User talk:Jytdog

Help with MSK BLPs

Hey Jytdog, hope you're well. I've been working on improving the BLPs of a few Memorial Sloan Kettering doctors, and I was wondering if you had the time or interest in vetting my work. I appreciate the standard you hold me to, and you were a big help with making the MSKCC page what it is now.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:FacultiesIntact sure, where? Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I'm wrapping up work on a couple, but my sandbox for Joan Massagué is ready to go. It's mostly reorganizing the content in the Biography and Scientific contributions sections, and then consolidating his achievements into a separate section. Thanks for taking a look.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I've got another draft ready for review if you're still available. This one is for Craig B. Thompson and focused on streamlining and reorganizing the biography and scientific career sections. I also added in references that were missing from the current article where I could find them. Also, thank you for adding the US News ranking to the MSKCC article! Could I ask you for a small tweak so that it reads "2017-2018" instead of just 2017? The rankings are structured for the year range, not just the singular year.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you still have any time to take a look at these? I don't mean to pester you, I know you keep pretty busy around here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Impella

What is the problem here? Why was it removed? I will try to fix it and re-post it again. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.146.137 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2017‎

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. -- Dane ^talk 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the other editor has proposed a compromise. Can you please review the compromise and respond with your thoughts? Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Jytdog. The other editor has accepted a proposed solution to start a formal RfC on this issue. Please comment at the DRN board if you agree to this resolution or if you disagree. Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Urine therapy

Hello,

Someone added Hinduism and Islam WITHOUT SOURCE in July 2017. Was this not "tendentious" edits? No one removed it for 3 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=790285097&oldid=789517381

But as soon as I removed it, you guys added it back

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=803309869&oldid=803308925

This source DOES NOT even say that it is a tradition in Hinduism. So, I added other religions using SAME author (Joseph S. Alter) and SAME publisher ( Princeton University Press)

Now you removed it all saying that "one-off is not a tradition".

How is one of not a tradition for Christianity, but it is a tradition for Hinduism? Is this not clear cut bias?

Please post this at the article talk page. I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OK

OK - give me a few hours - through today. MaynardClark (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Sorry for the trouble but policy is policy blah blah. It feels weird but it is wierd Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

yes. MaynardClark (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Adam Conover, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BrillLyle (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BrillLyle. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Adam Conover. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You are obviously following my edits and removing content when I add it to Wiki What? subjects. This constitutes harassment. BrillLyle (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. We are already talking on the talk page. Your claims about harassment are dead wrong; I am following the additions of Wiki What to WP. If you are doing them, then I am going to see those edits and react to them. It is not about you. I already wrote that at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Morrison EC

Give me another 30 minutes to finish my whacks at that John Morrison article and then you can have at it. I agree there was too much cruft in it, but I think I can at least trim it down and you can have at it again from there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am done with that bit. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the stuff you added and put it back in. I'm done there too. Carry on... Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy! Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Jytdog, You cannot warn editors for "edit warring" when they've only reverted your edit one time on an article. Per bold, revert, discuss, ElKevbo reverted your edit so now you need to discuss. By you reverting his edits, you are the one engaging in an edit war (and looks like you've already been reported once where I've also left a note), not him. I will watch this page closely and if you continue, you'll be reported (again). I think you need to review these policies. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course I can. The template exists to warn the person to start using the talk page. - that is why it exists. And I gave it after their 2nd time making the change, not after the first one. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They haven't edited that page since May 2017 and his other reverts for that IP had nothing to do with rankings. Not sure how that is edit warring. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I reckoned they were the same person. If they were not then the warning was too soon. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Although if you are wrong, this wouldn't be the first instance of you misplacing a warning tag based on editor intuition.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AManchester_VA_Medical_Center&type=revision&diff=802429861&oldid=797603788} KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions

Hi, I saw that you asked if we could talk, and then took that out. I'm available for that if you want, just send me an email. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey Bards

