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

COI[edit]

Please advise me if I have a COI in editing pages concerning agriculture and specifically those with organic and related sustainability topics. I do research in developing an alternative agricultural model. I am not paid by anyone to do this research, and it is completely funded by the sales of tomatoes and peppers from my test plots. (I have 2 test plots. 1 is ~1/10th an acre and the other is ~1 acre.) I receive absolutely no outside funding from any industry or government, neither the organic industry nor the conventional industry. The produce is not certified organic. However:

The trials using the methods I am developing use these 10 principles:

Principle 1: No till and/or minimal till with mulches used for weed control
Principle 2: Minimal external inputs
Principle 3: Living mulches between rows to maintain biodiversity
Principle 4: Companion planting
Principle 6: The ability to integrate carefully controlled modern animal husbandry (optional and not currently part of the project)
Principle 5: Capability to be mechanized for large industrial scale or low labor for smaller scale
Principle 7: As organic as possible, while maintaining flexibility to allow non-organic growers to use the methods
Principle 8: Portable and flexible enough to be used on a wide variety of crops in many areas of the world
Principle 9: Sustainable ie. beneficial to the ecology and wildlife
Principle 10: Profitable

In the past I have worked in conventional agriculture, however that was over 30 years ago. So I doubt that is a COI either.

I honestly don't feel like there is a COI either way, since while I did make a living in conventional ag years ago, that was long past, and the trials I do now are not making me a living, any income simply funds the trials. But I am inexperienced with certain details about WIKI so I defer to your judgement and will be happy to post a COI if you think it is needed. If my trials end up being successful in scaling up to full size, then there could potentially be profits that might be needing to be disclosed. That hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.Redddbaron (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me say congrats to you, and to praise your courage. Not everybody has the guts to be an entrepreneur nor to actually do the hard work it takes to create new products, so I can only bow before you with respect to that. And let me thank you too - folks like you make the world a better place. If you can get rich doing that, all the better. So ...thanks! And good luck to you (really!!) Moving to your question... it is interesting and difficult. (Thank you for asking, btw) There are three different vectors here.
  • First of all, you clearly bring a lot of expertise to this topic. Expertise is super valuable here (and god knows we need more actual farmers involved in articles... I am constantly blown away by how ignorant - and how ignorant of their ignorance - many editors on food-related topics are, about farming. But there is a good side and a bad side to Expertise here. On the bad side, Experts sometimes try to add content to articles based on their own knowledge and authority, not on reliable sources, and can get impatient and exasperated with WP's requirement for sources. On the good side, experts often know the issues involved very well - and often have books and other documents (reliable sources!) at hand, that they use all the time, and can efficiently find and cite - which is mind-blowingly helpful. So - there is one double-edged sword for you to be aware of.
  • Second, passion. You definitely bring a passion to the organic/sustainable topics - and that passion is a great thing in that it drives you to contribute. But that passion is also a double-edged sword, as it ~can~ also lead to WP:ADVOCACY (if you haven't read that article, please do). So you have to watch yourself there. Advocacy is related to COI, but distinct. (there is a separate notice board here for dealing with problems caused by advocacy -- it is WP:NPOVN)
  • Third, the question you asked - COI. Based on what you wrote above, I don't think you have one, since it looks to me like you don't make more money if more people decide to buy organic. That is my judgement. If you want to be more confident, you could make the same posting at the noticboard for COI - WP:COIN and ask for the guidance of the community. (I did that, a year ago!)
Thanks again for asking, and good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

back to the organic topic[edit]

