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)

Youth time

This is a notification that I started a discussion considering your excessive use of authority considering Youth time article
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. F aristocrat (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Onnit edits and Talk page

Jytdog: Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your COI position and advice for my future handling of COI issues. You are a busy and patient contributor, with patience made especially clear by your generous explanation to the Onnit contributor and more-than-fair interaction with the frustrating BB. Your involvement with Activated phenolics helped to bring that matter to a quick closure, with thanks. Regarding Onnit, I believe my method was more direct to base a solution with reliance on WP guidelines, but, now with your advice, I will try to balance better COI matters on the Talk pages and promotional article content. Good to have your feedback and see you around articles of mutual interest! --Zefr (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought

I wonder here, if you're not just denying rope. With these hard economic times, we all need as much as we can get. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh the rope is there in the diffs.  :) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I foresee myself spending 30 minutes to find this somewhere in my near future. TimothyJosephWood 01:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ok, i will stop removing them. diff-finding is a major pain in the butt; something i wish WMF would make easier for us. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi. A strange page, Big Mean Ethan Dean, was created. It is not encyclopedic. As a more experianced user, can you help me? The creator just messed up my speedy deletion. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Watching it. You did the right thing. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Further, the creator attacked me on the talk page of that false article. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let it slide, what they are doing makes no sense and it is obvious to anyone experienced who sees it. It's just drama. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And.. it's gone. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urinary tract infection. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cirflow (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protected this page for a while, given the time wasting of vandalism reverts. Jytdog, if you'd like it lifted ahead of time please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for doing that! Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Jytdog, I just wanted to leave a visible trace of thanks for your extreme patience, forbearance, and helpfulness with my Northeastern University students this term. There are 54 of them — in WP project reflections, they universally report that they see editing WP as "real world writing," "intimidating but important," and "a way to use [their] privilege at being at a good university to give back" — they also reported taking more time than usual to check sources. Their writing is not always perfectly encyclopedic, but they are very interested in participating. You've helped several significantly. Thank you! WritingTeacherC (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write that! You are welcome. We do try to make and keep our articles about health and medicine rigorous; what "counts" as rigor here is kind of bizarre but makes sense when folks take the time to understand it. Thanks for introducing your students to WP!Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for jumping in on the Paul Wager-related discussion. I don't have the patience you have for clear COI editors who refuse to follow the rules, but on the other hand I do recognize that the rules are the barrier that is so often written about in articles on the "problems of Wikipedia". I still wonder why volunteer labour has to be so kind to those who want to use the wiki as a promotional device. I am starting to think that there should be a more serious version of "connected contributor" for dealing with such cases. Just wondering out loud :) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! I very much appreciate your drive to protect the integrity of Wikipedia - thanks for that work you do! Why be kind? Well, everybody who edits here is human {I don't think there are bots spamming Wikipedia yet :) } and so are we. When I first encounter editors with an apparent COI it isn't clear if they actually have a COI or are advocates; nor if they have a COI if they are actually "paid editors" or just have some other kind of COI. The only way to get clarity, is to get the person to self-disclose, and the best way to do that is through respectful dialogue. So that is first reason to be kind - to get the person to self-disclose which is good for several reasons. Listing the other important reasons...

a) it keeps us (editors who work on COI/advocacy) very safe from OUTING violations by getting the person to self-disclose (as just discussed)

b) by self-disclosing, the editor is already entering into the community;

c) there is actually no bar to editors with a COI, or even paid editors, directly editing Wikipedia articles, and persuading editors with a COI to do what they should do (namely, post proposed changes on the Talk page), goes much better in the context of a kind, respectful dialogue. (sugar gets you way farther, faster, than vinegar).

d) persuading editors who come here only to promote something, to take the time to understand the content policies and guidelines (most of these editors are unaware of them, and don't actually care about them at first) helps these editors understand what kind of changes would be acceptable and saves everybody time down the road. People who come here only to promote something are busy, and don't want to waste their own time, and of course we don't want our time wasted either.

e) sometimes people who come here only to promote X get hooked and start to become productive members of the community on topics where they don't have a COI - this helps grow the editing community.

f) sometimes this stuff gets into the press, and WP looks much better if you haven't made an ass of yourself by being unkind (which I have done sometimes, ack)

Those are some reasons to be kind.  :) Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing meta-studies

You don't like my citing a meta-study? Did you even look at the source? It fits the guidelines. Revert or your reversion or I will have to escalate. Look at the research quotes and cited before you delete. Sorry if that secondary source doesn't fit your POV. Antisoapbox (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't which article you are talking about; i have had to revert you twice today I think. In any case please raise the issue at the article talk page so others who are interested can participate. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the links to my citations before reverting. You clearly didn't do that. The citations clearly meet the standards and the cites support the information posted. Read the citations. Or at least the abstract. They support the statement, indeed to be clear I actually quote with proper context. Or state with more specificity what you think the defect is in the talk page and then we will get a consensus opinion on whether my relevant citation to research and review articles is appropriate. Antisoapbox (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on both these articles a lot longer than you and am very familiar with the sources you are citing. Please discuss this at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (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 a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One

In re this: technically, CSD requires only one (an admin). Copyvios, hoaxes, attack pages, and other obvious violations are, and ought to be, "delete on sight" for admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

yep. that was just TMI for a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How to find an administrator?

