User talk:Jytdog

Alexander Technique page

Hello Jytdog,

If you could explain your reasoning on reverting the Alexander Tech page, I would be ever so grateful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tictocdocs (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Happy to discuss content at the article talk page - if ask there i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Bcash alt name

Hello Jytdog,

Could you please take a look at my revised Bitcoin Cash article altname RfC text to see if it is neutral and brief? Please feel free to edit my sandbox.

User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash

Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jtbobwaysf sorry for the delay. That is an appropriate RfC yes! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

IrishCentral

I think AfD is a much better route. My guess is that it will pass, but my involvement was to clear out the promotion and copyvio and add a source, although not one sufficient to show notability. I've also advised the person with the same name as the director what to do. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and I agree. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Some obvious paid editors, but Thurles2 might be just a fan who is probably too incompetent to be editing anyway, he wrecked the article and the AfD. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

dispute

I filed a dispute for unfair bad faith COI accusations and leaving behind a mostly deleted and uninformative page Science contributor101 (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz has been accepted

Nina Teicholz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review User:Dial911. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries mate! Do you have New Page Reviewer flag? Dial911 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I do. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the benefit of an experienced editor using AfC? Natureium (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sodium Oxybate COI edit request

Hello! There is a newer COI edit request concerning Sodium Oxybate and another pharmaceutical precursor of that same drug in the request queue. Since it was medical related I wanted to get your input before attempting to address it. It looks like they want press release information or information from the drug's package insert placed in the article. What is wikipedia's stance on letting this info be reproduced in the article? Thank you for any help you can provide!  Spintendo      17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The label , yes, but it should be sourced to the FDA's website not the company. generally no to press releases. I will have a look at the actual requests tonight. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Spintendo thanks for bringing the request at sodium oxybate to me. That page was already really bad and needed a complete work-over, and the COI requests were hard on their own, much less on top of that mess. Solriamfetol was kind of messy too. Jytdog (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What would you do?

If you had a situation where an old SPI revealed (and parties admitted) meat puppetry, the parties were warned, all but one were blocked, red linked SPAs constantly appear at the article anyway, and eight years later a new editor appeared this year, edited same article with same aims as previous (to promote the work of the biographical subject), and when editing logged out, revealed their IP which geolocates to within half a block of the location of the company of the person in question ... would you submit another SPI, or just bring it to COIN? The reason I am unclear is that there is something about SPI not revealing IP addresses that I don't understand. I've got a duck quacking loudly, who revealed his IP, but don't know where to most effectively take this. Also, if this account is dealt with, others will just appear, so watchful waiting may be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to file at both COIN and SPI - you will get different people thinking about different parts of the problem, and folks at COIN will probably watchlist the page to help over the longer term.

It is OK to post IPs at SPI (there is a parameter to list them) but the CUs/clerks/admins there will not comment in public about them -- they will use that evidence, however. The thing to avoid is making a claim that X editor is Y person unless they have made that statement here in WP. See for example this SPI where the master disclosed their identity, changed their account name, then went on a socking campaign over several years to promote themselves, their ideas, and people they knew. If they haven't self-disclosed, just say "this person clearly has some undisclosed relationship to Y person/company/etc" and you avoid the whole OUTING mess. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the editor logged back in and re-signed over the IP, and indicated it was him, asking me to strike my reply to the IP (smart). The deal is, I am less interested in getting another sock blocked as I am in finding a long-term solution to this issue. It has been going on for at least 8 years. With prolific sockmasters, sometimes when you know who they are, it's better just to keep an eye on them? It appears that this company might put its new interns to work on Wikipedia ... So what would you do to get it addressed long-term? They were shut down 8 years ago, bided their time, came back with same ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You have even more evidence with them signing over the IP. That is helpful, and not a hindrance. I recommend you file at SPI and COIN. There are benefits to both. (one of the benefits of getting them identified as socks as that it becomes easier to revert per BLOCKEVASION and if they build up a serious record of socking (as shown at SPI) we can have them community banned which is even stronger. The benefit of filing at COIN is that people will probably help watchlist and clean. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Jyt-- I will work on this over the week, when we have several long clinic appts, so I can enjoy some of my weekend. Most appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So, what do you do when someone blanks text using a username that appears to be a real name of a connected person and anyone can google the name, which is made even easier by the custom of using both last names in LatinAmerica? We still can't suggest the username is the real person, even if they appear to be the same? So just a general COI notice in this case? And go to COIN if cited text blanking continues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon - First Company Listed

