User talk:Jytdog

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)

Aspirin

Hey Jytdog, I only just now noticed that you reverted this edit by saying that it lacked context. That's true, it could have done with more context, but I think the more productive approach would have been to drop me a note asking for some more context. Safety regulations surrounding the production of aspirin are really important because it is such a powerful drug and as such, the information has since been restored by another editor with more context. Please, next time, assume more good faith on my part. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

holy exploding aspirin batman! please make sure to include context when you add content like that. this is a general encyclopedia - i know occupational stuff is huge for you but it is irrelevant to probably 99% of our readers and we don't want to scare the crap out of them. Please keep UNDUE and context in mind. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'm stealing that as an expression. :) I'll be more mindful of context - as a heads-up, I'm planning to write more about production of pharmaceuticals and occupational hazards of administering/compounding certain drugs (mainly chemo drugs), if you want to take a look. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

can i suggest that you ask at WP:MED about doing that more broadly? for me, i think that is really specialist information and to be frank i don't think it belongs in our articles. some articles have really basic chemistry about drugs but i am unaware of any drug articles that talk about actual drugs/devices/diagnostics/medical equipment manufacturing, much less risk to workers in manufacturing. the same thing is true about the practice of medicine in our health articles - there is not much about what doctors/nurses/technicians actually do, much less what the risks to them are. i think it would be an interesting discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to start up a discussion there. I think it's reasonable to include because we do talk about the synthesis of many drugs, but we'll see what people say. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

the synthesis is basic lab bench stuff. not manufacturing. thanks for opening the discussion! i will wait to weigh in, to see what others say. lovely interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You as well! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Commenting at Bfpage's talk page

Hey, Jytdog. Since Bfpage no longer wants you posting at User talk:Bfpage, and since Bfpage has removed your posts in ways that left the remaining text somewhat incoherent or without defense (such as when you noted that you did not call me a disruptive editor), as seen here and here, I think it's best that you only comment there unless necessary. It seems you stopped commenting there after the removal of your posts. The reason that I don't comment there unless necessary is because besides my history with Bfpage, Bfpage, as you know, sometimes makes changes to the others' posts in ways that conflict with WP:Talk. I will try not to interact with Bfpage, which is what I had been doing for months, and I will try not to mention Bfpage after this point unless necessary, which is fair considering what has been outlined at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines by Bfpage and Kevin Gorman. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed. in my last remark to BfPage, i said that i wasn't going to engage with her anymore. my last remark on her Talk page was not to her but to GregKaye. after that, she banned me from her talk page, so no, i will not be writing there any more, to anyone! and i don't intend to interact with her unless she shows up at an article I already edit. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

COI and user:Patient 32

Could I assist here? This is a new user who does not understand the nuances of Wikipedia. I have been here a while and even I am having difficulty understanding your concern.

I have provided some training to this person to contribute to Wikipedia. I often work with community activists by providing Wikipedia training generally. It would be helpful to me if I knew how to better comply with Wikipedia community policy.

Which part of WP:COI applies in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

in the case of Cleveland Clinic specifically, that user's intensity about negative ratings led me to wonder if he had some relationship with the clinic that was negative. I asked him on his talk page, and he said he did. quite strongly too. Per WP:COI, the essence of a COI is an external relationship that may cause bias when you edit WP. I think it is reasonable to say that he has an external relationship with the clinic that may cause him to be biased when writing about the Clinic. Does that make sense? To the extent that he wants to work on patient safety issues in other articles, he is going to have to be mindful of his intensity on these issues or he is going to get into all kinds of trouble (WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NPOV primarily) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand you.

I fail to see the connection between this person's personal life and passion and the concept of COI. I also fail to see the part of WP:COI which applies to this case. I think you would agree with me that a typical COI involves money, and I think you would agree that money is not a concern in this instance. How would you feel about adding the following statement to WP:COI to make this more clear? Perhaps put this as a subsection in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Other_categories_of_conflict_of_interest -

===COI due to passion===

If you have strong emotions about a topic then you have a COI regarding that topic. Strong emotions can be a result of an extremely positive or negative experience, and may encourage you to share information on Wikipedia as a form of activism. The Wikipedia community discourages this, and says that people who do this have a COI.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know when the last was, that you read WP:ADVOCACY but it makes it clear that there is a thin line between COI and Advocacy. They are hard to tell apart when just looking at edits. I wouldn't agree to that draft language you propose... but i have been thinking that it might make sense to have language about being in a real world dispute with someone or something, as negative passion - disputes - are somehow weightier.... but let's put that on hold for a minute.