So I don't know if you're following the FP1 SPI case, but it was rejected for having too much text, and I was also told we're not allowed to shorten the text. Do you have any suggestions, or is this the end of the road?

If you don't mind my venting for a moment, I'm quite amazed how impenetrable your bureaucracy is here. At first I was joking that it was like the DMV, but at least at the DMV I eventually go home with my new driver's license or plates. Is this case really not something Wikipedia higher-ups can be made to give a shit about? (Pardon the salty language, I'm more than a little frustrated.)

Sorry for my own role, though, in making that page longer. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ellen, there are about 300 people watching this talkpage and mine where you also posted. Many of them are administrators and may choose to act on either post. You can also post at one of the various noticeboards, but it depends on what result you are looking for. I wouldn't recommend this; rather, wait for the SPI to complete then decide what to do next. Best of luck. - Brianhe (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The admin at SPI strongly suggested this morning that I end my involvement in this case, so I suppose I will. If they don't care, there's no reason for me to care. It was always a bit David-and-Goliath for Ellen McGill to try to take on a Washington lobbying firm anyway--I certainly would have never started down this road fighting their account if I'd known from the start who was at the end of it--and I've wasted more time here than I should have. But sincere thanks to you and Jytdog for your help and kindness along the way. Good health and happy writing to both of you! Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

EHS and popular culture

Hi, given that you did not participate in the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Popular_culture_section, which specifically asked whether the section on popular culture should be included, I find it surprising that you should so vehemently delete the section - to the point of swearing in an edit comment. May I ask why you feel justified in cold-shouldering the discussion I had started? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I did comment on the issue on the talk page. Just not in your RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, for the record it was not my RfC, but it was my subsequent discussion opener (which I linked to above), and you did in fact comment (unsigned) in the RfC discussion. But mainly, you have now twice deleted the section we are discussing. In the interests of seeing what we are talking about I am going to restore it, but I want to reassure you here that this is not content warring on my part, I just think that the discussion is chaotic enough as it is and we all need to at least be able to see what we are talking about while it is ongoing. If you still disagree and revert again, I will not contest your judgement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation

Hi Jytdog.
Yes of course WP is built on collaboration so what has gone wrong here? Why are you censoring me? It must be obvious to you now that this article has ownership. It it is (and you can gage I am getting annoyed) an example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It undermines due weight. Many people out-side the US read English WP and the this doesn't reflect the world view. When I added {{globalize/USA}} it was immediately deleted by Yobol before I could do any more edits, ensuring that this page continues to have lengthy argues that prevents the article from having an encyclopedic quality. Any time, night-or-day it is watched by editors that I can't imaging can have proper jobs in order to be on WP 24/7. Nor live in the real world or be bothered to actually read the references given. Well, you have now gotten yourself involved – so sort it out. And if you're the same editor that gets mentioned on the admin notice board, then the noose of the rope I' am been doling out (see the talk page) – tightens my claim that this article has undue ownership -which may now include you. So sort it out! you may call that uncivil also if you wish but I would like to see some real meaningful collaboration on this article too--Aspro (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing a picture that is nothing but a personal attack is not censoring you. There is no free speech here; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and that image did nothing to help improve the article. You keep right on pushing fringe views around PSCI topics and we will see where that rope goes, won't we? Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comprehensive coaching

Hello Jytdog,

I just wanted to say that over time, I've been trying to do more editing on the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) page, not having much luck. But I have to say that the detailed tips and rules list that you made for me has been the most helpful. Definitely you spent more time on my behalf than other editors. This is like learning law! Just wanted to say thank you for your extra time and effort. Listenforgood (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sorry i have not been able to swing back by and look at your refs. I am sympathetic to your plight. There are not a lot of high quality sources about Charlotte's Web cannabis and you are going to have a hard time generating good content until some exist. Hopefully the folks who make it will start working more with academics who will publish, so stuff will get into the literature. Medical cannabis is just a wierd, wierd space. I plan to work on the whole suite around cannabinoids/cannabis after I tackle a couple of other big jobs, so I will be swinging back around to you eventually! Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Realm of Caring is working with Johns Hopkins University on a new observational study. I totally agree medical info has to be solid.

Absolutely. "As the legal landscape for medical marijuana unfolds, it is important to distinguish [medical marijuana] from “medical CBD” and other specific cannabinoids."