You are welcome, and don't worry about advocacy. My purpose here as an editor is not advocacy, it is completely the opposite. I use wiki a lot in my research. But in doing that I come across good pages and bad pages that are useless as references. The bad pages are almost always the result of advocacy. So in those cases I have to do the hard work of researching it myself, because in writing the page with advocacy, the advocate also ruins the page as a reference work. (the purpose of any encyclopedia) Not because of what's there, but because of what isn't there. Specifically on the organic food page that you and me are both working on currently, it is advocates that ruined it, but certainly not organic advocates. ;) Redddbaron (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask you again, will you please explain what you see as missing from the page? Each time I have asked this you have written a general complaint. What I am looking for are examples of the kind of thing you think is missing. Bullet points... thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I am going to respond within your points. to make clear what is yours and mine, I am going to add your signature to your individual points. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
All the flaws in bullet points I don't have time to list. Sorry. But I did have time yesterday to work several hours on the page. So I can use that as an example.
  • citations: I started by fixing several links almost every citation needed or dead link on the page. It was a lot and it wasn't easy. A critical thinker needs those sources so as to be able to weigh their relevance and quality. That's pretty non controversial, even though 9 out of 10 had something positive to say about organic food. I did them all though, positive or negative. Only thing left is one paragraph near the top that quite frankly I still have no idea where it came from..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
has nothing to do with bias, but thank you for updating citations. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Negative bias: The entire article has a negative bias, so much so that the lead paragraph that summarises the article read like a propaganda blog, but specifically yesterday I worked on removing the negative bias from just one section: taste. Anyone reading the section on taste and no knowledge on the subject would have to assume there is no difference. It simply isn't true. There is a significant difference in taste when ANY method of production changes. For example: Put a pig in a forest in the fall and let it eat acorns hickory and chestnuts etc... and sure enough, you can taste those nuts in its meat. Some people might like that, some might not, but the taste is different. No advocate of CAFOs can deny it, all they can do is ignore it, keep it a secret, and/or try to make sure nothing like that exists in the article to create their bias. But when I added what I did, I was careful to make sure I didn't advocate either. I could have said wow this makes everything taste so much better. Most the things I added to the taste section is regarded to taste better by the vast majority of people, some so much better as to be considered artisan and/or gourmet and winning awards. Instead I wrote: "Taste is subjective and thus hard to quantify. So ultimately it is the consumer that decides if organic raised food tastes better to them or not. However, the composition and quantity of certain things in foods that affect flavor, like soluble sugars, lipids, phenolic compounds, and brix, are affected by organic production methods" in order to maintain NPOV. .Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I just wrote a very long response and then deleted it. I will simply ask you - what is your reliable secondary source for your claims that organic food generally tastes better, because it is organic (not because it is fresher, etc - but because it is organic) ? If you do not have any, please say that. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • nutrition: I haven't tackled this one yet, but go read the 5 sources I posted for taste and others I posted in talk. Most the things that effect taste also effect nutrition as well. I would recommend adding this in the article under nutrition, and will address this eventually, when I have time. Shouldn't be surprising. That's why tastebuds evolved, imperfect as they may be. Again though, it would need to be done in a similar non biased way..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article already deals with nutrition, using reliable secondary sources. What is your complaint? