User talk:Jytdog

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

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.

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 October 2017(UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Hi no wish in getting into an edit war. But you have made several factual errors.

I have stated them. Thanks Historicalchild (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog, I'd be a bit more cautious with this and so I've reworded it and added another ref. I'd prefer to let the source speak for itself than to assert on the BLP. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

POV

Hello Jytdog. A brand new account have filled all articles on haplogroups with a dubious map created by him[1]. Origins of those haplogroups are disputed and adding a map pushing a certain POV may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subject(s). Shouldn't those maps be removed from the LEAD? 85.174.59.101 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The description says " The distribution of Y-haplogroups in the Paleolithic. Reconstructed on the basis of the modern distribution of Y-haplogroups, ancient DNA data, sites of men in the Paleolithic, physical terrain, paleoclimate and suitability of areas for life in LGP." How can you get more OR? Doug Weller talk 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, i have just seen your comment. Thank you for your attention @Doug Weller:. I noticed that the account is edit warring with other editors to push their map on the lead sections of WP articles[2]. An admin intervention would be helpful, because it seems that he keep reverting others. The lead sections of almost all articles on haplogroups have been filled with the same disputed map right now. As i clarified above, it is POV and may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subjects. Thanks. 37.204.54.76 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Easy there

I'm pretty sure there's a consensus somewhere for no more than three "fucks" per edit summary. GMG^talk 14:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There must be, right? That kind of blatant hijacking makes me so mad. I toned many of those edit notes down. Should have toned them down all the way. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Just pops out on recent changes like a lighthouse on the rocks. GMG^talk 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleting peer-reviewed references

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnethicalSurgery (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Some courtesy would be appreciated

I've noticed that within minutes of my updating carefully-referenced pages written in a neutral tone (to the best of my ability), you've summarily deleted them, with comments that I can't help but perceive as inconsiderate and dismissive ("nope" and "spam", respectively - nothing more). I've spent many hours editing MiraDry and PRECICE, seeking high-quality secondary sources, and being mindful to keep a non-promotional tone. I have no affiliation with either. I'm happy to follow the spirit of Wikipedia and collaborate on making these articles meet its standards, but please help with something more substantive than a cursory dismissal of my work.

Thank you, Dandv 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

I was just in the process of leaving you a note on your TP. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Erythropoietin

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and probably do not know the right way to enter references. I was trying to indicate that Deflandre was a graduate student of Carnot's and enter the reference to the original paper. I have her thesis that verifies the receipt of her Ph.D. If you could help with this, I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratoga15 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I understand that you are trying to write about Deflandre but that content is not about the subject of the article. In addition that that the edit you have made hsa broken formatting. There is lots of guidance about citing sources - see Help:citing sources or for a shorter description you can see the advice at WP:MEDHOW. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guy, maybe let someone else have a say?

Hi! It seems like you feel like you are on the right side of science. You may be right. Perhaps though you could let all the relevant information be presented so that people can decide what they think is right for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychfollower (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reply at the article talk page - I opened a section there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion2

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.

Please stop edit warring on the Posttraumatic stress disorder and discuss on the talk page.

Thanks in advance, PolarYukon (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss at the section I had already opened at the Talk page: Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Circumcision_and_PTSD, where you have not participated yet. Please also review WP:MEDRS. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Power posing edit war

Please stop removing my well sourced content. Please stop adding defamatory content regarding p-hacking that is not in source material.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Power posing, you may be blocked from editing.

Please use the talk page and discuss the edits. This is all work-out-able. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

EJustice

FYI, I left them this note since they seem interested in appealing the community imposed indefinite block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's what they were after -- I replied there. Thanks for the headsup. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

not spam

Your characterisation of the provision of an additional source as 'spam' is inappropriate. Whether the additional source is necessary is probably debatable, but it is directly relevant to the cited material. You may apologise here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the content, happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. I'll reply there if you post there. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably as close to an apology as one is likely to get on Wikipedia. It wasn't spam as falsely attributed, but I'm not overly concerned with the exclusion of the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you removed information from "Frontiers in" simply because you "feel" that it is too weak?

This seems ONLY your opinion, but I understand that scientific quality should not be based on opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychsci79 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination review underway for Vitamin C

The reviewer - who has brought more than 160 articles to GA status (but few in the medical arena) - has a slew of comments that I am working through. I am inviting you (and Doc James and Zefr) to contribute to the process, either with comments at the review or directly to the article. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what i can do! Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Banzernax (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: people with privileges who edited for pay

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.