Hi! I have responded to your concerns on the talk page for your input on the Bank of New York Mellon and whether it was the first company listed (also for reverting 1 change, yes 1! edit and adding a cite does not make an edit war - try to offer to discuss this amicably before claiming straight away there is an edit war if this happens in the future).Hkong22 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Tharbis

You may be interested in this one, I didn't know we had it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

oh my! I am. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can use this [1] as leadimage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man.  :) Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon

Hi, Following your response on the talk page I have requested a third opinion to help look into this. Hopefully, you will be happy to amicably engage. Hkong22 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you did not however request WP:3O, you filed at WP:DRN. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE

Hello Jytdog,

I read WP:MEDDATE and see no issues with what I've posted. New research is not being represented on this Glioblastoma page (at least not under non-risks). There is certainly some perceivable risk given that long-term studies have not concluded and that recent studies are finding inconclusive evidence (for and against). I'm just asking that the section entitled Non-Risks be edited to remove Cell Phones and Cell Phones should be moved to unclear risks.

Under this section is another sentence that briefly mentions unclear risks. Please consider moving it here.

While this mindset of cell phones being perfectly harmless may have been true several years ago, none of the current studies are claiming this any longer. Please read the Talk page for Glioblastoma for more information.

I'll leave you with one final thought... Consider this logic; smoking a cigarette won't give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 5 to 10 years might not give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 20,30,or more years will likely give you cancer. So, before we knew for certain that long term smoking habits lead to cancer, would it have been a good idea to announce that cigarettes are a "non-risk", simply because the independent, long-term studies hadn't concluded? That would have been very presumptuous indeed.

Thank you for your time,

--Wbeaton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have. Can you please respond? You're the one rejecting my edit. --Wbeaton (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I replied there and made a few edits. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeshua

Do you have any comments on Yeshua being put in a Bracket as Colliric suggested?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hey there. Thanks for your great work on 23&Me. I was wondering if you may look at Ancestry.com as that page has a similar problem with using almost entirely primary sources. I have removed a ton of them but there are still many more and I just got really tired of working on that on both articles. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure i will look at it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Venom in Medicine

And others- appreciation of good edits. Very good work.PRehse (talk)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pillars of BLP articles

Just notifying you manually of a newer discussion at Talk:Joshua Waitzkin That discussion, which is discussed in detail at the article's talk page, involves an issue which comes up again and again, and I wasn't entirely sure of how they are handled. (I'm asking here because it's a question which is broader in nature than just the one topic.) That question is how to proceed when the subject of an article, notable for one particular instance of something, then wishes to expand their article with other items that they are interested in, but are not necessarily notable for. I understand the pillars of blp article creation - (NPOV, NOR, V) - but the guidance is vague with regards to how information is handled after article creation. Do those fundamental pillars extend beyond the creation point, to include interests of the subject which came after the initial notability? (Again, the particular details of the Josh Waitzkin request are at that article's talk page, per your request at the top of your talk page to leave discussions there.) You may answer the question I am asking here there, if you prefer. Thank you for any help you can offer, I appreciate it.  Spintendo          17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a great question and one that is endlessly debated. (so no easy answers, I am sorry to say).

Some people pretty much look only at WP:V, and not at any other policies, and generally say "If is it in a reliable source, include it!"