Some while ago, I saw a band called The Whiskey Bards. I wanted to know more about the group. Wikipedia had nothing. I started researching the group. I got a little information. I hoped that if I created the page, someone else would flesh it out a little more. I had made some other pages, all of them accepted, but I made a mistake and used the Draft creation page for this one. The objections to my draft did not apply the actual guidelines set by Wikipedia. They added words to the guidelines when citing them, but when l checked the guidelines, those words were not there. I found some new reference sources, and went to try again. But my draft had been deleted. So I redid it in the way I created the other pages I'd made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybotik (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It is much better to work with the community than against it. If you would like we can move it to draft space and put it through AfC again. If you have more refs it could potentially fly now.... Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So my article is marked for deletion because the ego of the reviewer was hurt. It has nothing to do with the actual guidelines of Wikipedia. Fine. Move it to the draft space. Cybotik (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not about ego. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You said yourself it's about working with the community. That means it's not about the guidelines. It's not about the information provided. It's about the politics, flattering the reviewers, playing nice, appeasing hurt feelings. Cybotik (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You want to persist in misunderstanding me, knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

IoM

That Health in the Isle of Man page you merged has returned, with the WP:NOT#NEWS / WP:RECENTISM trivia in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Why WP:MEDRS exists

Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to pop in, say hello, and let you know that I am really enjoying your essay. I am going to assist the prof at Queen's tomorrow, giving an intro to WP:MEDRS for med students. You have done a great job with this essay (in my opinion). Do you mind if I share it with them?

Kind regards,

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It is still too long! Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just read/skimmed to the bottom. I am going to use some of your points in a short powerpoint presentation (if you do not mind). I am trying to demonstrate the difference between a publication in a medical journal, and Wikipedia. Your work sums this up nicely! I will provide them with the link to your essay if they are interested in reading further. Thanks again.

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad you find it useful. Please use however you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreskin

I semi'd it and #RR warned Anton.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

thx Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ourcampaigns.com

Hi there, I saw your message from early September about my use of ourcampaigns.com as a reference for election results. First, you're correct that if there was an alternate reference choice, I should have used it. I've gone back and adjusted some of my references to use websites such as actual vote reports archived at archive.org and from other official sources. However, as to the categorizing of ourcampaigns.com as spam, I would have fought this had I known about it. The website only permits users who have contributed multiple comments to correct certain things on the site to have any editing power. I work as a political analyst and have done a lot of work creating election result data sets, and in my experience, the election results at ourcampaigns.com very rarely contain errors. Best, GeoffreyVS 19:03, 4 October 2017 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyVS (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You do that by typing four tildas at the end - the wikipedia software converts the tildas (four, not three and not five) into links to your user and talk pages and the date stamp when you save your edit.

What made is "spamming" was the way you were using the source.

If you want to explore whether the community considers it reliable or WP:USERGENERATED, please ask at WP:RSN. Please be sure to provide an example of its use so that people can see the kind of content you were sourcing from it. If you have some connection with the site, please be sure you disclose that too. thx Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Roche

Sorry Jytdog, I strongly disagree with your opinion. This is not a fair comment - in case of a pharmaceutical company it should be allowed to mention at least the product groups and field of activities of this companies. This is not promotion ! Not even product names have been mentioned by me. The information I added is of general interest.Giessauf A (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Giessauf A (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. I have opened a discussion there: Talk:Hoffmann-La_Roche#Pharmaceuticals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Formal request to desist