SlimVirgin thinks a lot about COI issues, and in ways that I don't sometimes. She would be a good independent voice here. Slim, briefly -- there is a new editor who was at a meeting where Bluerasberry was teaching folks about WP and who got interested in getting involved with WP. The new editor is retired and works with a patient safety advocacy organization. He was a patient at the Cleveland Clinic and was badly hurt there, which is what led him to work with that organization. And sure enough, the Cleveland Clinic article is the first article he went for here, and went right for their patient safety ratings, with passion. In my view, this editor has an external relationship with the Clinic that constitutes a COI, because that is the place that hurt him. That editor will have Advocacy (not COI) issues on articles about other clinics and about articles that touch on patient safety issues. So it is only on the Cleveland Clinic article that I would want him to restrict himself to the Talk page. I understand that others might see that differently. What are your thoughts on this, SV? thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on that SlimVirgin. Please see Bluerasberry's suggestion above for a tweak to COI. What do you think about that, or perhaps something more specific about "negative passion" or better "real world disputes" that are not necessarily financial? We already discuss litigation (which is clearly a dispute and clearly financial) but i mean something that would address situations like the farmers at [Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Sugar_Mountain_Farm|the Sugar Mountain Farm COIN case]] who just hate each other in the RW, or the andrew west COIN case where it turned out that the editor who brought the case had a RW beef with andrew west and was using COIN to attack him; the guy who brought the case realized his COI when we brought that to his attention. what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't support the language about strong feelings, because that takes us back to POV. COI is a separate concept. There needn't be any strong emotion. It is about roles and relationships that give rise to a tendency to bias and/or the perception thereof. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with that. Let me ask a different way. Where in WP:COI to find you find an explanation of why Patient32 has a COI? I pointed to "external relationship" but that was as much as I could do, and bluerasberry, whom I respect a lot, didn't see it. But you and I did. How do we make that easier for folks? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Yes, this is my biggest concern. SlimVirgin I would appreciate your continued thoughts in this direction. My chief worry here is that both of you are coming to the same conclusion, yet I see no basis for that conclusion in WP:COI. I would like for a statement to be in COI such that whenever this issue arises (and I am assuming that this arises frequently) then rather than rely on a personal explanation users can be WP:LINKED to the explanation.

Whenever possible I wish to prevent misunderstanding rather than correct it. I still feel that this person is in a grey area - he is getting a lot of scrutiny for posting editing discussion on the talk page and I had hoped that the talk page would be a safe place to begin a practical discussion for developing the article without him first having to go through a lot of policy discussion, and certainly not for him to have to learn nuance of ambiguous or incompletely written policies. After seeing what Jytdog says I have a new perspective on this but still I would like to go forward showing a rule in Wikipedia space and not a special interpretation for this common and routine case.

My expectation is that my views will match yours but still, I would like to see an applicable rule written in a policy page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lane, I like Michael Davis's description of COI as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Imagine you have a piece of measuring equipment, and you need to make not only an accurate measurement, but a reliable one, one that other people can trust (say, a court or a scientific study). Then you find that a small stone has fallen into the machine. Is the stone affecting the measurements? Perhaps not, but it is clear that the equipment is no longer reliable. To continue using it, we would constantly have to check its results against other machines.

So it is with a conflicted editor. Their edits may be fine, but it's hard to tell with a complex issue. What matters is that they can't be relied upon to make neutral edits. People with a COI tend to think their judgment is not impaired, and they are much less likely than other editors to change their minds about an issue, especially when the COI is financial.