Others look at one or more other policies as well, as well as looking harder at V

One can look harder at the source, and ask if it independent or the subject and if it is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. (generally WP articles should be built from independent secondary sources, and if one is going to use a source that is not independent or secondary, there should be some good reason for that)

Bringing in WP:NPOV, one can ask "Is including it WP:DUE or should we leave it out as being WP:UNDUE? " (WP:RECENTISM is important to keep in mind as well, and something that we as an editing community generally suck at avoiding - "current events" tend to get enormously UNDUE weight)

Bringing in WP:NOT, one can ask broadly if the content/sourcing aims at WP's mission of providing readers with accepted knowledge, or if it not, but is instead just WP:TRIVIA or WP:GOSSIP or news or fails in some other regard. One can also ask if this is really just WP:PROMO.

Finally one should always think about BLP which calls us to apply all the policies rigorously and in addition ask if this is really aimed at providing accepted knowledge about the person; lots of false flags get flown under BLP (BLP is not a reason to exclude negative information but it is a reason to ensure that negative information is very well sourced and summarizes the source accurately; BLP is not a reason to do whatever the subject wants).

Like I said, it is a great question. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok so to recap, it sounds like the different layers which are applied at an article's creation all come back to play their own individual parts in allowing, or disallowing, items during an article's life after creation, and that knowing which ones to use, and when, is a process informed by experience. I hope I got that right... Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it!  Spintendo          09:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh they definitely come into play after the article is created. Conflicts/controversy over what to include and what not to include happen every day. It is especially acute in articles about celebrities and people in politics where fans/haters often try to track all kinds of ... very detailed, day-to-day to stuff. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - NCORP report

Until we figure out exactly where this will go, could you start a userspace draft following the WP:Signpost/Quick Start guide? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri. Not sure I did that right. It seemed opinion-y so I made it an opinion since I had to choose. I am fine with making it more newsy. It is now at Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost_Opinion2. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm not supposed to be providing editorial content this time but I think you could push the op-ed on this harder. I should be able to read the first paragraph and see where you stand on the outcome. Good, bad, or neutral? I don't really get a sense of where you stand from the text right now, or feel like a lot of our readers who aren't super involved in the topic would have a reason to feel excited. What do you think about moving this sentence to the front and expanding it a bit?

That mission [open collaboration] remains as ludicrous as it ever was, yet the editing community has been surprisingly successful at realizing it.

I think you have a good sense of these conflicting tensions and they are inherently dramatic, yet somehow the drama/tension/Sturm und Drang or whatever journalistic buzzword is appropriate, is buried in the piece. In other words, it doesn't have to be dry and wonky if you want to make the column more full of Jytdog flavor. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. OK then. I will play with it some more today. Thanks for your time! Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer trash clean up

If you want to include an image, search "tire dump" on Commons might be inspiring. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I envision long-needed mass AFDs for Category:Autism-related organizations in the United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is so much work to do, always. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

Seriously, what kind of "reliable" references do you want? There are links to Amazon and the books in question, which describe the books' contents. The citations for the books are in proper academic format.

There's a message by Lois McMaster Bujold describing her intentions in the novel _Komarr_. The fact that that message was distributed via a mailing list is not relevant to its reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunsenH (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. A discussion was opened there already. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - next issue