Hey, JYT, I get the sense that you believe that I need monitoring regarding the edits I now make to Wikipedia. I am letting you know, formally, that I would like you to allow others to do some of that instead of you. If, for example, the suggestions I make somewhere really are problematic, it would be great if you would allow other editors the chance to respond to those problems without having you adding commentary-- if the problem is real, surely you are not the only person who is capable of pointing it out. I feel like I am being babysat, and it has become more than a little uncomfortable. I am not a newbie here, and I respectfully request that you stop participating in discussions I have with other editors, frankly, on any topic-- not because your comments are never useful, but because they are unnecessary and because I have grown tired of it. Wikipedia will not rise of fall because of your monitoring of me, I assure you, and it will be okay even if you allow me to engage other editors without your assistance. Consider this a formal request from me you to no longer interact with me on sections of those pages (article, talk, policy, etc.) I decide to place an edit, and to do so because I am finding that interaction to be unhelpful to those involved, me in particular. I have done my full duty to disclose my acts as a paid editor on Wikipedia, and as a result you have (from my perspective/ experience) done little but harangue me by calling that disclosure inadequate and partial, and to describe my editing behavior to be beneath what you personally consider to be "best practices." By offering a disclosure, it seems I have made myself a bright red target for your "paid-COI" goggles, and I am tiring of the attention. At this point I get the sense you would rather have me crucified for my disclosure-- that is not what the policies there are meant to allow you to do, they are meant to punish those who have not made such disclosures. Worst of all, your constant attention has made me wonder about the wisdom of having disclosed in the first place... Because I suspect I am not the only editor who feels this way about you. This means that your behavior seems likely to drive paid editing underground once more, and if that is your goal, I can only tell you that it is likely to succeed! Sir, I am not your target, and am tired of you perceiving me as one. I have suggested this to you in the past, and I am frustrated that you still cannot see or understand it, so I must now ask you in no uncertain terms to desist-- politely-- as I see few other ways of ending this between us. These sentiments also go towards user:DocJames, who has joined you in this effort and whom I encourage to come here by mentioning him by name and tagging it (which is obviously important). Thank you (both) for considering my request. There is no need to respond-- in fact, your silence here could be your first step in meeting that request. At this point, I would much rather that than an attempt at justification/ explanation, Ok? Cheers! KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have watched you personalize this. I am not hounding you. I do hope that you will eventually understand this whole paid editing thing you have entered into so that your participation in that, can become drama-free for everyone. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Figgep and COI

Hey, Jytdog. Can we get your opinion on the following User talk:Figgep#Warning? A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New discussion at Donald Gary Young

Hey there, would you mind looking at the last several edits and the new talk page section over at Donald Gary Young and weighing in? I'm pinging you and bd2412 as you were the last two editors discussing the article. A Train^talk 23:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Any leeway on MEDRS?

Working on Egg allergy. At the moment, citations 19, 28 and 28 are primary. Which I recently added. Your opinion on those? If they gotta go, they will go. I think the rest are secondary or guidelines, but I have not completed my review/rewrite. Thanks. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The stuff about hydrolyzing egg protein is research, not treatment, so doesn't belong in that section. In general we avoid citing primary sources in research sections too, or those sections just end up being a compendium of X did Y in Z year. So this is one to leave out.

The two longitudinal studies in the prognosis section are more interesting. They line up with the review and with each other and are decently-sized. I could see how you would be tempted to use them there. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)::

I deleted the sentence and ref about hypoallergenic eggs. I also reverted your edit, because I believe in error you deleted Martin-Munoz and substituted Arik, which does not address the concept of egg and milk proteins showing up unlabeled in probiotic products. On Prognosis, I will keep an eye on the lit for when a newer review is in print. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The rest of this we can discuss at the article. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

rebranding of university of malta

Any particular reason for the removals of my additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.135.17 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

it is not PR! this is a significant change for the university, it has used the same logo for decades! I am not associated with any of the websites involved. I came to Wikipedia to check the details and when I found nothing decided to add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.135.17 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. If you post the message above there, i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

sorry I am new at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptormlt (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

template 'Paid'

Why are we allowing paid editors, of all people, to mess with our templates. I think I have two choices here: either finally block them, or full protect the template if we can identify the last stable revision. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kudpung Do you mean lobbying on the talk page or actually making changes? sorry i am not sure what you mean... 04:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Cryonics

Would you mind explaining why you removed ALL of my recent work on cryonics? What exactly gives you the right to do so? Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you set out individual items that you would like to add to the article on the talk page for discussion, and obtain a consensus for inclusion of those items. bd2412 T 22:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacing the summary of content with info about copyrights in the ACIM lead

Hi Jytdog,

As I understand it, Wikipedia is meant to be a place where people who come to find out information on topics can find it out as quickly as possible. Apparently you believe that copyright information on a book is more important to our readers than an actual summary of the books contents, in a books article lead. Is that correct?