Thank you! My thoughts: Charlotte's Web (cannabis) should be a page about the plant, and maybe it's history of being introduced by the media as cannabis. A new page, Charlotte's Web (Hemp Extract), should be about the Stanley product using the actual name it's called now. Your thoughts?

Re: The Cannabidiol page: Would the following reference be considered a primary source, or a summary (another word for review??): "Multiple small studies of CBD safety in humans in both placebo-controlled and open trials have demonstrated that it is well tolerated across a wide dosage range. No significant central nervous system side effects, or effects on vital signs or mood, have been seen at doses of up to 1500 mg/day (p.o.) or 30 mg (i.v.) in both acute and chronic administration." Your thoughts?

References

Listenforgood (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

on the charlotte's web thing. I don't agree with what you propose there. The charlotte's web plant and the extract from it are both are undefined things, the first with a ton of media hype, the second slickly packaged marketing. so from a science perspective they are in the same murky waters. neither has been well-studied.

Cannabidiol is a specific chemical. The article you link to is a review article. We need talk about what "review" articles are, i guess, and how you figure out whether an article is a review.... Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The CW thing: I agree with you completely; CW/plant and CW/extract AND "medical marijuana" is very undefined. An encyclopedia should be defining and illuminating. Most people can't define hemp properly. My thought:

1) Recreational pot = psychoactive, and who knows what you're actually getting

2) THC-dominant medical marijuana - psychoactive side effects present

3) THC-CBD balanced medical marijuana - 1:1 ratio of CBD-to-TCH - psychoactive

4) CBD-dominant medical marijuana - 2:1, 5:2, 20:1 ratios of CBD-to-THC - diminished psychoactivity

5) Medical CBD hemp - 30:1 ratio: < or = 0.3% THC, no psychoactivity

So-called "medical marijuana" is HORRIBLE for my son who has schizophrenia. THC has sent him to the hospital more than once.

The clinical reviews about "cannabinoids" (which usually are blending-in significant amounts of THC - emphasis: cannabis) confound the reader about the medicinal impact from the nearly-single cannabinoid (CBD emphasis: hemp) in CW. Specifics could be noted on one page, but using better sub-headings?

The kids and families regaining their lives built the story that built the marketing. The story of penicillin had a different origin in the '20's (scientists get credit), but the story/origin of CW (farmer ? families ? get credit) is honestly steeped in our current media-saturated culture.

Cannabidiol: usually I see the word "review" or "systematic review" -- this particular "summary" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707667/#R67 confused me. Is the above text/source ok to post on the cannabidiol page? Thank you so much! (and thank you for re-aligning my copy... I'll get this)Listenforgood (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Be silent?

I really hope that with this edit summary, you didn't intend the meaning to be, basically, "STFU" because that is the tone it has. Also, look at the source material, it is directly what the source states, careful wording is deliberate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It meant let the content be silent, which is precisely what the edit did. I did not mean shut the fuck up. We cannot seem to agree on very basic things here, and the content is basically saying nothing, so why include it. This is a common solution to problems like this Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you clarified your meaning. OK, so no harm, no foul there. That said, your edit was not in line with what the source material said. It wasn't "silent," it was negating beyond what the source could verify. You really do need to look at those sources, because the language used is probably chosen for a reason and we really should stay as close to it as we can without venturing into too-close paraphrasing territory. Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Easypod