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • pesticides: Clearly the reason pesticides is a big issue is that the public has been told many pesticides are safe, later to learn they were not. Yet little to no mention of any of those many many pesticides, only more assurances that currently pesticides are safe unlike the mistakes from the past. :D That little game could go on for years! :D The alternate POV needs mentioned. Pesticides are actually not safe. What they are is tested in risk analysis to be safer than the benefits they provide. One is weighed against the other. The false dichotomy that people will starve if no pesticides are used is in that risk analysis.Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is about organic food, not about conventional food. Levels of pesticide residues in/on conventional food are regulated, such that the levels to which people are exposed are safe enough. Please bring a reliable, secondary source, that says that those levels are not safe enough - that regulated levels of pesticide residues in food actually are detrimental to health. If you have none, please say so. Jytdog (talk)
I really understand, that to you - organic food is "better" - that it tastes better and is more "healthy". However, as far as I know. there are no reliable secondary sources that support your POV. This is what makes your complaints, and your efforts to push more positive content about organic food into the article, simply WP:ADVOCACY in Wikipedia. Out there in the world, you are free to say and think whatever you want. IN HERE - in Wikipedia - you MUST have reliable sources to support your claims. And on a topic that is controversial like this, there is no way anything but the best secondary sources are going to be allowed in. (btw there are plenty of primary sources that make claims that organic food is terrible in various ways -- those will not come in either). But can you really not see how you are just POV-pushing? If there were reliable secondary sources that supported your claims, we would already be using them in the article. I have written to you so, so many times about the need for sources for your claims, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. How can I help you understand this? (real question!) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that without secondary sources it can't be added, so when the changes are made I add sources. I added 5 on taste. Could have added more but went with 1 good milk dairy source, one egg source, 2 meat sources (1 feeding study and 1 growth hormone study) and one good fruit veggie source. Those sources are just tip of the iceberg though. When I tackle nutrition NPOV problem, I have literally 100's available for me to use. (the USC website I used for 1 or 2 taste references has MANY more on nutrition) I'll try and systematically categorise and just use the best though, same as I did for taste.Redddbaron (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I am bummed that you didn't respond above. On taste, the only source that survived actually says that consumers like grass-fed beef less. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I responded on the organic food talk page with links to lists of over ~100 citations, all paywalls removed by CSU. A pretty fair % discuss taste flavor and/or carcass quality. But also discussed are health benefits, fat profiles, risk assessments, independent reviews etc... Almost all of them with positive conclusions. I didn't feel I needed to post in both places. I suppose you could remove or refuse to use all ~100 citations in order to assure the page retains its negative bias, but assuming you actually do wish to improve the wiki page (and I do assume that). There should be more than enough citations to make that page the best referenced page in all of the agricultural project pages. Especially since many other agricultural universities have similar lists but on different crops/foods and the effects organic production methods have on them. For example: there are hundreds of rice studies listed at Cornell University website (SRI being the organic method discussed). And there are hundreds of fruit studies found at Washington State University.Redddbaron (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Redddbaron We need reliable SECONDARY sources. Not primary sources. I just realized that you don't understand this distinction. In science, a "primary source" is the one where some scientist publishes the results of some experiments he or she has done. In science, a secondary source is a review article. I have been saying over and over that we need reliable secondary sources, and you have not understood what I was saying. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
also, we use the most current reviews that are available, that take into account all the work that has been done to date. You will notice that the reviews we cite (with the exception of the meat one that you added yesterday and I retained) are all from the last year or two. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mishnah or Midrash[edit]

