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)

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 Spearmind (talkcontribs) 19:27, 9 March 2015‎

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

CRISPR revision undo[edit]

I've been notified that my [revision] in CRISPR article has been undone. Explanation states: WP:CRYSTALBALL content. My contribution was not a speculation. Primates were geneticaly modified with this new technique(groundbreaking achievement). Linked article goes on to speculate about the furture, but the fact remains the same. Slaven0 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Would you please post your comment on the Talk page of the CRISPR article so that you and I and others can discuss? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Slaven0 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources[edit]

@Jytdog Primary sources are more authentic, secondary sources are liable to spindoctors. Is banning primary sources wikipedia policy and why? (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

happy to discuss on the article talk page - will you please open a thread there? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center....[edit]

appears to have one of the most well-organized and pervasive COI editing programs on Wikipedia.

Currently active editor Enapolitano has edited the MSKCC-related article Joan Massagué Solé (33% of text) exclusively.

44% of the MSKCC article total text added is from user: Davidthelion2. This editor's contributions consist almost entirely of edits the the following articles. David was last active in 2013

- Simon N. Powell - Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 is responsible for 77% of the text of this article.

- Thomas J. Kelly (scientist) - director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, the basic research arm of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 produced 57% of the text of this article

- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - 44% of the total text is from Davidthelion2

- Peter T. Scardino Chair of the Dept of Surgery at MSKCC. 12% of text from David

user: Joanvalo, whose user page describes herself as a "freelance writer", was last active in 2012. She has also edited solely MSKCC related articles, including

- Peter T. Scardino (Chair of surgery at MSKCC), 78% of the text

- George Bosl - Chair in Clinical Oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 6.5%

User: Anneclear - has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2012

User: MedEditorNYC, no longer active, has only edited the John H. Healey article (head of special surgery at MSKCC) (95% of the articel

[[User: Clearanne has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2013

User: Lyjmsk12 has solely edited MSKCC articles, being responsible for 72% of the text in the Hedvig Hricak article

User: Kzezulinski has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2011

User: Lubieh, last active in 2013, has solely edited MSKCC articles

User: Reportwritermother, last active in 2009, never edited any non-MSKCC related article

What a mess. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. so much time cleaning up these messes! thanks for posting here. I'll post this at COIN. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello Jytdog, One of my students made extensive revisions to the yohimbine page yesterday as part of a class assignment (I teach an advanced undergraduate chemistry course). I see you made extensive revisions, for a number of reasons, and many look to be justified. Still, I wanted to make a couple comments about the revisions. In our class, we studied molecules with either confirmed toxicity or potential toxicity. All of these molecules were bioactive in some way, and many were discovered long ago and used in traditional medicine or ritual, before their chemical structures or behaviors were scientifically characterized. Therefore, in editing articles, we thought history and chemistry were important sections to expand. Is there a reason they do not belong in this article? Most other articles about complex molecules do have this information, since they are very important to the fields of chemistry and the history of the molecule (how was it discovered? what organism does it come from? why did chemists become interested in it?). This page is (or should be) about yohimbine the molecule, not yohimbine the herbal supplement (who knows what mix of substances is in that), and so, I think the content of the article should focus on the molecule, not the herb. Would love to discuss further. Ajfrontier (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note! i'd be happy to discuss - we should do it at the article talk page - if you want to just copy your note above and put it there, i will respond there. (better for many reasons) thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


You appear to have sent me a notice about edit warring because I undid an article that you undid while I was in the process of editing. Then another contributor undid while I was editing. I have now contributed to Talk. How is it possible to update an article if articles cannot be updated as they are being undone during the process of editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talkcontribs) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

if you plan on making extensive edits, there are two things. First, is you should know that many Wikipedia articles have many people who watch them, so if you make extensive changes - and especially really changing the direction of the article, you should not be surprised to get immediate feedback and reversions. (which is all fine and part of life here - your being bold, and others reverting you). second, if you want space and time to make a bunch of edits, you can put an "under construction" tag on the article while you work. (see Template:Under construction). Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