Scott P. (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Let me take a wild guess: no? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

Hello, belatedly noticed your comment in the September spam archive - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2017_Archive_Sep_1 - where would I start a discussion to establish consensus for adding links to open access repositories as suggested?— Preceding unsigned comment added by OAnick (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, and for being willing to seek consensus. I ~think~ WP:RSN would probably be the place to start - that is where people who think about sourcing hang out. They might direct you elsewhere, but that is a reasonable place to start. I suggest opening a new thread there, explaining briefly what the archive is and your relationship with it, and ask folks what they think about starting to add links to it throughout WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I've also come here because the WikiProject Spam thread is archived. In sum, User:OAnick, a user at a British university, has added links to open access versions of Nature papers—drafts deposited by the researchers themselves with their university library—to citations in Wikipedia articles. You've told that user to stop, treated their involvement in the repository as a conflict of interest, and told them to "build consensus" on an unspecified noticeboard. When pressed for a specific noticeboard, you've recommended the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with the proviso that it won't resolve the issue.

1. Please think about how this looks. We already have plenty of consensus that giving access to OA alternative links, through a legitimate gateway, improves the encyclopaedia. There's no Wikipedia principle that puts the interests of Nature Publishing Group (in getting paywall hits) above the interests of the readers of Wikipedia in getting access to reliable sources. Think about the work done by volunteers and WIRs to build these relationships with universities and libraries, that can be wasted if people on-wiki are careless. Think about the potential reputational damage to Wikipedia from these newbie-biting events.
2. Clearly, the official repository of a university library is not a spam site. Even if it initially "looked" like spam, that's no excuse once it became clear the spam result was a false positive. You even bring up that "The discussion should probably note that the White Rose people say here that White Rose Research Online will track views and downloads." There's no reason why this information matters: web sites track how much usage they get and this makes no difference to whether that site provides value to Wikipedia's readers.
3. It's fair to query a user's behaviour that might not be totally in accordance with our rules. You didn't just "query" OAnick's behaviour: you told him to stop. OAnick should have added the archive links as additional links, not replacing the official URL of the paper (and should have been advised to do this). I don't agree that the next step should involve the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That just passes OAnick on to them, who will tell him to start a discussion elsewhere, and the terrible newcomer experience continues. How about he does what he's been doing, which isn't a "widespread change", so long as he uses the template in the proper way? What he's doing is improving the encyclopedia, and something we want more university staff to do. We actively campaign for librarians to add citations to Wikipedia: it's not in that spirit to accuse them from the outset of a Conflict Of Interest because they are involved in Open Access.

After posting this comment, I will notify WikiProject Open Access of this discussion and the original thread. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, pleased to meet you. We have not interacted before.

You have made strong claims here. I reject all of them.

So that's that.

If you would on the other hand like to have a discussion that is open and doesn't mischaracterize what I have done and beg all the questions at the outset, I would be happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that WikiProject Open Access would be a good place for the discussion, we could notify other relevant places and noticeboards of it too... —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both, must admit that as a new user, I'm at a bit of a loss to appreciate how adding links to legal OA versions of journal articles can be an issue. Would it allay your concerns if I was to use - and advocate others to use - archiveurl / archivedate instead of replacing the Nature URI? My logic was that I had not removed or changed the DOI which points at the version of record (though there might be some argument for Wikipedia to adopts OADOI! https://oadoi.org/)

Thanks for your note. Making changes widely across WP is not a small thing. I had linked to a discussion we had at one of the "WikiProjects" here about another group that was going through articles and adding links to their archive - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_98#ISUM_.2F_Conflict_of_Interest. Probably more importantly, there have been four (yes four!) RfCs about using archive.is - see the first one (which links to the subsequent three): Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC - that one was spurred by folks from that archive being overbold and adding tons of links to their own site. Your site might be great, but it would be wise to get consensus to use it broadly. And as I said, if folks approve people might be willing to create a bot to add links to it all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Singapore -first sentence