Jytdog, I've begun making some changes to the Easypod page. You moved some material to the talk page, along with a note about how it puts UNDUE weight on a primary source. I initially introduced that info because I thought this study added to the notability of the device. Wasn't aware of the MEDRS guideline. If I delete this content from the article can I safely remove the neutrality message? I realize there are still other issues to address in the article, and I'm hoping others may accept the invitation to improve it. In the meantime, I've removed several of the images and tried to rewrite some content in a more straightforward manner. Medscrib (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article you wrote only sang the praises of the device and instructed people how to use it. But I had found, and linked for you, two independent review articles (secondary sources) that mention this device. They discuss positives and negatives; how it is better than pre-existing devices in some ways, and worse in others. The sourcing you used was poor - primary or not-independent - and that, along with your desire to please your client (and being unfamiliar with WP and its policies), all together caused the initial article - and the existing draft - to fail NPOV. Starting with really excellent independent secondary sources is essential for writing good WP content. Find them, read them, summarize them plainly, and your content can "stick". I am not sure the device meets NOTABILITY yet and whether they can be article, but even if it doesn't, content that is sourced very well and summarizes the sources well, can still be used in some other existing article. This is why starting out with independent, secondary sources is essential. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, grammatically at least, your sentence that begins "I am not sure the device meets..." doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I think I get the gist. You mention you linked two independent secondary source review articles that mention the device. I'd like to review them and incorporate that content but where did you link them? I don't see the links. I'm actually interested to see negative review material about the device. (I'm sure to the extent it exists, Merck would want to see that, too.) I guess my bigger question is this: Do I personally remove your NPOV message once I feel I've edited the article to be more balanced (with higher quality references) or do you do that once you're satisfied? I guess I'll have to read up more on what the word NOTABILITY means in a Wikipedian context. Seems to me like it must be different from the everyday meaning of the word. Medscrib (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, again. I wanted to thank you again here for your recent additions to the Easypod Talk page. Really very helpful. I'm wondering about another thing that I hope you can answer for me here, as it goes beyond the Easypod issue. I've disclosed that I'm working for a client, but that work is only for the Easypod work. If I decide I want to contribute to Wikipedia in an independent fashion, and not representing that client, how do I do that without people thinking I'm editing on the client's behalf, or having my other work reflect in any way on that client? Does that question make sense? I realize you don't need to help with this, but I know you also value the dialogue and want to improve the community, so I thought I'd ask.Medscrib (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You also seem surprised that I've taken offense at some of your previous posts, so (with respect) I thought I'd give you some feedback that might give you some insight into that: When you nominated the post for speedy deletion, you wrote "Speedied it. Hurry on over" or something to that effect. You wrote that this was the most overt piece of advertising you'd ever seen on Wikipedia. In your recent post -- the one you said I took personally, you seemed to be making the decision about whether there should be an easypod post on behalf of all Wikipedia. And then in one of your recent posts you said something like "If you get a real business going". While it adds spice and life to the conversation , those kinds of statements and behaviours also get someone's back up. For what it's worth. Again, I sincerely appreciate your recent additions to the Easypod Talk page and your willingness to engage in a deeper conversation.Medscrib (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being inordinately nice. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that sentiment. It is so moved. =) EllenMcGill (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well-deserved and earned! I saw your friendly and patient efforts to educate our mutual COI friend. And your sincere expression of regret when you saw that he'd turned away from the straight path you showed him – that too was a mark of your character, and impressed me even more. (I regret I didn't find a quiet way to give you an early heads-up that I'd requested an SPI.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that is very kind of you. Thanks for your work with them too! Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

ACCF

Regarding this edit, I want you to know I wasn't trying to sloganeer for anyone by adding it (though I gather from your edit summary that you thought the DC IP had added it?)--I just wanted a compact mission statement from the group, and that was the best I could come up with. The italics, on the other hand, were the IP's. I've got no objection to your taking it out, though (and feel free to doublecheck me elsewhere, too).

BTW, my assumption is that this IP is another FP1 attack dog--more on that article's talk page. EllenMcGill (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. hm. I don't think we should re-broadcast mission statements that way, but if you think it is great pls feel free to restore it. I generally stay out of political articles Far far away. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I trust your judgement on that. EllenMcGill (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Message from Realmessage

It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Realmessage (talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, as usual. --Edcolins (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Elohim

Jt, you are quite right in deleting this. But maybe you can say something to this person to let him down gently. (?) Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:PraeceptorIP - I replied to them in this dif. I have copied that reply below. Please tell me, what do you think of what I wrote?

Hi Realmessage. Thanks for your note. Thanks too for acknowledging that you are new to Wikipedia. Please be aware that although this is indeed "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this place is not a wild west - there is kind of "rule of law" here. The community has developed what we call policies and guidelines that govern content and editor behavior. Your edit violated several of those policies. This is not a terrible thing! A lot of people who first come here don't understand the policies. But you are obligated to try to understand them, and to follow them. This is actually part of the "terms of service" that you agreed to when you created your account, and that you again agree to each time you edit. The relevant policies are WP:OR (you cannot add your own thoughts or beliefs to Wikipedia), instead, per the policy WP:VERIFY, everything you add needs to be directly supported by what we consider to be a reliable source (which ideally is independent of the subject). The actual content that gets added needs to be what we call neutral - you need to actually try to write without coloring what the literature says, and to give what we call "weight" to content according to what is in the literature. Finally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to promote any perspective. Your edit violated every one of those policies. If that doesn't make sense to you I can try to explain more, but please do have a read of each of those policies before you react. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

do let me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it could have been a little lighter in tone. But it is certainly within the zone of fair comment and not worth my second guessing you (or appropriate that I do so). PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same thing I wrote to you. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ramy El-Batrawi article

Hi there,

Thank you for editing my article, but I have been reading about mr. El-Batrawi, collecting a lot of information about him for couple of years. And you deleted everything I wrote. I would like to use the information I collected for many years. So how can we fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrich77 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 April 2016‎ (UTC)

It is not your article. Please discuss article content at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey mate,

Thanks for deleting my edits at Imperial Chemical Industries. Apparently a major fire that injured 60+ firefighters and led to major reforms of the Fire Service is non-notable newspaper fodder. Shit like this is I quit editing wikipedia a few years ago. Good to see nothing has changed. I'm out.