I made a quick table at Wikipedia:Biomedical information#The best type of source. I'm not entirely satisfied with it, and I wondered if you'd take a look at it and add or change whatever you'd recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

that is so helpful! Thanks for doing that. Will add some stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


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. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak citation?[edit]

I did a quick check on the citation you provided for the Agent Orange claim on the Monsanto page and the page provided in the citation doesn't seem to even mention Monsanto at all. Link here for reference. Would it be best to revise/remove the citation in this case or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. YesPretense (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll fix it in a minute. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Glyphosate[edit]

The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks, makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

From one hound to another[edit]

This is pushing the limit of acceptable length for quotations pretty hard. Suggest you reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah that was pretty long, wasn't it. done. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
you are welcome - thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Please don't follow me to articles. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin that is a very reasonable request and believe me I do not enjoy interacting with you nor do I seek it out. It was actually not a "follow" - I was looking a COI issue and came across the article you have been creating. I do think it is a great subject for an article. I didn't intend to do anything but that truncated quote was just a bad thing. I know you don't like pharma but please don't let that influence how you write about medicine. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't know what I like and don't like. I follow the sources and there's a mountain still to read, so the artice is in flux. It makes no sense to argue at this point about specific wording, and the discussion has cost me research time. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Expert editors.[edit]

Thank you for these valuable and balanced contributions! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome! lately it seems i have been welcoming new scientists a lot, and i am so glad that essay exists. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation[edit]

Given an unopposed PROD and an unopposed AFD, a PROD is likely to be successful. But playing fast and loose with CSDs bites a lot of newbies, so it's better to avoid it - if they're writing it to promote themselves, maybe I don't care, but if the're writing it because they're church history/church organisation nerds, then maybe I do. The squinting and guessing people's motives game of G11s is killing us with it's false positives on new editors, even if the rate is perhaps low, because genuine new editors ain't so common as vanity-ers and spammers. I'm perhaps more of a stickler for the policy and less of a cowboy than some other admins in this, I know. WilyD 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

understood and i appreciate your caution. I had just wanted to let you know that the G11 wasn't totally kooky. i already prodded it. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sesame Oil usage in Japan[edit]

You had reverted an edit on Sesame Oil used in Japanese Rayu, without any explanation, which I find extremely puzzling. Would appreciate if you can answer why you considered - that the removed content - was not appropriate Encyclopaedia material? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

i did leave an edit note; it looked like spamming to me. Can you find better sources? sorry if that was a good faith edit.... Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It was a good faith Edit. And they were the best English references I could find so far. If you have objections to the references, then you can remove/cite references alone, as I feel the content is not Spam and genuinely useful information. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for responding to my request at WP:COIN. I'm going to be deliberately vague here to avoid outing the editor. Based on the edits of the editor he appears to be the son of the subject. Wording at the now deleted files, such as identifying the image as being sourced from his mother's house, make the identity fairly clear. There was something that identified him as the son rather than the daughter, but it was a year ago and I can't remember exactly what it was. --AussieLegend () 15:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

the case there was very clear. we'll take care of it together, one way or another. hopefully in a way without drama. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:COI editnotice[edit]

I changed it to "conflict of interest". Despite the drawbacks of the term, I think this is the best way to address both concerns. On one hand it applies to a broader range of editors we would prefer not to edit, while also not applying to such a broad range as "close connection" which may encompass all kinds of scenarios where there is not actually a COI. I thought the discussion was progressing and worthwhile. Should make the template useful for cases like the farm article.