As for which part of COI to direct that editor to, the section about campaigning might be appropriate, depending on his circumstances: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest." But we don't address the issue of people who have had bad experiences with organizations. We have something like that in BLP, but there has always been resistance to extending it to groups, because of the danger of it being abused. If we were to add something to COI it would have to be worded extremely carefully. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Here are some reasons why I object to this:

• In practically all contexts except Wikipedia and philosophy, "conflict of interest" is a technical term and it is reserved for use in financial contexts. Many people sign COI statements with their employers, and many people have questions, but so far as I know, the precedent everywhere is to report ties to money and not personal interest.
• Even Wikipedia itself does not revise this definition of conflict of interest and say that it is something more than finance.
• I am not sure that COI policies should apply so strongly in this case anyway. We have a new user presenting plausible sources to cite on the talk page and asking how content can be integrated into the article. This seems like WP:BRIGHTLINE, which even though that is not a fully supported policy, I thought it was enough in most cases to begin a conversation. I want to follow the rules because COI is being discussed regarding this editor then I myself have a COI as I am paid to give wiki-training to this sort of editor, and particularly so because they requested it through my organization.

I am still thinking this through. Some part of this seems unusual to me. Modifying the below text to change COI policy might be a good way to address this case and resolve future problems.

Thanks for talking this through with me - I want to teach best practices to everyone I encounter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lane, COI involving personal or other non-financial connections is not uncommon. For example, there was a fuss in the UK last year [1] when the government appointed a judge to head an inquiry into a child-abuse scandal involving former civil servants and politicians. The judge had to stand down because of COI when newspapers reported that her brother had been the attorney general during the period in which a decision had been made not to prosecute the individuals. She might have done a fine job chairing the inquiry, but public confidence in it would have been undermined by her close personal connection.

Similarly, Patient 32 wouldn't want the WP article about the Cleveland Clinic to be written by the CEO's daughter. People understand why COI is objectionable when they're negatively affected by it, but when they have a COI themselves they often can't see it, or they're convinced that it won't affect their judgment.

Patient 32's edits may be fine, but he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved. I see some primary sources in his contribs, for example, so that would have to be sorted out. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

SlimVirgin "he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved" This is what I want also, and this is what I will direct this person to do. If COI editors can post suggestions to the talk page then I am happy. I think I misunderstood something here, because I think we are in agreement that posting to the talk page is the norm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

Here is WP:BLPCOI, very lightly edited and with the footnote defining COI left off.

Using Wikipedia BLPs to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization individual, should not edit that organization's article person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Would you support the change of this text as a step in the right direction? If Jytdog made the changes and you supported it then I think that would help to match current written policy with the actual practices which are probably enacted on Wikipedia.

I do not follow the omission of "political, social, literary, scholarly", unless it is just to make the statement more concise. It seems to me that those kinds of disputes could apply with organizations as well as BLPs.

Treating organizations with BLP policy seems to me to be what the Wikipedia community does anyway, and I like the idea of combining policies so that the basic idea applies in all comparable situations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

removed the strike. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I can't tell what the text says; some of the striking seems to leave part of it dangling. Can you post it without the striking, i.e. as you're proposing it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

clean version below. just a draft of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Parts of it won't work because copied from the BLP policy. So "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki ..." The passage would mean that a company need only arrive and declare a dispute to force editors to stop editing its article.

I could perhaps support something like: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a dispute with an organization off-wiki should not edit material about that organization, given the conflict of interest."

But we would have to build in something to make clear that it's off-wiki only, to stop the scenario above. And even then I'm not sure. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

how is this?

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

---

This is fine with me if it can actually be incorporated somewhere. This strikes me as unlikely to pass because of "other material about that organization" seems like an injunction against editing the talk page, and I thought that was a safe space for people with a COI to edit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

---

revised to address Bluerasberry's comment above - yes editors with a COI can discuss on Talk pages! SlimVirgin your thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

here is another example of an editor whom I would say has a COI with respect to perceived harm from an organization. Right? Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bellarmine University

You deleted information I added to the Academic section because of my paid editor status. May I ask what was wrong with it? Dbilodeau (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe you that read COI and said that you understand it and will abide by it, right? If that is so, can you please tell me why you are editing the article directly? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you want me to get my desired changes peer reviewed first? Dbilodeau (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

that is what WP:COI says you should do. it is not a matter of what i want or what you want. good citizen, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked User:Nuklear