-- I bet you'll delete this too

Sorry you are upset. Sources? Right article for that stuff? Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Swami article

Hi, not sure if you saw my question at Talk:Swami Premananda (guru). Maybe it doesn't matter anymore since socks probably aren't trustworthy anyway. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to be clearer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

…in your accusation that I personalized the Cladogram issue. Your threat of ANI contained no links. The matter for me is purely "academic"—is this a proper application of the tool, or not? I am persuadable otherwise, but I suspect not. It appears likely to be a misuse of a quantitative graphic analytical device—whose line lengths are intended to convey quantitative information—to present qualitative information that is therefore misleading, and that otherwise makes articles much harder to edit (in the area of the information to which the graphic analysis is misapplied). There is nothing personal in my views, or analysis. You need to make clear, here if possible, what it is you are getting at, in threatening me. And, as I have been away from that matter, for personal reasons, I will look to the discussion that you started. But I am sure that I am too late (and guessing that no one thought carefully about what I had already stated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 you obviously personalised the issue - all you need to do is look at my talk page, your comments are almost laughable. Demanding 'this' and 'that' needs to be done. Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort, yet you seem to lack the ability to do this. All someone needs to do is look at the state of your talk page. It's littered with comments from other editors calling you out, it seems like all you want to do is fight with others:

1. Personalising the issue on my TP
2. Warned about 'non-neutral wording' on project TPs
3. Excessive over tagging & excessive comments at Acetone peroxide, notified by Boghog
4. A second notification of your excessive comments at Villa Baviera, again notified by Boghog
5. Another editor (Turdas) warning you of tag bombing at Merlin Mann
6. Displaying article ownership qualities at Scum of the Earth Church, then edit war & disruptive edit warnings, as notified by Walter Görlitz

XyZAn (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

Thank you for this AM (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for NPOV part 1: secondary sources

I have read and I am about to re-read some sections of your user page and I find it very interesting and very well explained. Ferrer1965 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Damn we were supposed to talk today but I got completely absorbed by the stuff below and forgot. Try tomorrow? Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Block and ban

Jytdog, editor NeatGrey wasn't banned; they were blocked, and as it turns out, incorrectly so. I've already removed a few of the strike-outs you made; please check to see what contributions you reverted or negated and undo that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, User:Drmies, what is the deal then with this, the other "sock"? On NeatGrey's page you wrote something about WP:CLEANSTART, but if the other account is Spectra239, the two accounts worked extensively in the same fields, and as I understand it part of clean start is that you walk completely away from the area where the other account did worked. Can you help me understand this what is going on here? To be clear my concern for the encyclopedia has two parts. First, the transhumanist articles in WP are highly disrupted at the moment, and these accounts are right in the midst of that. (there appear to be at least two "camps" that are coordinating off-wiki... hard for me to sort out). But lots of turmoil here on Wiki. Secondly, Neatguy has the trappings of a paid editor and I was considering filing a COIN about this to have those especially paid-like articles looked at. And the oldest account among the two of them is from Dec 2015 but there appears to be a very experienced Wikipedian working these accounts; it appears that there is a yet older account somewhere. I laid some of this out here. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Single user let their own account go, starts a new one. CLEANSTART addresses really only problematic/problematicized accounts, which isn't what was going on here: the old account wasn't in any trouble. I don't know why the picked a new one, the old name was cool, but they did, and they shouldn't have been blocked. By the same token, they should have placed a note announcing the et cetera. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying User:Drmies (pinging you as I won't presume you are watching this page). I agree with you that Spectra239 was not under any active blocks and that they need to record the accounts on each page, and make it clear that the Spectra239 account is abandoned.

However their edits were coming into focus for me as problematic, and they knew that - see here for example, and their strange response. I can walk you through that if you like. I think they were also coming into focus for User:DavidGerard per Spectra239's edits on Cryonics and this AfD. The abandoning of the old account and starting a new one was not good faith in my view. It is also very hard for me to believe that there are not accounts older than Spectra239 - their editing is very good and they are sophisticated in their understanding of how this place works - way beyond someone who started here in Dec 2015 (their contribs). My preference (for what that's worth) would have been that lifting the block was made dependent on disclosing yet older accounts that may have abandoned the same way. Not sure you all asked about that. Would you consider re-instating the block and making the unblock dependent on disclosure of past accounts? I am considering opening a COIN case to address my concerns about paid editing and past accounts to see what the community can figure out from on-wiki (see here for the list of articles they have created. They are actually pretty good editors (I like a lot of their editing, which is incisive and well sourced, always) but something hinky is going on. What do you think?? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