I noticed your edit here. I think the previous version, saying Midrash, is also correct. The Midrash is also part of the Oral tradition. And if you meant to say that this text is referring specifically to halakhic traditions, which in itself I wouldn't agree with, then there are halakhic midrashim as well. In addition, the Mishnah is part of the Talmud, so after your change "Mishnah and Talmud" is a little overdoing things. In short, unless you have an additional argument, I'd like to restore Midrash and Talmud. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

point well taken, i self-reverted. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Debresser (talk)

Organic food[edit]

Nice work on Organic food. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you... ongoing! Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brofiscin Quarry, Groes Faen[edit]

I appreciate the work you are doing, but it is not correct to say that it was "one of the most contaminated..... until its remediation". It almost certainly still is one of the most contaminated sites , but now its got a concrete cap on it. The cap may well limit the surface drainage issues but the contaminants remain inside the site and available to the wider world when the concrete degrades or when the leachate finds its way out through the ground-water. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article Talk page. future readers should have a record of the discussion and if it is here, it is not part of the article's record. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I prefer to raise minor issues with the current editor first in case it is an oversight or unintentional but am happy to deal with in other ways.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
it is a simple discussion on talk. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...[edit]

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, who I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking, but I have decided that those articles are too toxic to get involved with - there is no room for a reasonable middle. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Too bad, although I know what you mean, and my wikistress is high; normally I wouldn't spend so much time on this, but I will be gratified if editors get it right, and highly, highly amused, in a rueful way, if they get it wrong. But anyway. If good editors are driven away, "the terrorists have already won." With 2/0 and Brangifer editing, and Doc James, we're actually moving in a nice, objective direction. Hope you'll change your mind should the editing environment improve; you're a great editor, and have been a breath of fresh air. --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Know the feeling ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) me too. They'll get their come uppance eventually. Enough rope, etc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Just wish you, and to a lesser degree Alexbrn, were more willing/able to evaluate on the merits, no matter who posts. Oh well -- that's where you're at; everybody has to be somewhere. --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

map from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/[edit]

Huh... I made it from "BlankMap-World-large", which is in wikimedia commons, so there's no copyright. Info used from their webpage is also available everywhere else (news pages, see links), so there's no copyright either. That's just a list of countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Déchaîné (talkcontribs) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It says right on the file name: "World map of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) regulations. A CC BY-SA 4.0 version of http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/ made from "BlankMap-World-large"" - it is either downloaded directly from them or it is a derivative work of the CFS map. Either way, with no license from CFS this is copyvio. Please take it down from everywhere you have put it until CFS releases it freely. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I downloaded "BlankMap-World-large", a grey-and-white world map, from wikipedia commons. I've added colors on this map myself, using GIMP, and infos found on various webpages (foreign government websites, news pages, recent (2014) infos for Kenya and Kyrgyzstan, etc). I've removed the different green colors now, because yes, I agree, it can be copyrighted research. All other infos can be found on other websites. Removing the CFS source doesn't change anything. You know, I'll get 66 news pages for the 66 countries, if you prefer. ;) Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed from the pages, I'll do a better job by adding more links soon. Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You can ask other people's advice if you want. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but wikipedia is really serious about copyright - please don't do anything to legally harm WP. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Hi Jytdog, i think the recent edit at Z is notable, however the article will likely never be accurate in patient anamnesis/physical examination/diagnosis. --prokaryotes (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the case discussed here is one of the first, we should add information when available, thus info in regards to when treatment begun, or mention briefly previous health conditions. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
i don't agree (and fairly strongly) and am curious as to why you think that kind of information is within the scope of this article. shall we take this over to the article talk page? You have my permission to copy/paste or cut/paste everything I wrote here... or give me your permission, and I will do it. or start over! as you will. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth to mention, however if that information isn't in the article i won't mind either, that's why i cautioned above about accuracy. If you like to discuss it further go ahead i might chip in later. Cheers. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re: my COI[edit]

Appreciated your thoughtful comments as always (it is always especially fun to hear thoughful comments about myself ;-) ). Based on your feedback, and Guy's and others particularly at my COI/N, I rewrote it, FWIW: User:Middle_8/COI. cheers, --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 08:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I probably won't succeed in this unsubtle attempt to get you to reconsider your decision to disengage, but either way, I thought of your comments about a "reasonable middle" at acupuncture when I wrote this: [1]. Makes sense right? Acu is largely a placebo (i.e. mostly general rather than specific effects); notable places like Harvard, Yale et. al. use it for its general effects. Nu? Anyway, I need to devote less time to it as well. The article has been making me crazy lately, and when I say "the article", make no mistake, I mean "my choice to focus so much energy and attention on the article". :-P Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 09:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Biofuel & socks[edit]

Jytdog - I see there's a bit of an edit war taking place on Biofuel. Reviewing edit history, it appears to me that you're correct about AesopSmart / Whoisjoking is engaging in sock use. Further, it appears that AesopWise may also be a sock. Do you know how this is best handled?--E8 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

you did the right thing with the 3RR warning. if the person persists after the warning, we can pursue action at 3RR and if the socking continues, at WP:SPI. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Title: "Persecution" in WP article "Judaism"[edit]