I note that you have made several reversions of late from IP address 89.240.133.249 claiming that they are socks of the blocked user Nuklear. Whilst there is obviously no problem with reverting any contribution from a sock of blocked user (as in WP:BE), I am at a loss to understand why you believe that the IP address is in reality Nuklear. There is no history in the two articles of Nuklear making similar edits. I B Wright (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear had definitely edited both articles - see history of Triamterene (Deass is one of Nuklear's socks, as is 80.42.36.238); see Isocarboxazid history were Nuklear had edited under several IPs previously. 89.240.133.249 edited Triamterene and edited Isocarboxazid adding synthesis just like Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I can find no evidence that User:Nuklear or User:Deass have edited any of the articles that you have named above in at least the last five years. Similarly, of the articles that Nuklear and Deass have edited, there is no evidence that they have been similarly edited by any other editor. Further, I have run the editor interaction utility on Nuklear and Deass and there is no interaction at all (i.e. they have never edited the same article). Thus: even if Nuklear and Deass were the same person, there is no sockpuppetry. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no plausible evidence that there is any sockpuppetry going on. I note that a few SPI cases have been raised but neither user has a block for sockpuppetry as a result, which I am not surprised as the cases against them were pretty thin. Even if a few IP editors are making similar edits to different articles that either Nuklear or Deass have made in the past, that does not prove sockpuppetry (on the part of Nuklear or Deass). It only proves that someone else agrees with them or is engaging in 'copy cat' editing. I do believe that there is a case that the IP address editors are probably the same person, but that is a whole different discussion. Your reversion under WP:BE is therefore inappropriate.

You should note that where one editor edits under multiple accounts, but does not edit the same articles with both accounts (or does not make the same edits to the same article), then that does not constitute a prohibited use of multiple accounts. I B Wright (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the User:Deass page - he is blocked as a confirmed sock of Nuklear. Nuklear and his socks have a very clear pattern of editing - always drug/chemical articles, always synthesis and adding similar chemicals to the "see also" section. Sorry but nothing you are writing is making sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at User:Deass's user page. I have also had a look at the SPI case linked from that user page. Although the SPI case contains allegations and evidence that they may be the same user, there is no conclusion that says that they are actually socking. Also the interaction utility clearly shows that they have never edited the same articles (here). As I stated: neither editor has any block for sockpuppetry. The SPI case and the interaction utility clearly shows that whoever added those confirmed sock tags to Deass's and Nuklear's user pages had absolutely no right to do so as there is no evidence of socking or declaration of such in an SPI.

To underline the point that two accounts editing in a similar manner may be the same person but not be guilty of sockpuppetry, there is a more recent case where an IP editor made three reverts to an article. The article was then semi-protected. On needing to continue reverting to his version he switched to using a named account to continue the edit war. An SPI case was raised (and I seriously believed (and still do) that that did constitute socking). The case was rejected because although the edits were clearly the same person, they were not using both IDs at the same time. They used one and then switched to the other. I can't find it at the moment but will provide the link if I do.

As far as the IP addresses refered to above being the same user, they probably are but they are not using different IP addresses at the same time. They may well be a dynamic IP address over which the user has no control. There is therefore no evidence of sockpuppetry by anybody anywhere. I B Wright (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Found it! It's here. Coincidentally, it turns out that it was yourself who made the AN3 complaint that got the article semi-protected in the first place. I B Wright (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have now checked out all the alleged sockpuppets of User:Nuklear listed at [2]. The editor interaction utility clearly proves that none of the listed accounts are sockpuppets of Nuklear. There are ten articles that Nuklear and User:Yid had both edited, but the period between edits ranges from 69 to 264 days. There are no common articles between Nuklear and any of the other listed accounts. This proves that even if Yid were to be the same user as Nuklear, there is still no evidence of socking by Nuklear. Whoever, created the Sockpuppets of Nuklear page, may have done so in good faith from the other pages or because there was circumstantial evidence that they may be the same user, but its creation was erroneous as there is no supporting evidence of actual sockpuppetry. There seems to be some evidence of copyright violation by the listed accounts but that is another matter entirely.