adding correct ping here User:David Gerard Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Jytdog, you know I'm on this talk page like ham on rye. I have no opinion on NeatGrey's comments/contents, or that of the previous account. Bbb23 ran CU and that's how NeatGrey got blocked; if there had been more accounts I am sure he would have blocked them (I think it's $5 for a "collateral" CU block--slim pickings, but Bbb has a high grocery bill). No, I'm not going to reblock them: if the account makes problematic edits, those need to be dealt with in the usual method; socking and CU and all that are, by fiat of ArbCom, no longer an issue. Please keep in mind that there are only problems if a. accounts collude in discussions; b. old accounts were in serious trouble and new accounts get in the same hot water in the same area. None of that applies here. Later, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, i am hearing you. Super clear. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• In other news--so you know the user was initially CU-blocked, and the way to get CU-unblocked is to go through, you guessed it, ArbCom. You know also that I'm one of your biggest fans here, even if I confuse you sometimes with JzG/Guy, who also has a G and a Y in his name. But some of my colleagues on ArbCom are less than happy when they see your name come up again, and it is entirely possible that I saw one of them say that "Jytdog needs to calm the fuck down". No, not possible--Arbs don't talk like that. By the same token, they have to deal with a request, look into the evidence, investigate and bribe witnesses, post motions and arbitrate decisions, etc etc. It's all very tedious and takes away from our main occupation, which is lounging in San Francisco surrounded by groupies.

  But here's the thing. If I remember correctly you got brought up on ANI or AN not too long ago (or was it an ArbCom request?) where your detractors said you were being overzealous in your prosecution of COI cases. In this case I think that may have been a possibility, and I think it is a good idea to be more...not careful..."discerning", I think that's the best term. I don't rightly know why in this case NeatGrey was included with the others in the SPI, since in at least some of the discussions they were leaning in the opposite direction, if I remember correctly. Just a word to the wise. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to take that wisely. :) It was actually NeatGrey who brought that recent ANI case btw... which I now understand since I had asked his prior self about editing with a conflict. Thanks for the taking the time to write to me. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is on this page like peanut butter on pizza, as well as being a fish who likes to beat dead horses, I read with great interest Drmies' posting of what another Arb did not say. Someone sure sounds grumpy over there (I'm betting they missed their nap, or maybe just need to be burped), but it's grumpiness accompanied by great power, sort of. Smart dogs learn that some people form rigid opinions based upon impressions instead of upon detailed examination of the facts, so presenting a good impression is a good idea. Hey look: [1], [2]. That's how Tryptofish lounges with groupies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Trypto. those are great examples of smoooooth, non-sharp, not-a-pattern-of-alarming-behavior disagreement. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Even though I felt like punching that editor for what they were saying about the survivors of a suicide victim. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

yes that whole self-restraint thing is so important here; my slipping my own leash too often is what provided grounds for my TBAN. btw how does a fish punch? maybe you just trout? :) Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well-said! I imagine that a lamprey might sucker-punch. You can lead a trout to water, but you cannot tuna fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily paid editing; the main problem with bad editors in transhumanism is that they are relentless advocates, and think the rest of humanity is just incorrect for not being as enthusiastic as they are, so immediately leap to accusations of bad faith, shilling and COI (a.k.a. The Personal Attack That's Allowed) when someone says "what, no, this is all rubbish". Lots of advocates, all networked. (compare cryptocurrency editors, who are similarly networked relentless advocates who think the rest of humanity is just incorrect, and are in it for the money.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am staying out of the deletion arguments for the most part. I cannot figure out what is causing this huge ruckus in transhumanist articles now. It has definitely drawn advocates out of the woodwork, some of whom are employees of transhumanist institutions so are arguably paid editors. But do you know what is driving the ruckus? Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that COI accusations - actual accusations - are flung way too quickly. Which why I ask people. :) Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The wiki family

For all you and I spat on some articles, we appear to be in accord on helping out some folks. It's all just one big happy, dysfunctional wiki-family at times, isn't it? Kudos where due for a well-timed remark. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Danielle Sheypuk

A tag has been placed on Danielle Sheypuk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to do that cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Diagrams

Regarding the short-comings of the M&A diagrams, I've done some digging in the template notes here & here (as well as this), and have come up with a semi-solution to the business units/divisions sold/spun off. It can be found here: Allergan – any thoughts? Your opinion is always appreciated. XyZAn (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Strepsils

Presumably you meant Talk:Throat lozenge. I've commented there. Is there another prior discussion of which I should be aware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I did, thanks! I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ANU Ranking

I need you to disclose your COI about education right now. I think you are destroying the article of ANU on purpose. Deleting the stellarator thing is OK but The "Computer Science Subject Ranking" I added yesterday is not a promotion and it is supported by cite source. What's more, you keep standing in the way of adding the Ranking Table which is supported by convincing cite sources. Ranking is not a promotional material but a performance evaluation. --Miyawaki kyoto (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

i don't have any COI about education. Look, you are a student there, and are all your edits have been about great the school is. That is really not OK. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page