@Jytdog:, Shalom! Persecution of Jews in Arab lands was not limited to the Almohads of Spain or North Africa. It was also prevalent in Yemen, where the Mawza Exile is sketched deep in the sub-conscious of every Yemenite Jew, and even described in the Jewish Encyclopedia and in many other Hebrew writings. Jews were scattered throughout the Diaspora, and, as in many other places, persecution of Jews in Yemen also had its dark periods. I wish to cordially make one correction in what I was wrongly accused of doing, namely, of WP:EDITWARRING. This is certainly not true in my case, as I can prove forthrightly. When my first edit was deleted, the reason given was that it lacked sources. I then reposted the edit, with a reference to the source. Then I was told that the sources were not adequate enough, so I changed the sources, bringing down better sources, and merging my edit with the previous editor's edit - without diminishing aught from the previous edit. Still my newest edit was deleted. Is there no place here for mentioning the sufferings of the Jews of Yemen in the 17th century?Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article talk page. happy to respond there! Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check[edit]

Try looking at their other edit. No discussion is really necessary...please revert.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

don't care about the editor, i care about the edit. (even broken clocks are correct twice a day) I opened a discussion on the Talk page - please respond there. thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a faulty philosophy because it may find you restoring edits for a banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal for which you could be held responsible.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
we differ on that. i will happily provide reasoning for each edit i make, and happily apologize for any errant edit i make if someone provides solid reasoning that it was wrong with a basis in policy, guideline or plain old common sense. you've provide no such reasoning... let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A good edit made by a bad person is still a good edit. Our first priority should be the encyclopædia, and it strikes me as terribly petty to intentionally degrade the encyclopædia because of some other disagreement with a person that we've ostracised. Berean Hunter, I greatly respect your judgment on other things, but here I must disagree. If anybody is "held responsible" for a good edit made by somebody else, give me a link to that discussion, and I'll defend them. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker). This caught my eye, so I went back and looked at the edits. At the Race (biology) page, I agree with Berean Hunter's revert, no question about it. But at the Hybrid (biology) page, I agree with Jytdog that the edit was, on its merits, a good edit. If I try to parse the argument here, I think that it is true that when any editor restores a reverted edit, that editor is responsible for having done so – but I think that in this case, Jytdog has nothing to apologize for, because the restored content improved the page. That also doesn't mean that it was wrong of Berean Hunter to have reverted both edits by the IP: it is reasonable, on the face of it, to revert what may appear to be bad edits from what appears to be a disruptive editor. But when another editor comes along, evaluates the content in question, and makes a responsible decision to restore some good content, then that's just the Wikipedia editing process working the way that it is supposed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofish is right on this. We let that process play out at Talk:Hybrid (biology)#Between two "races" where I'm content letting the editors there decide. There is a pre-existing conflict over these terms that I don't want to be baited into engage in.:) My comments above about a faulty philosophy is as a general one because I knew that Jytdog didn't deliberate on anything but the edit itself and no other criteria...hence, my use of the word may and I should have included the word someday. I didn't know that this editor that we were discussing was one of those (banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal) and I think Bobrayner has taken it that I implied that they were. I didn't mean to give that impression.
Based on policy, we do sometimes rip editors' contributions out wholesale. That happens because bans apply to all editing, good or bad and it is meant to be a discouragement to them that none of their edits stick. When considering edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "...the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Many socks are considered de facto banned and their edits may be reverted without having to analyze each one. Wikipedians are also not allowed to proxy "good" edits.
I appreciate Jytdog's comment above "let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that!" and he should know that I appreciate his work as an editor also. :) I never considered this as anything much on the disagreement scale...we just went back to editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
yep :) Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── thanks everybody, interesting discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Group hug? 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 11 September 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksun1942 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI[edit]

Hi Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that I opened an incident report on EllenCT at the administrator's noticeboard. This isn't a request for comment (although you're welcome to if you want), but rather just letting you know since you spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to help Ellen out and that I cited some of your talk page responses. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)