Hi I've added more sources but your edit summary about mobiles-Wmf makes no sense until I saw a similar comment-edit you did for Mesopotamia. That first sentence still has 38 word count vs 29 in Singapore so I assume it's the main concern. Shall I move the IPA to etymology as well, maybe keeping the audio clip? -hardly anyone I know pronounce the name completely wrong anyway. Will be helpful for links to guides-discussions to learn more. In the meantime I will place the names in a separate sentence. Shiok (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Please see here which stemmed from this then this then this RfC which is still unresolved per the sprawling discussion happening at Wikidata/2017 State of affairs - if you want to review that you need to dig back into archives and start here, probably and work your way forwards: Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs/Archive_5#Wikipedia_descriptions_vs_Wikidata_descriptions. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page - antipsychotic

I'm taking a rest from my computer, for the remainder of the day (is 16:00 hrs), and won't reading the reply until tomorrow. 23h112e (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is possible to read the response ofc. 23h112e (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

is this source ok?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VRTniKE2liYC&pg=PA68&dq=glans+shape+semen+removal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwIuO5vbWAhWBWxoKHSa9C9AQ6AEISjAG#v=onepage&q=glans%20shape%20semen%20removal&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.90.68 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Chitosan edit

Why is this a reference spam? A manuscript that’s been accepted by a journal with decent impact factor qualifies to be listed under research section as it helps to annotate the properties of chitosan. Here the paper describes about how different properties can be incorporated into the dental implants using chitosan and another biopolymer. Chitosan did retain the antibacterial activity even if it is mixed with oppositely charged polymer; this is an important finding as it still unclear as to how chitosan kills bacteria (there are a lot of theories, but no concrete evidence yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F220:41D:4425:0:0:0:27C (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - moved to article blog - looking forward to see your answer there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F220:41D:4425:0:0:0:27C (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Developmental disability

Hello, Jytdog – I was just looking at the latest edit to Developmental disability, and I thought I'd ask you if this change was right.  – Corinne (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

its a good question. the edit wasn't bad. the article should have some sourced content about teams (it is usually a team) that does diagnosis and initial support for babies and kids, and that changes as the person gets older. There should probably be several specialities listed there. shall we move this to the talk page? Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PICSO)

Hi Jytdog, I noted that you filed this article for speedy deletion and RHaworth subsequently deleted it. This article was linked to from some other articles including Percutaneous coronary intervention. The latter has a section about Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion which was added by Kipepea. Perhaps this should be undone as well. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Embryonic recall should be likewise checked as its main purpose appears to link to PICSO and to add supporting statements (“PICSO induced substantial risk reduction”). The entire article was created by Kipepea and belongs to the complex around Werner Mohl. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gone Obsolete or not?

Is Clonidine#cite_note-clinp-2 considered an outdated citation? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Maccoby Biography

Hello Jytdog, I recently viewed the Michael Maccoby biography as I was introducing a client to Dr. Maccoby. I asked Maccoby why this was so out of sync with his real work and contributions. He responded, "I have tried to make changes, but they have been deleted. Since Maccoby is writing about his own work contribution (primary source), I am confused as to why you would delete his additions. What does he need to do different? Thanks, Cliff Norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffnorman (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note. First, like the rest of the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog here. So we don't really believe anyone who says "I am George Bush and this fact about me is true!" Instead, things here have to be based on what we call "reliable sources" (think New York Times). Also, we have a conflict of interest guideline here, so nobody really should edit about themselves anyway. If you or Michael are aware of reliable sources that we are not currently use them, you can information about them at the article talk page, and we can look at them. That talk page is here: Talk:Michael Maccoby. OK? Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Relax....

Some edits are added via mobile devices (with small screens) and made while "'mobile'", so with limited time as well. You want to fix them...? Great! But there is no need to be a tool about it. - Wolf 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

? Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unitron Advertising

You have repeatedly reverted my edits in order to keep content that seemed right out of an advertisement, and then sent edit warning in order to keep the ads.