I think your op-ed Signpost - NCORP report needs to be included. There is already a very brief mention of the new policy in News and Notes. However, we have a deadline in 48 hours for the next issue. After that, accepted submissions will be copy edited, and placed in their order of appearance. Please note that Copy Editing in the strictest sense, may alter some of the prose of articles, but not the content or the message it imparts. Please let us know if you can complete by the deadline, or if you prefer it to be deferred to the next issue at the end of May. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung. i have worked it over and am happy with it. not sure what i am supposed to do now... Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Leave the rest to me and Bri - we'll sort it out. In the coming weeks we're going to try and find a way of making it less complicated for users to submit articles. Even I found it a challenge!Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say sorry for the very generous editing I did on your Signpost submission. We're under 24 hours away from deadline, and I wasn't quite sure whether you'd be online before then - otherwise I would have talked to you before changing so much. The error with ACTRIAL adoption is also obviously my fault, thanks for catching that! --Zarasophos (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your help!! It was generous. I hope my subsequent edits were OK. This is very different from editing in mainspace; this has my username on it so I pushed back on some things more than i usually would. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure I meant "generous" as in "a lot" and not "generous" as in "I'm so great". That came out a little weird. And yeah, your article is pretty good, I really liked the illustrations and how you managed to make the drafting of a guideline interesting! As you might know, we're currently facing a very severe manpower shortage at the Signpost - would you maybe consider signing up for the next issue as well? --Zarasophos (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant it as in "kind and helpful" :) Hey if you understand how Wikilinks in the signpost work, could you please add a WL to Kudpung's piece where it says "as discussed elsewhere in this issue".? that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words on the piece. sure i will think about it. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually did that already, just put it in the wrong spot :D --Zarasophos (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Byline info

Could you write a bit for your Signpost byline per this guideline? "Suggestion: one to three sentences, that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader". Thanks and looking forward to seeing your column in "print". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your shepherding, Bri. do you mean like this? Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome

Hi Jytdog. I don't know if you've seen this article's entry at FT/N, but it's a hoax by a WikiEd student -- Morse explicitly coined the phrase as a joke to describe one side of a debate. Seems like a pretty clear candidate for AFD to me, but I figured it would be best to run it by a more experienced editor, especially because of the WikiEd angle. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I redirected to Neurolaw#Cautions_and_concerns and untwisted it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Looks good to me, thank you for writing it. I do appreciate the pun in the knight pic caption :)

I am curious how the criteria is doing "in the trenches"... Renata (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with it. I am curious too! Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An FYI

I see that you have had some earlier involvement in a topic which I today raised at User talk:TonyBallioni#A heads-up. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the work in putting it out! :) Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello editor, I just saw that you deleted my contribution of the cancer section of Gut Flora page . I undid it because you didn’t leave any cogent explanation. I had basically summarized a peer reviewed study that was published in the prestigious journal Gastroenterology (impact factor ~18) by a cancer group. IMHO, this study along with some corroborating reports from other groups ( See Pushulkar et al, 2018 in Cancer Disovery) clearly establish that at least in lab mice, the gut microbiota may have cancer promoting effects. The effects of the microbiota are mediated through immune systems as shown by the authors through immunodeficient mice and by flow cytometry and blocking immunity experiments. I think this is a conclusive albeit short study that increases our corpus of knowledge regarding cancer and gut microbiota axis in mice. The authors didn’t identify the culprit bug (s).

Credentials : i am an MD and I have been studying the microbiota and cancer interactions as a part of basic research lab in an American university since the last 2.5 years. I would like to contribute edits highlighting important peer-reviewed articles to various microbiota articles here on Wikipedia. I strongly think that the gut bacteria are doing something very fascinating in the numerous niches they inhabit in our body, The microbiota articles on web are full of bizarre and incredulous pieces. I want to make Wikipedia a more reliable source highlighting scientific studies regarding the gut bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoseDoc (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It is really great that you want to help with our mission. Thanks for that! I left you a welcome message on your talk page, User talk:PoseDoc. Please, please do read it, and the message below that too. There is learning curve in Wikipedia - please slow down and learn how things work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

COI Closure

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.

---

I appreciate your patience and for giving me the benefit of the doubt. However, I still have no idea what policies and guidelines my actions have violated that would qualify my behavior as advocacy. It's going to be difficult for me to avoid making future mistakes if nobody can point me to anything specific. I spent a lot of time reading the policies and guidelines both with respect to content prior to and after the DRV proceedings and have read the articles you linked to. At this point, I plan to give myself and everyone else time to cool off and then attempt to rewrite the article in draft space in a distinctly non-hagiographical way. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware that everyone can see your contribution history? Your history is here. (Everyone can see everyone's - there is a link over in the left side margin that says "user contributions")

The longer pattern that I have seen in your editing, is that you edit on hot-button social issues in a way that reflects your feelings. That is what you did way back on Irreducible complexity when you first started editing back in 2010.

