest created by a group of misguided POV pushers who are trying to suppress information. My primary concern is correcting the blatant BLP violations in the article, and updating it with reliably sourced information per WP guidelines. My focus is on creating GAs and FAs. FWIW, I do not use "puffery". Instead of focusing only on my edits, why don't you focus on what my edits are replacing, including the pejorative terminology, contentious labeling, NPOV issues, undue weight, childish writing style, poorly sourced and outdated information, and the BLP violations? Surely you recognize them, don't you? There is no legitimate reason for deleting my edits, all of which were made in an effort to balance the article, improve and update prose, and eliminate the BLP violations. Your reverts have become disruptive, and are preventing me from doing my work as a GF editor who is simply trying to improve the article. Sorry if you disagree with the updated, properly sourced research I've provided, but it belongs in that article. I am more than happy to collaborate with you as a GF editor, but to be quite frank, that isn't what I have experienced so far. I point you to the following excerpt from a very important policy regarding fringe theories and WP:FRINGEBLP: There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. AtsmeConsult 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
truly, you and I don't both know that the article is an "abortion". (and again, using strong language like this is not helpful to you appearing calm and rational if this ever goes to a drama board). I have asked a few times for you to identify specific issues on the Talk page so we can work on them. I look forward to you doing that. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You're saying you don't know where the problems are in the article? 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a mind reader, no. :) Please do identify the specific problems you see on the Talk page, so we can work on them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My edit on Levofloxacin page reverted.[edit]

Hello Jytdog, It is Mbcap. I have just seen that you reverted my work on the levofloxacin page. Thank you for posting the link about the pharmacology guide. I had a read through the BNF and online sources and agree with you. Could you possibly enlighten me about drugs that have a lot of brand names for future reference. Obviously this case is simple because there are a few but what about others. I am a new editors so trying to learn the ropes and I would grateful for your advice. Mbcap (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for talking, and more generally, thanks for your interest in editing health-related content! I don't understand your question though - can you please clarify? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I just checked out your user page. Happy! Along with WP:MEDMOS, which I encourage you to read carefully and in full, please also read WP:MEDRS, and please consider signing up with WikiProject Medicine or at least putting its Talk page on your watch list. We strive for a high level of excellence in health-related articles and there is a lot to learn, on top of learning the regular WP:Policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR etc. . You are definitely on the right path with regard to asking questions and wanting to learn!! I will be glad to give you my perspective about how things work here, anytime you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog for being helpful. I shall read those documents, may take me a while. My apologies if the question above was not clear, but I was asking; lets say a particular drug has numerous trade names then which do you decide to list in the lead. I suspect I will find out once I read the above mentioned documents. Mbcap (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I see. Well if there are a ton it might get its own WP:LIST article. See for example how Paracetamol is handled. The most prominent are named in the article, and we have a separate List of paracetamol brand names and a link to that WP article. If there are a few brands, they can just be listed in the lead paragraph or infobox, like Paroxetine. Then there is something like Esomeprazole, which had a long, random list in a section near the end of the article in this version and an editor with a COI was edit warring to get his company's brand name into the lead, and I just removed the list and added text and a ref to an external page listing a bunch of brands, as you can see in the current version. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That makes a lot sense. Thank you again for your help. Mbcap (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Just noticed this morning that you had edited and implemented a new version of the History section very similar to what I'd proposed. I really appreciate that. If I can be of any help to you with a project in the near future, don't hesitate to ask. Just as I want editors to help me out in these kinds of circumstances, I also always intend to be available to help in return. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome! don't know if others will be OK with it, but we will see. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As one of the set of "others", I can say I have no objection ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
happy - good to know! thx. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


The Origin and development section was already present with empty section tag. The content I added about the discovery can be about the molecule not its medical properties. The link is referred by this article which is a secondary source. Also the section has potential to have more content. So I hope you let the content added to remain. Ephrone (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Please do not warn people against edit warring who have made exactly one edit on the page in 5 weeks. You yourself are exhibiting WP:OWN with this pre-emptive criticism of others. That is not civil behaviour. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

sorry you were offended. lots of drive-by editing going on that article lately, including pumping up health claims. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the apology, though I think you should check before zapping people. I'd also like to say that "there is no evidence" statements like this are overblown; not all amounts below threshold are congruent to zero; numeracy should be a consideration. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You can run into WP:OR problems saying that though depending on the specific case. If a review dismisses primary sources that at least claim to be supporting evidence for whatever reason (faulty design, etc.), you're at the point of saying there isn't evidence supporting the idea when you're writing the actual review for the journal. If someone says there slight or preliminary evidence of something, it will be in the review too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Phenoperidine Wikipedia Page[edit]


I noticed the changes you made to the phenoperidine page. I am a new Wikipedia user that wanted to improve a stub article. Is there any advice you can offer concerning the way I had created the page that resulted in your changes? In terms of content, layout, sources, etc. ? I really appreciate your suggestions.

Thank you, Java76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java76 (talkcontribs) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

hi - please open this discussion on the article Talk page - I would be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Holiday greetings...[edit]

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg
And same to you! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits, and 3 revert rule notification[edit]

Please review the 3 revert rule. You could be blocked for violating the policy. Kindly do not wiki-stalk other editors and do not edit war. Please do not remove footnoted and sourced material. Go about your own contributions to the Wiki encyclopedia but do not disrupt and antagonize others who edit in good faith and have well sourced material. Cheers! MickeyDonald (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on the Talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Soy Juice[edit]

Common use of that juice is Milk. But we aren't here for Marketing. Remember the 2 of the 5 pillars : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view & Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Milk by definition comes from mammal. Words were created avoid any confusions. Truth and science >> Marketing. Let's stop lying to the population with invented meaning to sell more stuff.

please discuss on the Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Domestic violence article[edit]

Hey, Jytdog. I hope you've enjoyed this year's holiday season. I'm stopping by your talk page because I've been meaning to ask if, similar to how you've helped out with the Reproductive coercion article, you wouldn't mind helping out with the Domestic violence article when you can. It has sourcing issues, WP:SIZE issues (including WP:Class assignments expanding the article), and, like the Reproductive coercion article, it can be controversial because of the domestic violence against men/gender symmetry aspect, which I recently commented on at the article talk page. If you feel that you have too much on your plate to help out with that article, I understand.

On a side note: I currently have your talk page WP:Watchlisted; so there's no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo to see your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from further spurious warnings[edit]

One change does not make an edit war. 7&6=thirteen () 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you revert a deletion of copyvio, who knows what you will do next. Don't add it back, and don't edit war over it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not do what you say I did. You are quick on accusations and short on facts. I put it in as a paraphrase. I intend to do that again (without the typos). Take it to the talk page. 7&6=thirteen () 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I searched for phrases and found direct copy-pasting. If you re-instate the copyvio I will take you to ANI and you will get blocked. it is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If I do that, you go ahead. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen () 18:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've put in a paraphrase. WP:3RR. Please discuss at the article talk page if you feel the need. 7&6=thirteen () 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks, that paraphrase is free of copyvio. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good God, you have a whole history of this[edit]

One edit and one revert is an edit war? OK, YOU don't make any more edits then. Good God, you have a whole history of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

you are a new user and barely understand what you are doing. please don't edit war, but instead ask questions about how things work. thanks for adding refs. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for mending the refs, really I am surprised and this is nice of you. I never meant to be rude, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
you are welcome. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)