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

as you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Botanical drug has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]


May I ask that in this discussion, taking place elsewhere, would you think twice when you feel tempted to guide the discussion -interjecting and commenting as I have seen you do in the past. It attracted some comment last time, which was perhaps harsh, but nevertheless. (please note that I'm not saying don't, but do think twice before.) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would change it to "added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote in bold." QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Added Note : I am not an ALT_MEDDIST of any kind. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
bump. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
did i make you unhappy by asking core how he would modify the RfC roxy? i appreciate you looking out for me btw. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

usc eye institute[edit]

this article is very hard to write without hiding info. Maybe just redirect it?

if you whitewash the situation, that is dishonest. if you tell the truth, it is an ugly picture of suing, deceit, money, etc. Neutralandnotinvolved (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll respond at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)



I have asked you at least three times to stay off my talk page. You are free to respond to me, and let me know how sad and unwise you find me at articles talk pages and elsewhere, but not my own. Understood? I think it's time for me to be honest: I care so little for your opinion that I usually don't read a thing you write. So it's nothing but a waste of your time to express yourself to me, and it could be considered harassment at this point to continue violating my request to leave my talk page alone. petrarchan47คุ 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

my apologies. i forgot you asked me that. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

COI ?[edit]

[1] and [2] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like COI is possible- I just rejected that article by the way as advert/not notable, as suggested by some users on Wikiproject:Medicine, and my own opinion of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


You in no way owe me an explanation. Thanks for offering one none the less. I apologize if the final part of my message was abit harsh. It's not personal. And that wasn't completely directed in your direction. The point being the individuals would not be in the wrong simply or solely because they are an alt-med practitioner and they are editing an article related to their field. Then again based on their actions it can rise to the level of a COI. I like to think of it along the lines of obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio, to use the words of Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." This is all my point.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

i hear you and thanks for writing. :) just wanted to provide you with the context for the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been notified[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Atsme☎️📧 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick message[edit]

Just popping by to say that I saw your last reply after RexxS comment, and I think we have a clear enough understanding of where each other is coming from to drop the topic, declare a truce and move on. I blanked the discussion at my talk because it seemed to be drawing in yet more people and I suspect further discussion isn't going to be terribly helpful at the moment. I said my piece at the RfC and am content to await further developments. Cheers and all that. Montanabw(talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks very much for reaching out! so kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Publication bias[edit]

Greetings! Do you have an access to this article[3]? If so, could you please send me that one? I'd like to see if and how they might have possibly studied the subject. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

check your email Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Using preview[edit]

Jytdog, I'd like to ask you to stop changing your posts and timestamps. The former means people are replying to words that no longer exist, and the latter makes diffs harder to find after the fact. It also means there are lots of edit conflicts. If you could use preview more, it would be very helpful. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

per WP:REDACT, an editor can edit a comment if it has not been responded to. after it has been responded to, yes, redaction via markup is required. no one had responded to my post yet. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I was in the process of responding to it. Everyone makes mistakes, but changing posts as a matter of routine can cause problems. If respondents notice that you've changed your post in significant ways, before they've saved their reply, they then have to change theirs. If they don't notice, it means they've responded to something that's no longer there, and have to leave a second post explaining, as I just had to do. I've noticed that people have mentioned this to you a few times, so it would be extremely helpful if you could use preview more. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Botanical drug[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

COIN or SPI noticeboard?[edit]

I'd appreciate your advice on what to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH which seems to be going nowhere. Perhaps it is better raised at the COIN? Or maybe I should just wait for the SPI to happen? — Brianhe (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Long spine board[edit]

Come chat with me in the talk section. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

done! :) Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eric Braverman[edit]