You came back more recently, and your edits at Blaire White were absolutely against WP:MOS and WP:BLP and you are very lucky that you were not indefinitely blocked already, just over that. That was pure advocacy, with zero - and I mean zero - effort to understand the context of this place.

You went directly from that, to deletion reviews over the Bechley page, and have been just ignoring what everyone else has said to you in those discussions.

You are using your editing privileges in WP to wage the culture wars. Editing WP is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege that we make available to everyone (which is insane, but that is how this place works). In return, we ask people to aim for the mission, and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. We take editing privileges away from people who abuse them.

I don't see that you have made any contributions to WP, that were about our mission, which is to work collaboratively, in order to present the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, so that people can learn. That is what we do here.

Coming here to wage culture wars, is not building the encyclopedia. We call this not here to build an encyclopedia.

Please do read User:Jytdog/How, and for something shorter, have a look at my userpage, at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Maybe that will help you understand what your editing privileges are for. I hope you try to learn. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that people can see my contributions. You will also notice that I stopped editing the article in question because I learned about WP:MOS. The edits to the Intelligent Design article back in 2010 took place back before I even realized that Wikipedia had any kind of formal rules. I was a complete and utter neophyte.

Saying that I was "ignoring what everyone else has said" in the DRV discussion is so obviously false that you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously. I provided policy-based refutations of their arguments and they failed to respond in kind. That's the opposite of ignoring. The proponents of deletion were the ones doing the ignoring.

Improving WP by going after obvious cases of bias and other violations of its content rules IS A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA. Not everyone involved in publishing a paper dictionary directly writes the articles. So far, from what I've seen, most editors only care about the policies and guidelines when it suits them.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Tell me, what has been the response to you at DRV, and at COIN, and at the talk pages of experienced users, with respect to your most recent campaign? it is very simple. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely uninformed opinions and a total unwillingness to examine facts.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "not listening". People have given you very good advice, which you have ignored. This project lives in the tension between a sort of libertarian ethos (people are encouraged to be bold and make things happen - this is how we grow) and a communitarian ethos (the basis of this whole place is WP:CONSENSUS- this is how we are regulated, so we don't have a) chaos that squanders volunteer time (the lifeblood of this place) and b) uncontrolled growth which is just cancer). Lose either, and this project dies.

Persistently ignoring very good advice and consensus-driven decisions is another sign of being not here to build an encyclopedia.

You are definitely driving directly over the cliff. Unless you change, it is only a matter of time until you lose your editing privileges. Like I said at COIN, it is your path to make.

I suggest you go back and read the discussions you have been a part of about the Bechley page and listen. People have advised you what you should do next. If you figure it out and want to tell me, let me know. I am completely uninterested in arguing with you, and I won't. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated a willingness to change based on specific and applicable advice in the case of MOS:GENDER. I can't do anything with aspersions and vague suggestions.Snoopydaniels (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2018 (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.

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

suspicious user

you did an RfC about the supporters section on Bitcoin Cash. two pretty lonely keep votes are:

• keep These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People in the cryptoverse talking about a specific coin can therefore hardly be seen as "celebrity promotion". REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• keep Promotionalism is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --RGbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)— RGbobwaysf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the second vote's account was likely created just to vote. however, note the suspicious name of the second vote RGbobwaysf, seems quite similar to my name jtbobwaysf (for the record no relation to me). Vote time stamp just 6 minutes later than REDGOLPE's (RG?) first vote. I wonder if the two user's IP address also the same? Thought you might have the tools to lookup the user...

