Jump to content

User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Byates5637 (talk | contribs)
Line 84: Line 84:
::I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. [[User:Aortic patient|Aortic patient]] ([[User talk:Aortic patient|talk]]) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
::I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. [[User:Aortic patient|Aortic patient]] ([[User talk:Aortic patient|talk]]) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:::With regard to sourcing, please re-read the [[WP:MEDDEF]] section of MEDRS more closely - it says that we generate content about health based on secondary sources ([[literature review]]s in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) and that we avoid primary sources as much as possible. Clinical trial publications are primary sources. Including the link to exstent.com and the youtube video make the content appear to advertising copy; WP is not a vehicle for medical marketing and it is not social media. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:::With regard to sourcing, please re-read the [[WP:MEDDEF]] section of MEDRS more closely - it says that we generate content about health based on secondary sources ([[literature review]]s in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) and that we avoid primary sources as much as possible. Clinical trial publications are primary sources. Including the link to exstent.com and the youtube video make the content appear to advertising copy; WP is not a vehicle for medical marketing and it is not social media. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

== Edit war warning ==

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Vaxxed]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Byates5637|Byates5637]] ([[User talk:Byates5637|talk]]) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:49, 13 January 2017

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:

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]


Question

Why did you delete that fact today? Miratrixplane (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, yesterday. That was a well known fact in the medical community and you deleted it from Wikipedia. Why? Miratrixplane (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your the Rome fella that likes to stir things up on Wikipedia. And you obviously work for someone interested in keeping this information quite. What a way to make a living young man. Miratrixplane (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And actively deleting negative information on the Johnson & Johnson website. Is that a clue for me to utilize? Maybe. Miratrixplane (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what articles you are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that says a lot doesn't it Miratrixplane (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I screen shot everything I do sir Miratrixplane (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am very unhappy that you deleted my edit of a well known fact. Do not delete anything of mine again. Miratrixplane (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may soon be subpoenaed. Miratrixplane (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Miratrixplane what article are you talking about? I am really asking you - please answer. You should also read WP:NLT. -- Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and there is nothing here. This is getting increasingly weird. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that user's contribution history, and there are zero article edits to have been reverted. So this is either a sock or a troll (probably both). You are certainly entitled to raise the NLT issue at ANI if you think that it is worth the effort. Otherwise, I'd say wp:deny and see if that puts an end to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefblocked Miratrixplane for trolling and harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seems appropriate. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
?.. some poor devil on bookfarce is going to be terribly confused. Roxy the dog. bark 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yep, a jaunt into angry wierdness. . Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Wikipedia's medical content would be so much more biased if it weren't for all your efforts to deal with POV editors. I'm awarding you this barnstar for your most recent efforts to suppress POV content changes at MDMA and in recognition of all of your past efforts (even the controversial ones) to deal with POV and COI editors on Wikipedia.
I can't even imagine the state of disrepair that some articles would be in without your efforts to tackle blatant quackery and POV bullshit head-on. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

OK, maybe I came here because I might have been thinking based on the section title that this was some form of insult, but I was clearly wrong. I have to agree with the appropriateness of the recognition. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear! Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wtf? Just give him a bone and be done with it. Roxy the dog. bark 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roxy's suggestion, here is a dog treat; you may want to read about what this is before you start to chew on it though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a bonestar? er... bonerstar? :) Thanks everybody. And thanks for what you all do. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like something I would have said! Anyhoo, I looked at pizzle (kinda wish I hadn't), and I think it has the etymology wrong. I'm pretty sure it originated with Snoop Dog (are you related?). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS: are you impressed at how gangsta I am?[reply]
Long live Snoop! Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Isolation tank

Hello,
I'm puzzled about this revert of yours. The section I edited is titled "Notable users", Feynman is notable, the autobiography where he discusses it is itself notable, there's an entire chapter called "Altered states" about it. Obviously, a source for the fact that this is discussed in the book is the book itself. The statement being both sourced and relevant, I do not understand what more would be needed?
Regards,
--a3nm (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide a source. A wikilink is not a source -- in fact WP articles are not reliable sources at all per WP:SPS. I reckon it would not be hard to provide independent sources showing this deserves WEIGHT, but per WP:BURDEN you need to do that now. Jytdog (talk)
I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Aortic aneurysm

Why was my edit removed? if it was the references, what exactly was wrong with it so I can fix it? Aortic patient (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The refs were not acceptable (please see WP:MEDRS) and the content was promotional (please see WP:PROMO) Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. Aortic patient (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to sourcing, please re-read the WP:MEDDEF section of MEDRS more closely - it says that we generate content about health based on secondary sources (literature reviews in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) and that we avoid primary sources as much as possible. Clinical trial publications are primary sources. Including the link to exstent.com and the youtube video make the content appear to advertising copy; WP is not a vehicle for medical marketing and it is not social media. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Vaxxed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Byates5637 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]