I apologize. I truly wasn't aware that there was a huge block of discussion on the finasteride talk page that appeared in the last week. I haven't checked the talk page in months since I didn't see any reference to talk page discussion on the main article. However, even without reading the discussion, I do think it is extremely misleading to cherry pick half of a statement from the underlying source document to make it seem like finasteride side effects are rare. Frankly, the term "rare" is completely subjective and I don't believe a statement like that belongs in a scientific article per MEDRS. Doors22 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. See you at the Talk page if you want to continue discussing. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hello again, is there is a simpler way as the contributor of those articles, I can go ahead and do a delete without having to put it up for AfD ? I have saved the stuff in Sandbox and whenever I find relevant sources to support these articles (which I don't know when) at that stage maybe I can run it through a draft-> article creation process. Will be great if you can use your superpowers and knock those articles without wasting other editors time through lengthy AfD debates and possibly prevent another episode of my reacting to some other editor comments et al.. Would that work ? Cheers AM (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. The AfD on the book article is too far gone to stop. On the Shilpa Menon article, I can userify that for you. I'll do that now. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD put up for speedy, deletion log entry deleted, article userified, leftover page and talk page speedied. done. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

if you don't want the article that i userified you can request deletion by blanking it and pasting this "user requests deletion of a userpage" template on it: {{Db-userreq}}. I will leave that decision to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. What is better ? Userified or DB-userreq ? (Tempted to try new stuff here, maybe gives me a chance to try this DB-userreq).. AM (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. there are different "spaces" in Wikipedia. A "space" is defined by what comes before the title.

• Consensus is in "mainspace" and is an article about the concept of "consensus"
• Wikipedia:CONSENSUS is in "wikipedia space" and is our policy on consensus.
• Template:Consensus is some template about consensus, and it is in "template space".
• Draft:Consensus doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be a draft article on consensus. It is in "draft space"
• User:Jytdog/Consensus doesn't exist, but if it did, that would be something I am playing with in my "userspace"

"userification" is moving an article from main space to userspace. I could have "draftified" the Shilpa Menon article but it seemed better to move it into your userspace, for reasons I won't go into now. So the article is already userified: User:Ashleymillermu/Shilpa Menon. see? it is in "user space".

"DB-userreq" is a speedy deletion tag that is only for pages in your own userspace. You can't use it anywhere else. Above you said you saved stuff to a sandbox page. if that is all you need and the userified article is just clutter (or you don't want the userified article for some other reason), then you are free to tag it for deletion to get rid of it. That is what DB-userreq is for. You can use it to get rid of sandboxes, or any page in your userspace. If you want to keep the userified article and work on it, you are free to do that too. whatever you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks much. That was such an awesome explanation of how stuff works on Wikipedia. Wow. AM (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Virino Evaluation

Hi, I saw that you called the Virino hypothesiss on Prion original research. I also saw that you are on WikiProgect Medicane and that the Virino article has a template that says it needs to be evaluated by a medical professional as the scientific accuracy is questioned. Maybe you would like to Evaluate the Virino article if you are a doctor. Spidersmilk (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor but i will i do edit a lot in the health topics; i'll have a look. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you rollback changes to Effects of Porn page?

I edited this page last night and this morning see my changes have been removed by you. The page as it stands is biased and my edits added a significant number of quality references. Please revert to my saved page changes. UnicornRainbowMonkey (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but we discuss article changes at the Talk page - please feel free to raise this there. btw I did explain in my edit note here and as i promised there, i left this and this on your Talk page. Please read that stuff before you open a Talk page discussion. ThanksJytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there are big time differences between where you are and where I am so I am only now seeing your comments. Reading them now...

...saw the discussion titled "References" on my talk page and replied.

It appears that you found the article Talk page: Talk:Effects_of_pornography#JytDog_why_did_you_rollback_my_edits.3F. Great! That is the place to discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just noticed that you knew about the editor's COI for European Graduate School a month ago. Good job.

CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your revert in cancer immunotherapy

Hi, I appreciate your comment (too strong a statement on too weak a source) on the revert but I'm not sure how to address it. I can see now I worded it a little awkwardly. I guess you had time to read the source, so what statement wording do you think is justified ? Do you doubt the statement and want MEDRS, or do you accept it's essentially true and just want better/different sources ? (It almost seems a statement of the obvious given that checkpoint inhibitors allow lymphocytes to avoid their suppression by the tumour, and cancer prognosis (in many types) is widely accepted to relate to the level of TILs.) I thought what I wrote pretty much reflected the relevant part of the source but we could say "Dr X says ..." if you think it is a minority opinion. Cheers - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. Primarily yes the source is too weak to support such a broad claim; it would need a review. On top of that the source doesn't say "In GI cancers only tumors with Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes benefit from checkpoint inhibitor therapy." The thing about infiltrated tumors goes back to 2006 and is a general biomarker for better outcomes in colorectal (not all GI) cancers. The article cites PMID 17008531 for this. What he says is pretty complex - the overall goal of immunotherapy in GI cancers to is to achieve infiltration and I think he sees checkpoint inhibitors as part of that.