Your edits turned: "Unitron is another hearing aid producer owned by Sonova. Unitron was founded in 1964 and currently operates within 70 countries." into: "Founded in 1964, Unitron partners with hearing care professionals to provide support for successful clinical outcomes and to enhance the patient experience with optimized products, services, and resources. Unitron sees its role as an extension of its customers’ service teams and has carved out a niche for itself within the industry for its approachability and collaborative style."

Given this, I have to ask if you have and conflict of interest and if so please disclose. Either you have a conflict of interest or you just like hitting the undo button without reading. I would write to the admin noticeboard but I strongly suspect the latter is the case.

Did you know there is more than one way to edit Wikipedia? I suggest you try the visual editor for a change, BUT DONT ADVERTIZE ON THE PAGE!!!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. And no, I have no connection with that company. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Judson Note

Thanks for your suggestion. I have made the change you suggested. Please let me know if it's not correct.-- Bruce Judson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceJudson (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry to pester but I was surprised when I hit that redirect. I went to your userpage to find out about what you are up to here in WP! Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cancer immunotherapy

Dear Jytdog, I am adding the first paper who presents an anticancer CAR-T cell. http://www.pnas.org/content/86/24/10024.full.pdf You can look also at this patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US7741465 As I see I am not violating any policy as I am not doing promotion but I am recognizing the merit of the pioneers of the CAR. Whats would it be the way of claiming X was the first on Y date ? What more evidence should I bring ? I am showing a very very early journal publication https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2149517/. You will not find anyone from before. I assure you. I am also showing you here a patent from those dates. On that moment these team also developed the first ever ScFv. But this is another discussion. Please respond MjenikMjenik (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page, and I will reply there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

To pay or not to pay - aye, there's the rub

I think there's probably little to be gained now by continuing to engage with KDS4444. He doesn't appear to appreciate advice. Nobody forced him into the murky world of paid editing, which being abhorred by the community whether declared or not, is always going to be stigmatised. His mistake was not in declaring his paid work, it would have been 'tolerated' under the current ruling if he hadn't recklessly tried to publish pages that would not survive NPP and AfD - the '...price [he] pays for disclosing [his] paid edits' , is the price of having to refund his customers. But then he got noticed for even holding advanced rights that are not compatible with money-making on the back of our volunteer work. If it were not him, another declared editor would sooner or later have made the same errors, but KDS drew the short straw and has been well and truly hung out to dry (partly by me) as an example. His real mistake is in persisting to claim he feels helpless and passive in the face of misfortune where he is really a victim of his own device, and desperately attempting to salvage one particular article by any means. KDS's new articles, if he writes any more, will continue to attract high scrutiny - there's nothing you or I can do about that - but I think we can take the heat of him now. That said, keep up your excellent work supporting the suggestions for tightening the rules and smoking out the people who abuse the principles of our encyclopedia and their drafts - and do ping me when you come across anything I have missed or that needs a rapid admin intervention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My goal is not to put heat on him, though. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see my comment on Erielhonan talk page regarding the skin cell gun SD following his objection on my talk page. I've pinged you as an interested party. Two things.

I redacted part of your comment since it was nopinged. Do you wish it to be included?

You're the expert on this, is there a case for restoring the article in any form, eg your minimal version?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your ping. I am fine with the redaction, i did "noping" on purpose. To have a WP article it would need to be rewritten from scratch so I do not think it should be restored. He has a recent copy of the article in his sandbox so he doesn't need it as a starting point (although it is not a good starting point...) Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. I'll follow that up tomorrow, I have some other stuff to do before I log off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Cannabis edible

Hi Jytdog, thanks for your contributions on the Cannabis edible page. I appreciate most of your edits, as I was having trouble being concise, but I am confused why this source - Possible hepatotoxicity of chronic marijuana usage Sao Paulo Med. J. vol.122 no.3 São Paulo May 2004. - does not qualify as a medical source, in your mind. Why does it not qualify? I got that from the 11-hydroxy-THC page, so if you have valid reasons for your removal of that reference, you probably want to remove it from that page. To be clear, the blood-brain barrier is referred to as the hematoencephalic barrier, so if you searched "blood-brain barrier", it would not have shown up for that reason. Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

it is a primary source. Please see WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Then do you plan to remove it from the 11-Hydroxy-THC article, as well? —Michipedian (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbolic modeling

