User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 2 March 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

changing user name

hi - thanks for the tip - i had no idea - i chose it when i wrote an article on that company for uni and then just kept using it - that's what you get for doing stupid plays on words - i've put in a request to just change it to my name Bella.me.organic (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great :) seems like you are knowledgeable about organic stuff - looking forward to seeing you around. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somatics peer-review invitation

I recently rewrote the Somatics article, which used to be narrowly focused on an alt-med therapeutic technique but now has a much broader scope. You seem to be an expert on the application of MEDRS, so I wanted to invite you to give it a look and see what needs fixing. FourViolas (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for asking! I will have a look. Jytdog (talk)

Censorship on GMO Controversies TALK page

I don't think it is right for you to censor my comments ( hereand here) on the talk page about a real problem with the article. It only adds to the NPOV problem by silencing reasonable dissent. I received your comment about why you think such censorship was justified on my talk page here. You say this comment is about "editors" not content. My comment is about content, about how the content is slanted because of editor behavior, as exhibited by your response to my pointing out that fact by censoring it! If there is any place to talk about the problem that pervades the slanted editing of the page by a number of editors who all share the same slanted POV, I would think it would be talk page of the article, not having to go to every single editor of the article past and future to talk about that behavior--which I am sure you would accuse me of canvassing about as well anyway as you suggested you would do here. This authoritarian kind of silencing of dissent and speaking about the very real problem on of the GMO articles seems very un-Wikipedian.David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:NPA and WP:TPG with regard to removing your comments. You don't mention either of those in your response. I suggest you base your discussion on policy and guidelines; they are what govern Wikipedia.

With regard to your concerns about content: it is one thing to say on an article Talk page: "The article doesn't cite Source A and it I believe it should because policy blah says blahblah" vs "The editors working on this article are biased and censoring content" The first is completely fine article Talk page discussion; the second is completely not fine.

with regard to your concerns about behavior, this is the last time I will say this. Please bring up the issues you have politely with the editors with whom you have a concern, on their Talk page. If you do not see a change in behavior, bring it to the notice board relevant to the policy you believe is being violated. That's how it works here. here

Finally, you have canvassed in that you went to several other editors - ones whom you thought would be sympathetic - to discuss your concerns about article content and the behavior of yet other editors. You were doing very straight up "community organizing" which is absolutely not allowed in WP. here. That is different from actually raising a concern about specific behavior, with the editor whose behavior you are concerned about. Very different. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I mentioned the censorship issue here. I explained there why there was no "personal attack". David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that, and the discussion at Dielectric's Talk page too. Everyone is telling you the same thing, and you are not listening. It is sad to see. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:COI

Hello Jytdog - Just wanted you to know that I responded to you on Jim Webb's talk page. (Webbfooter (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Jytdog - I responded to your comments on my talk page and the COI noticeboard re the Ontario Ombudsman issues. Thanks so much for the advice and assistance. Eljaydubya (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, both of you, I have responded in each place. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon says

"N'interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:) but i am no such great general. i do hear you. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/* Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco */ COI

I was fine with where everything was, including the note you left with FriendlyBillingsgate, until I read InedibleHulk's latest accusation on the COI Notice Board. There is absolutely no logic that finds FriendlyBillingsgate's message of COI concern as a personal Attack, but nothing that 'Hulk has said, including this latest. You really have to be kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thissilladia (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please let it go. big side show. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok Thissilladia (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Wow indeed. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit

Thanks for catching my incredibly sloppy typing too late in the night on National Practitioner Data Bank; I rewrote it. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure! Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I should have clarified better

(Taking this here because it's starting to veer off topic for the AfD.)

Thing is, I (A) wasn't sure whether genital mutilation qualified as gendered violence (and was using the other article as a reference - my faulty assumption was that you took it down because you thought it didn't), and (B) had somehow mixed up castration (which is generally voluntary) with circumcision (which usually isn't). In retrospect, both were rather ridiculous errors - I should probably stop with the late-night editing. Again, sorry for the trouble. Cheers, Random ^(?) 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. You've been quite decent about apologizing/explaining - thanks for that. Thinking about the motivations of other editors is never a good idea; things go better when we all focus on content/sources (what is actually written) as much as possible, and only start to think about behavior (not motivation) of other editors - what they write, where they write, how they use "undo (concrete, verifiable behaviors) if behavior is problematic. Try to stay concrete. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks. In any case, I agree with you about the gender parity thing (I even pointed it out myself earlier), though still not that that warrants article deletion. But hey, to each their own, and if it's kept, I'd definitely support some form of protection - until 8chan leaves this place alone, at the very least. Random ^(?) 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination) Question on process

Hello Jytdog, I am rather new to wikipedia editing, you seem experienced, so I have a question to you. Would it be possible to limit editing rights on the violence against men article? I absolutly see your point that it attracts a lot of rubbish. But I do think that it is relevant and a good article could be written. So would it be possible that a few people, who show the goodwill to do this properly, create a good article and afterwards it is blocked from further editing? Kind Regards, Lucentcalendar (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are very levels of page protection - broadly: anybody; registered users only; auto-confirmed only: reviewers only ("pending changes"), administrators only. The policy I just linked to there explains them and how they are used. There is a very strong emphasis in the policy to toward keeping articles as unprotected as possible, per our mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There needs to be a demonstrated history of abuse on the article to protect it. I imagine this article would get some level of protection eventually. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your anwer, I think this level "Pending changes protection" would look like the right thing. I will suggest that on the comment page of the article.Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it can't be imposed until there is a demonstrated problem... you are free to try, of course. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 Thing is, I (A) wasn't sure whether genital mutilation qualified as gendered violence (and was using the other article as a reference - my faulty assumption was that you took it down because you thought it didn't), and (B) had somehow mixed up castration (which is generally voluntary) with circumcision (which usually isn't). In retrospect, both were rather ridiculous errors - I should probably stop with the late-night editing. Again, sorry for the trouble. Cheers, [[User:Mr. Random|Random]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Random|(?)]]</sup> 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 :It's OK.  You've been quite decent about apologizing/explaining - thanks for that. Thinking about the motivations of other editors is never a good idea; things go better when we all focus on content/sources (what is actually written) as much as possible, and only start to think about behavior (not motivation) of other editors - what they write, where they write, how they use "undo (concrete, verifiable behaviors) if behavior is problematic.  Try to stay concrete.  Good luck. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
+::Fair enough, and thanks. In any case, I agree with you about the gender parity thing (I even pointed it out myself earlier), though still not that that warrants article deletion. But hey, to each their own, and if it's kept, I'd definitely support some form of protection - until 8chan leaves this place alone, at the very least. [[User:Mr. Random|Random]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Random|(?)]]</sup> 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 == Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination) Question on process ==