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

yes that is a ridiculously POINTY username. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

I am starting a new discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog Quinn2425 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that will be one way to finally wrap this up. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have some kind of special powers -- you can magically make things appear and disappear on Wikipedia. You win. The public loses. Some big man you are. Arcata168 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way Quinn2425/Arcata168. Mark Worth works against corruption in the real world. Conflict of interest and advocacy editing corrupts Wikipedia; I work carefully on that kind of stuff here, within WP's policies and guidelines. It is unfortunate that you cannot see how Worth and I are kind of aligned in terms of what we do (not so much in how we do it, nor in the arenas where we do it). I am not any kind of "big man".Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Any idea...

...what this might be about? I presume I can just ignore? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

hey User:Bastun. Don't know why they reached out to you but a) they violated their tban (imposed here in a thread i opened; b) they have been reading Wikipediocracy or some other fan site i guess Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hedvig Hricak

Hey Jytdog, I know you keep pretty busy on here, so I just wanted to reach out to you on your talk page in case you hadn't seen my reply on Hricak's talk page. I started working from the November version of the article, and included some of your removals from the infobox, but also found sources for some of the other content that you had initially removed. I think another thing had been overlooked was the removal of her photo from the infobox for no apparent reason, so I added a placeholder for it in my draft. Here's a link to the diff for easy access. Thanks again for all your help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating Research with Current Research

It appears that three sections that I added today were removed despite citing peer-reviewed sources. I am guessing that this occurred because I am the primary author of many of those sources. However, the sections that I added were important clarifications of the literature, and no other authors have conducted this empirical work. Many of the notions that I was seeing on Wikipedia were outdated notions based on prior evidence, and I was adding the most recent evidence. I don't understand how I'm supposed to add a caveat to an outdated notion without citing relevant research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njacobson88 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:MEDRS and please read the notices on your talk page, at User talk:Njacobson88. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand

Why did you restore the original article after removing all the crazy? Natureium (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Some people consider it bad form to do during an AfD and call it "gutting" or "blanking". If I do it to see what is actually left, i self-revert and link to whatever was left in the AfD so people in the discussion can see it. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I did ''''NOT'''' revert your edit, and have started a discussion on the talk page. You're welcome.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About SOP: not all his edits are bad, but not all his edits are good, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

SOP, yep. I knew that. Odd note. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 May 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Augur (software) page vandalism

Hey jytdog, I've seen you've intervened in some of the previous crypto pages like IOTA. I am requesting you to intervene in the page Augur. I've updated the article to reflect that one of the founders has since left the project to join a hedge fund. I've provide a source for it too (https://www.coindesk.com/100-million-pantera-capital-ico-hedge-fund/) and is generally a well known industry event. Some user keeps deleting this update without merit (you can see the history and their reason). I am very sure the founder hasn't come back to work on Augur, although they still contribute occasionally. In my opinion, this is fairly important information, especially since the network isn't even live yet. Do you think I am wrong here? I am also happy to discuss this in the Talk page.

On a related note, the entire article needs to be cleaned up and I've put it on my list of articles to clean up in the future with better flow, information, and references. I'd be glad if I could run that by you in the future. Btcgeek (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I will check over the weekend. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. It seems impossible to update the article with the information (quoted directly from the reference, also verified via another Bloomberg reference in case there was any doubt). I've already warned the user on the user's talk page and on the main article's talk page but to no avail. Would appreciate you taking a more neutral look. Btcgeek (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Vandalism on CROs

Stop your vandalism on CRO articles. This is not spam. These are notable 25 yr old companies. I will report your agenda driven vandalism to administrators.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

see also section is not spam. Are you new to wikipedia.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just leaving a note at your talk page. Would you please respond at User_talk:Ssgajimouli#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

will respond here

I HAVE RESPONDED ENOUGH. PLEASE stop your dictatorship on CROs.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

stop your dictatorship

I am done with you Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No connection

No Connection. I have knowledge on this, I work for TPG capital.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)