FYI to you and any TPS that are familiar with MEDRS that this might need to be watchlisted so it has eyes on it. I came across it while doing copypatrol, and it went from having no efficacy (uncited) to having positive effects. I've revdel'd the content, but you can find the sources in my edit summary cleaning it. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks, will have a look. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced school lists

Usually lists of schools in a place aren't challenged - I think because the criteria for whether something needs to be sourced is whether the content's likely to be challenged and usually a list of schools is "self-evident". De facto IMO stuff that's likely to be challenged is 99% of material on WP, but anyway...

It's better IMO to mark the section as "refimprove" or "unsourced" so somebody will see that and add sources. If it's just removed somebody will come back and add another unsourced list of schools, or the material's gone and won't get unsourced (and not having an overview of the education in a city subdivision is a big omission).

Since it's not BLP it's not especially sensitive so one can be "soft" with it. In Andheri I sourced the Japanese school and threw up a refimprove for the rest: Andheri#Education WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Andheri#Unsourced Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt med & cancer risks

A few interesting articles:

• Herbal remedies embraced by naturopaths, alt med widely linked to liver cancers
• “Alternative” medicine’s toll on cancer patients: Death rate up to 5X higher

Also:

• A Dying Doctor, Peter Thiel, and a Rogue Herpes Vaccine Trial Gone Wrong

Enjoy. Or not. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

oh... not. So much suffering. But thanks for the info. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neal D. Barnard. 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.
I understand that you feel strongly on this topic, but that is all the more reason to relax before getting into edit-warring about your preferred version of the wording. I was actually adding a better wording when it turned out that I could not do so because you had already reverted me. So desperate to revert? Take a long look and just relax more. MPS1992 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a section on the Talk page where you have said nothing. Please discuss there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't kept track, but I think that you might be the world record holder for being the victim of don't template the regulars. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind being templated. I do mind that person who did this, did that after I pinged them at the talk page and has not responded there. Hard to resolve a content dispute without discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Level of math in medicine as a field based on biochemistry and biophysics

Hi, Jytdog! In the context of the discussion at Talk:Partial_derivative#Use_of_this_notion_in_the_context_of_math-based_sciences_or_applied_math which mentions the term math-based sciences, what have you observed as a professional having some involvement with medicine, about the level of math used in medical practice, considering the use of math in biochem/biophys? Thanks! Your input is very useful!--82.137.15.37 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

An additional question arises in this context: Could we include in Partial derivative a subsection about medicine and medical R&D based on what you've said at its talk page? I think the 2-3 sentences said by you are pretty obvious, therefore need not to be sourced. What do you say about this aspect?--82.137.13.115 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything goes better with sources. They are applications; there is an applications section and would go there if anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course it would be better with sources. Then what sources have you encountered or have in mind from where you have extracted and formulated those 3 sentences?--82.137.12.162 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Creation of userbox

Hi Jytdog, could you direct me to a place that explains how to create userboxes, particularly for existent WikiProjects that do not yet have userboxes. (In this case, I want to create a userbox for WikiProject Objectivism.) Thanks. —Michipedian (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. —Michipedian (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Michipedian: Wikipedia:Userboxes has the information. I find it useful to find an existing box that I like, and then modify it rather than starting from scratch, because the details can get a bit complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish! —Michipedian (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

having read your response I made every effort to find the strongest sources, and after, an additional proof came to light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:23h112e#the_addition_I_made_at_11:02.2C_27_October_2017 23h112e (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the words of encouragement. I guess what put me off is the double standard DocJames was putting on me, citing that the rule was to strictly use only reference articles when (a) the guidelines dictate that this is best, but not mandatory; and (b) over 75% of the references cited in the article that DocJames mostly wrote contain non-review non-book references. Hypocritical I would say. That is what put me off. 45.73.149.250 (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rheumatoid arthritis and EGCG - yes, too soon