On a broader level, what Heery talked about at the conference, is current understandings based on work to date, which is a bunch of small, Phase I or II clinical trials. This is very far from "accepted knowledge" but rather is current state of what we think we might probably be true. But you stated this as a fact.

And this brings up a broader thing that I have been wanting to figure out how/where/when to discuss with you. You and I share an interest (along with just a few others that I am aware of in WP) in the process of drug discovery and development and the role of companies in bringing in new medicines to market, and I have been glad to see your interest in that stuff. But I'm ... uncomfortable with your editing. A lot of it, in my view, bleeds over into WP:NOTNEWS kind of stuff (reporting clinical trial results in detail), and you fairly often make edits like the one I reverted, where you express "here is what we currently think is going on" as "here is what we know". I'd like to ask you to consider keeping in mind that especially in drug development, what looks promising in early trials often turns out to be a dud, and even extremely well validated hypotheses end up being falsified when they are finally tested in big trials (best known example of that is the "antioxidants prevent cancer" hypothesis, shockingly proved to be 180 degrees wrong in the SELECT trial). I am sorry if this seems intrusive, but I hope you are open to discussing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Keratoconus

I just read the WP:ELNO which you linked and I understand why you removed the blog. but why did you remove other organizations? Keratoconus Support and Awareness and UK Keratoconus Self Help and Support Group? also, this blog is actually homepage of the largest support community available and it is full of helpful articles shared by kc patients, I think there should be an exception. k18s (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And... why did you keep Keratoconus Australia Association? how is it different with others which you removed? k18s (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I should have removed the Australia one - thanks! In general WP articles are meant to convey encyclopedic accepted knowledge, we generally don't proliferate ELs to support groups for diseases/conditions. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Opiod Replacement Therapy (ORT)

Hui, I just wanted to ask you a few questiosn about the redirect for the ORT article. Looking at the two pages, I agree the ORT article itself needed to be updated a bit to better account for the medical, as well as social rationale for that kind of treatment. That being said, the ORT seems really to need to be Main article for the management section. If that sounds good to you, I'd be happy to recreate the ORT page, add the appropriate content to the recreated page, and add the main tag. Bpmcneilly (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss at Talk:Opioid use disorder - I'll start a section there. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ethereum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have flagged this your behavior on the referenced Talk page. And I further invite you to, if you believe your vague attack is in any way justified, to take it to the proper forum where your vague allegations would need to be made specific, could be constructively responded to, and evaluated by non-involved administrators to review your assertions. N2e (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh N2e this is the very wrong direction. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For the spectators: the above is in regards to conflict of interest on Ethereum, with N2e being one of the conflicted - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh no drama. They had a point in that I should have raised my concerns on their Talk page not on the article Talk page. I have struck at the article talk page and opened a discussion at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure

I have voluntarily disclosed that I am a post-finasteride-syndrome patient. That is enough disclosure for my editing purposes on the finasteride page. You have not answered whether you are a paid editor or whether you have edited Wikipedia under different sock accounts. I have also previously requested that you not write on my talk page in the past which you just disrespected. Doors22 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No (socking), and no (paid editing). My apologies for forgetting that you asked me not to post on your page; I just went to self-revert but you had already done that. Would you please respond about whether you are participating in the litigation? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a personal policy of not disclosing personal information on Wikipedia. It quickly becomes a slippery slope. I stated that I am a PFS patient and that is enough. You should be able to respect this as you slipped up last year and posted a reference URL that revealed personally identifying information that you had stricken in short order. However, as I have stated in the past, my hope is to ensure Wikipedia has the most up-to-date safety information on this drug so consumers can make an informed decision on whether they want to take the risks for cosmetic purposes. It is also worth highlighting there is currently no reference of any litigation in the article so it doesn't really matter. Doors22 (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is relevant to conflict of interest. No one here cares what you are name is; what matters are relationships. Your question about paid editing was relevant and I answered it. Please answer: are you participating in litigation or not? It absolutely matters and is discussed in the COI guideline, as I already mentioned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You are violating both the WP:CRY guideline and WP:AGF. I have already disclosed long ago that I am a PFS patient which explains my thorough knowledge of the subject matter. I have been very upfront about my motivation for my involvement in the finasteride article which is to promote accurate public knowledge. Just because your misrepresentation of Belknap's research has been exposed does not mean you can aggressively point fingers at others and change the topic. You cannot get aggressive and accuse people of having "inside information" and conflicts of interest just to distract from your own bad behavior.Doors22 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But to the question "are you participating in litigation or not?", the answer is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)