I also note that many of the edits that you are reverting are potentially good edits to articles such as this one. WP:BE is not a catch all that gives the right to revert any and every edit from a blocked user. Indeed, WP:BE states, "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism [and presumably good faith contributions] can be allowed to stand". It is generally only the continuance of disruptive edits where the sockmaster was using the sockpuppet to support that should be reverted (though policy does allow you to err on the side of reversion if the case is not clear. I B Wright (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to re-open any of the closed and actioned SPI cases, please do so at SPI (or under whatever the procedure is for appealing a sock block). This is not the place to do that. If you want to re-instate any of the reverts I made, please feel free. Please also note that if you make a habit of it, you will be taking on their behavior and may become subject to a block yourself, for the same reason they were blocked. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

btw I don't know where the diff is, but Nuklear/Deass/one-or-more-of-his-IPs mocked the community saying that he knew how to jump IP addresses and would continue to do that intentionally. I have no idea what is driving your interest but you are making pretty strong conclusions without being aware of all the facts here. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to threats is as good as conceeding the argument. I B Wright (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not threatening, just describing reality. You own edits that you restore. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have a strange view of reality. If I chose to reinstate any of the edits that introduced good material into the subject articles, I am at a loss to see what policy you would attempt to organise your threatened block under. As for my interest: I perceive, that for whatever reason, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta against this particular user by claiming sockpuppetry where there is no evidence whatsoever - and I regard that as unacceptable behaviour. I B Wright (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not pursuing a vendetta. Nuklear was blocked for consistently violating copyright, UNDUE, and sourcing guidelines. If you start consistently reverting me (which you are entitled to do) you will reinstate the sock's edits, which continue his violations. You will then own those violations. What is driving your interest in this? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't follow me around. Mind your own business! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.65.196 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privileges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. Until then, please stop editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please could you mind your own business and i'll do likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.70 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privleges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. This is a real community - you chose to ignore what people were telling you about what you were doing wrong. So you were blocked. You have to take that seriously. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for all the hard work you do on Wikipedia. Don't let your "fan club" get you down or provoke you into doing something silly. Keep up the great work! Yobol (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you, yobol. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GM review

I couldn't figure out how to work this article into genetically modified food controversies, so I am putting it here for your consideration in case you want to add it. Everymorning talk 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

and then there is stuff like this that says that whole food animal studies are not even ethical to do, as they add no value. The literature on this is exceedingly messy and politicized. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Senpion

I'm assuming, due to the lack of response from the user, that my initial assumption (which you echoed) was correct, and being called out on it caused the user to bail out on WP entirely. The edit history showed that those edits were the focus, and I don't buy the claims that were made subsequently. However, as no action occurred, what's the next step in case this happens again (though I doubt it, as I think the underlying tech has no traction)? MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just ping me, if you like, and i'll pick up the conversation where it left off. Sorry again that we dropped the ball at COIN when you brought it in the first place. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

OK I want to understand where you are coming from here (and I appreciate your fast response to the original proposals). Harold asks to change something so I provide evidence to say why not? I'm happy just to leave stuff if he makes no citations. But I confined myself to facts there with no commentary. I made no comment on his motivations but restricted myself to facts. He is also using the page to make statements based on his opinion, so if you are going to strike my response you should really strike his original statement as well :-) I did my best on his german equivalent to go and find a source for him to help so I think you are being a little harsh with your edit summary there ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondly do you think it is legitimate to use social media to get people to contribute to the page? A tweet from Harold this morning asked for contributions. He used the #Cynefin hashtag so it will go to people outside his circle. However my policy has been not to use social media in an wikipedia edit conflict. Not sure if there is a policy here or not. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, confine yourself to facts that have sources. you, in particularly, need to rigorous. no it is not valid to summon people to WP pages. thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing my best here :-) I have a minor concern that Harold's accusation on Cynthia's involvement (a major part of his off wiki campaign) is being allowed to stand without a response. I'll live with it but it is a concern. Otherwise I'm going to hold off any edit requests for several weeks until things calm down. I had not realised how fast you would be on the monitoring or I might just have left it anyway ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With you, appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

we'll see. what i want to see is behavior aimed toward improving Wikipedia. Not toward furthering your personal interests or toward pursuing your dispute with Harold. Rigor. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as possible I ignore him and I don't respond off wiki if he tries. On wiki it's about reputation so I have responded to changes he has attempted to make, The COI policy as it is being implemented seems to handle the sort of hits that both Cynefin and Dave Snowden article have being subject too over the years. Hopefully I can spend my time monitoring the various Philosophy and Political sites in which I am active. I've got some ideas on COI but I'll leave that for a week or so ----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gents. Yes I used twitter to get more people involved as I think that would help. More diversity = more experience. I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/status/607707402151043072. It that is not done, I'm sorry. If its OK, please tell me.