I added my two cents to Talk on why I concur that it is too soon to present EGCG or GTE research on rheumatoid arthritis. In passing, want to note that I have yet to be accused of being part of a cabal, or being templated (did not know that was a verb). Feeling more thankful than jealous. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Your time will come! :) Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

CBOE

Why did you remove my content on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange Wiki page? I cited my source, and all the information I posted from the website was of public domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbedits (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I should have left you the copyright notice when I removed the content. I've done so now - pls see your talk page. You can reply there if any you have any questions, but you should talk with your instructor. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Between cutting through the jungles of prose for Death of Savita Halappanavar and your attempts to help in the most recent section you started at ANI, you show a great willingness to take on some exhaustively negative situations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ELs

Often an author gets the right to host a copy of their work on their university webpage.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been looking at these and most often it is a preprint. It really varies from publisher to publisher. The paper that OAbot suggested a link for was published by Liebert and their policy is here and says authors can post preprints but says in bold: "The final published article (version of record) can never be archived in a repository, preprint server, or research network." The link was to the final published version. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay. Complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Complicated indeed, even for legal scholars. They have an entire wiki on how to get contracts which make sense: http://wiki.law.miami.edu/commons/ --Nemo 07:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have spent some time working with publishers to expose their permissions in a machine-readable format[2] and one of the chief conclusions of the exercise was that in many cases this couldn't be done because the written documents were ultimately incoherent! Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know about that one, I've added a mention in OAD so I don't lose it. Some publishers however manage to do better, e.g. OUP has standard options A through R which cover most cases. --Nemo 08:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Liraglutide/insulin degludec

Hello, Here is the source for my editing Liraglutide/insulin degludec. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/208583s000lbl.pdf This is the drug label from FDA.

Best regards Rli255 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Which you mostly copy/pasted. Please do look at WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDHOW. Thanks for wanting to improve it, though! Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

IORT

Carl Zeiss AG, Germany, initiated a clinical trial for early stage breast cancer in Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg. In order to serve patient with accurate intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), the company sponsored a project in Mannheim Medical Center to measure RBE of this radiation source from Intrabeam compared to high energy x-rays from conventional LINAC. This work has been published by Liu et al. on the highly reputed radiation oncology journal in 2013 (see the reference below). The company Zeiss indeed cited the reference in their website for IORT (see the link below). As a high quality work carried out by IORT clinicians, physicists and scientists, it is appropriate to be cited for "IORT". Furthermore, the low-energy x-rays reviewed in the cited article have very different spectrum, which is an improper reference for Intrabeam with a unique spherical dose distribution, x-ray spectrum and other physical properties designed for IORT.

https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/us/products/intraoperative-radiotherapy.html Liu, Q., Schneider, F., Ma, L., Wenz, F., & Herskind, C. (2013). Relative Biologic Effectiveness (RBE) of 50 kV X-rays Measured in a Phantom for Intraoperative Tumor-Bed Irradiation. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 85(4), 1127-1133. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamBux (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears you are talking about this revert. Please post this note at the talk page of that article, at Talk:Intraoperative radiation therapy, and I will reply here. Please also see the note I just left at your talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Food, rivers and research

• If you follow university matters or scholarly publishing, you may want to join mail:openaccess. I saw you looked for some background, so you may be interested e.g. in mailarchive:openaccess/2017-August/000226.html.
• On the analogy of rivers, I noticed some articles on the commons are a bit lacking, e.g. Elinor Ostrom. I'm not sure when I'll manage to study her main book carefully though.
• If you found the answer to the question on bread, I'd like to read it. I noticed we still miss a lot of basic information on how our food and everyday products are made, e.g. I just recently added Baker's yeast#Industrial production. I'm not sure I managed to extract all the main well-sourced information while removing the fluff or local-specific details. Ah, by the way I believe one earlier version was closely inspired by a toll-access paper.

--Nemo 08:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. that email is great. I would recommend toning down the "n most cases you can also share the

post-print," which is not true. But most importantly please use more care in deciding what papers to link to in Wikipedia. Open access is a great thing but copyright is what it is and a 40% error rate is way too high. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)