I removed what I saw to be some pov and promotional wording from Eric R. Braverman and cleaned the article up a bit with wording, links, format, etc. What else needs to be addressed to remove the tag? Also, that entire "Caveats" section is unreferenced. Are there sources for that? Thanks. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

funny that you reached out to me - I was about to reach out to you.. see your talk page in a minute. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Jytdog could I get your opinion on this articles talk page in regards to the "treatment table".thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

what about it in particular? Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about getting rid of it, in place of a paragraph or two--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
i don't think it's a bad thing, format-wise. it could be made into prose, and that would be more standard for sure. but more importantly. it is not sourced very well, and i'm worried that was in the table in that article, doesn't match up with the "main" articles for each disease. (the content in the table should just be a WP:SUMMARY of what is in the sub-articles that are linked-to in the table) -- often people just update the main article, and not the sub-articles. if i were working on that article, i would first check to make sure what ever is in the table is in the sub-articles, and if not, i would first get them updated. then i would make a summary of the subarticles (with refs) and update the main article. and yeah, i would probably go from table to prose format. i wouldn't fight about the format if other people really love the table. the main thing is the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
that's what I was thinking, it has no refs, and therefore should be started over...thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


...your user page.--TMCk (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally missed that. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I must be missing some background, because that comment read like time cube to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
yes very hard to figure out what was going with this editor - Special:Contributions/JARacino. either trolling (unlikely to me) or very sad. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion in Diabetes - possible cures or reversal[edit]

On my talk page you posted the Edit Wars template and the Real Science (RSPlease) template :


We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

and signed both Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I feel free to drop you a note saying first and foremost that 'We' includes myself. Besides the fact that we at Wikipedia work together in good faith, and respect those who spend their time and efforts in order to bring quality content to our website, yours and mine.

You could at the least have had read my note on the article's talk page. Actually You SHOULD have been the one writing there first. I've been here on wp as you can see if you care to look at my modest contributions, for quite a time, received some stars and a few thanks here and there. I explained what may have happened on the article's talk page (I'm still not sure where exactly and in which part your criticism lies). I expect you to discuss it with me over there, and to give a bit more respect and credit to contributors. I realize that you follow a lot of corrupt or bad material, as I saw on your contribution page which is mostly negative, but still that should not be your immediate response to any editor who's edits you find problems with.

You simply erased my whole paragraph. You finally wrote on my talk page (nothing on the article's talk page, only templates with no specific information on mine) AFTER I wrote on the article's talk page explaining my good faith. So where is yours? Please refrain from being uncooperative with an active Wikipedia author who spends much of his time and works hard to bring scientific research based non-controversial well-sourced material to the Wikipedia, and instead, before erasing an entire section discuss the problems on the article's talk page. If you DO for some reason believe an extensive edit has problems that merit your deletion of it, at least notify the writer on his/her talk page... and BEFORE you do so, that would show them some degree of caring.

In any case I wish to emphasize a line in the Edit Wars template:
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

So, since you are the first one to undo my work almost in whole and leaving only a very small "in part", you should notice that you too are warned not to remove my edit, and if you have, to put it back (with changes or warnings) until we have the discussion on the talk page.

Now, to completely change the tone, I truly wish to read your criticism, which I expect is probably mostly about the bypass surgery, and which, as you can see from many of my contributions in the past, I will be more than happy to accept in the combat against pseudo-science, and countering quackery, fads and scams, and to promote good science and scientifically acceptable medical practices. Yours faithfully, Moshe aka פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

yep, i missed your note on the Talk page. replying there


Hello. Why have you removed a mention of another compounds? (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

per my edit note you appear to be a sock of the blocker user Nuklear, and I reverted per WP:REVERTBAN. Your edits fall exactly into the pattern of his. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My adding of mention of Tuaminohexane is my first edit of this article. I don't know who is Nuklear and what does his sock mean. (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


You removed mention of the fact that people invest in silver on the grounds that it was unreferenced, per the requirement for verifiability. People have chosen silver as a means to store their wealth for thousands of years. Did you look for reliable sources and fail to find any? If not a "citation needed" template would have been more appropriate that the removal of content. Edison (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Edison (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It took maybe 10 seconds to find via the Wall Street Journal article about investing in silver:
great! Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jytdog. If you have time, it would be great if you could provide some input at High fructose corn syrup. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)