Re Campaign, Where do I accuse anyone? Where am I campaigning?Hvgard (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes some person is picking one edit i make every day and tweeting it under the handle "industry lapdog". whatever. Hvgard do not canvass' and please read the warning on your userpage about that. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and Hvgard since you have acknowledged that are tweeting about this, i looked, and you have been tweeting about your dispute with dave for a while now, well before today. It appears to be a straight up lie, to say that you were inspired to tweet about this by the "industrylapdog" tweet. You just lost a lot of good will with me.

The tweeting is completely out of bounds. Please strike your claim to have tweeted about this only because of the industrylapdog tweet, and tell me that you will stop tweeting about this. I will also tell you that, I will be watching your twitter feed now, and the next time you tweet about this dispute in Wikipedia, I will seek a topic ban. You need to restrain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just tweeting on was happening here, getting people aware of the edits so that other start to help too. I can't remember I tweeted about wikipedia before. Anyway I wont tweet again about wikipedia Cynefin edits if that considered out of bounds. Hvgard (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good response with regard to what appears to me to be a lie. Whatever. But yes it is out of bounds to tweet about your disputes. I told you it is and provided you the link to the guideline. There is no "if". Don't do it going forward. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What did I lie about? Please point me to where and what. Ofcourse I have ve exchanges on twitter and other social media with many people I agree with or partly or not on many subjects including this one. To my best knowledge the tweet I sent yesterday was the first I sent about Cynefin wikipedia edits ever. I did it in good faith. Now know better, it won't happen again.Hvgard (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your post above says: " I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog..." You were already tweeting about the content dispute before yesterday. June 2 Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. OK. So two. Understood. Hvgard (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like your imperious behavior

This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Wikipedia, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. SageRad (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Consistenly destroying my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Wikipedia community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be WP:HERE for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and WP:HOUND-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Wikipedia..... why? Who are you? SageRad (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He's just an editor, like you, except perhaps not. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you have had such a hard time learning the policies and guidelines here, SageRad. I've done my best to help you. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with SageRad. Because you didn't like my previous post, he decided to track back through my contributions and revert five other major edits which took me hours to put together. Just because my edits are on articles of faith doesn't mean that the posts are inappropriate. The material is in character with the existing text of the articles, and most if not all the material was sourced to peer-reviewed published books. Those articles are stub articles that need additional information. Please stop attacking my posts. I am going to revert them all back except the most recent one, and hopefully you will leave them alone.IncreaseTheHeat (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you each are having similar struggles coming to understand how WP works. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it

This.[3] The malformed template ref means their ping wouldn't have worked. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the notice. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your (rather silly) intervention on the'Peter Hitchens' entry

I replied on the Talk page (of the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) to your attempt to make a controversy about the fact that I sometimes(quite openly and under my own name ) make minor factual adjustments to the Wikipedia entry about me, adjustments which I am in a unique position to make. Anybody's welcome to challenge them if they know better than I such things as my late father's naval rank and position.

I am the only person who has responded to your intervention. Everyone else seems uninterested and unhorrified by my behaviour, as is only reasonable. Your attempt to suggest that there is something naughty going on has met with no other response of any kind. Do you think you might therefore take steps to remove the misleading label on the entry which suggests(quite wrongly() that I have been making illegitimate and underhand alterations? If you won't, can you please tell me to whom I can appeal, and how? My computer skills are limited. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the work of cleaning up after conflicted editors is tedious - those tags sometimes remain a long time. you will notice that no one immediately rose up to take it off, which is what folks do when find they tag inapt or silly. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Interventional radiology

Hi - first time user - let's see if I got this right. You pulled my additions to Interventional Radiology - I think based on a lack of citation which I have since added. I have several more articles to write but want to get my first Wikipedia contribution correct. I think the content is valuable and directly relates to the history already posted. Regards, Chuckd105 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

we should discuss on the article Talk page, not here. I will open the discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You responded to me on my user talk page and asked me to reply. I did add more information, but not sure how to "reply". How will you know that I answered/ Chuckd105 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

I am "watching" your page so I saw your reply. Have just been busy - I will reply there later today. Thanks for following up! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough

It would appear I am now a target of a particular editor because of the comments I made at AN regarding her here [4] and at AN/I before that [5]. The shit-stirring by her can be seen here [6]. A kind, gentle, Wiki-love bestowing grandmother who has been totally misunderstood and just wants Wiki-peace... Sure. Whatever. I thought you and Flyer22 would both be interested in the latest development of this continuing saga. Ugh. it shows, in my opinion, that her behavior hasn't changed, it's just been transferred to someone else. I have left the following at her talk page. Hopefully, it will quell any further attempts on her part to poison the well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view that post on the user's Talk page basically denies that she did anything wrong and may run against whatever agreement she established with KevinGorman. I am not an admin. I suggest you bring that to Kevin's Talk page. If he is not around, I recommend you post to AN. Sorry about that.Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice from you

Hi, the talk comment below was just reverted by Snowded. Can you point out where I should have made this suggestion? My talk page, the Cynefin talk page, your talk page, Snowded talk page, elsewhere? Please help me out. Thanks:

There are existing and past relationships between all involved and mentioned here and others that historically contributed. That is why its important to find independent sources, which might be difficult. One way forward seems to me to focus - in the interest of readers - on facts about the model independent on "who contributed what Hvgard (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Editors have a right to delete entire comments from their own talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK. While I cannot see that he has banned you from his own Talk page (which editors also have the right to do) I suggest you avoid posting there. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For working to keep coverage of medical and nutrition articles neutral with POV-pushers coming both from pro-industry and anti-industry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential COI issues

Thank you for your comments. Everything said was strictly neutral POV, cited to peer review journal, and without any self advertisement. The WP articles you cited appear to recognize that as OK. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please abide by the spirit and letter of COI, and please make sure you abide by the spirit and letter of our core content polices that forbid Original research, require verification with reliable sources, and require that content be appropriately contextualized to present views according to their weight and use in a given field. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to argue your POV - that is what law journals and blogs are for. We love experts, but please be mindful of our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS. Seriously, WT? THIS is blatant policy violation and disruptive, and subsequent edits mean I can't undo it easily. Elvey^(t•c) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Had to roll back 8 of your edits to undo your edit to my comment. Seriously, STOP with this revert warring and engage in discussion.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

this was an accident and i thought i self-reverted that right away. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For note, Elvey it was unnecessary to rollback those edits like that. A copy-paste was all it took to restore it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Addressed here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kaiser_Permanente. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Email

Sent per the discussion on my talk page. Risker (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actavis/Allergan

Jytdog,

I am reaching out because you have recently edited the Actavis, Allergan or a similar company’s page, and would like your help. Actavis made the announcement this morning that they are transitioning to the Allergan name effective today.

See the press release here http://www.allergan.com/news/news/thomson-reuters/actavis-plc-is-now-allergan-plc.

We would like to redirect the current Actavis page to the Allergan page, and merge the content found on both.

We’d appreciate your help in vetting the edits we submit and ensuring that our changes meet Wikipedia community guidelines and standards. We plan to start the migration today.

Appreciate your help.

LANEYC (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)LaneyC

I'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gastroschisis

Hey Jytdog-- I'm new to the wiki editing process. I am a current medical student working at Children's Hospital of Illinois. My supervisor is Dr. Edmund Yang, a highly respected voice on gastroschisis. I have attempted to add a snippet to the article about the correlations between spontaneous onset of labor and length of stay. I am aware that this info does not come from a review article, but the editing rules also allow for highly respected opinions outside of review articles, which I believe is a category Dr. Yang falls into. Let me know what I am missing here. Illini0910 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article Talk page. You also have a conflict of interest here. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie

Can't remember the exact process by which I just ended up reading through talk pages from WikiProject Food and drink and two now-blanked user talk pages from back in April. I know it didn't end well, but you did an amazing job all around. Have two, they're small.

valereee (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an awkward and kind of sad situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)