---

A current admin edits for pay as Salvidrim! (paid) (talk · contribs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No secret there, and Jytdog knows already. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, just figured you posted here not to tell Jytdog "hey check this new information out" but more as a "you might want to consider adding Salv to the the list you're compiling". Sorry for butting in. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here @JJMC89:. If I knew about Salvidrim! editing for pay I had forgotten (with apologies for that, @Salvidrim! (paid):). Either of you please feel free to add to the list, which is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#History_-_people_with_privileges_who_edited_for_pay for now anyway. As I noted there I started generating it because people had asked in the thread above about examples, and getting a full picture is good for everybody. And it would be good if it were everybody's list, not just mine. :)

Salvidrim! I would be very, very interested to have a general conversation about paid editing with you, to hear your thoughts about it. We can do that voice-only via google hangouts or skype (i have a jytdog account for both), or we can do that on-wiki if you prefer. That is general. Separate from that, I would like to have a conversation about what you have actually done so far on Wikipedia as a paid editor. That should happen on Wikipedia, and if it is OK I would like to do that after the first one. Are you open to that?

I am making a couple of comments on the two on-going AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Weinstein (business executive) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad), just to get clarification on them and I made a couple of edits to the Studio71 article but don't intend to get involved beyond that for now. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer written conversations to spoken ones but I'd be happy to chat with you about my thoughts on paid editing over e-mail, FB or Discord or on-wiki. However, much of what I could say has already been said in my answers Doc James' question in the 2016 ArbCom elections. As for the specifics of what I've done, I've similarly ensured that the details are indicated on each entry on that account's userpage, so that should answer your question, but I'm happy to provide any additional requested details on that user talk page if you want. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm! I offered to talk, specifically because written communication is less rich, and more prone to misunderstandings, and this is a topic where people have a lot of strong emotions which make it hard for people to really hear each other. But we can do this in writing as that is what you prefer, and we do it on-wiki too.

Thanks for pointing to the answer you gave to Doc James at the arbcom election page. I hear that. That was pretty short but gives me the general idea.

So I guess we can just do it here and now.

So in general, in all fields, the very widely held view on conflict of interest, is that it is a problem that needs to be managed in some situations and eliminated in others, because a) (intrinsic) the conflict in interests affects the judgement of the person with the COI, often without them even being aware of the ways it is doing so; and b) (extrinsic) to avoid damage to the reputation of the institution/company/organization. Is that something that you disagree with? Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I see COI and PE as related (and often intermingled) topics, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other. If one allows their judgement or principles to be influenced by the expectation of remuneration, they're doing edits for the wrong reason. Of all the things I have been asked to do on-wiki against payment, I've turned down over 75%, always with clear explanations & guidance as to why the request couldn't be accepted within policy. The proposals I've agreed to were ones that were within policy, which is to say that I would have done as a volunteer regardless. I wouldn't do or say anything against payment that I would not do as a volunteer. As for "avoiding damaging Wikipedia's reputation", I think it is generally preferable that companies ask & pay experienced editors for counseling and editing instead of doing it themselves or with PR contractors who are external to Wikipedia. Reputation-wise, "companies only edit Wikipedia through experienced, established Wikipedia editors" sounds a thousand times better than "companies often edit Wikipedia themselves with little oversight". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

hm. Your reply goes into a lot of different things and levels. I don't think this conversation is going to work for me, if it doesn't go carefully and step by step. There are way too many issues, and levels of issues, and if we don't arrive at shared assumptions then discussions about specific situations aren't going to make sense to either of us. But if you don't want to do that, that's fine Jytdog (talk)20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim! I will ask three specific questions about your actual paid editing activities, however.

1. You are working through Mister Wiki per your disclosure. When you put the Weinstein article through AfC, the person who moved it to mainspace in this diff with no changes, also works for Mister Wiki per their userpage. Would you please comment on this?
2. You added the "paid contributor" tag for the other editor to the talk pages of Talk:Studio71, Talk:Reza Izad, and Talk:Dan Weinstein (business executive), but not for yourself. Why is that?
3. The COI guideline is very clear that editors with a COI should not edit directly. You do edit directly for your clients. Why is that?

These are real questions, not rhetorical ones; I don't presume to know your answers but I do assume that these are intentional things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Nothing to add to what you've said.
2. Read that account's userpage: any non-minor content change will come with a "connected contributor (paid)" template. I haven't made such contributions in either of these cases.
3. Read what I just said above about the difference between COI and PE. In any case, "should not" doesn't exclude "can with disclosure". If, as you seem to think, every COI edit was disallowed, PE was allowed with disclosure, and COI must equal PE, there would be a fatal logic error, but fortunately that is not the case.Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The optics on the first thing are terrible. I do not find it heartening that you have no comment. Please comment. If it was a fuckup it was a fuckup. If that is how you all intend to operate intentionally, that is a serious problem. This is exactly the kind of thing that harms Wikipedia's reputation, not to mention Mister Wiki's. So please clarify.

With regard to the third thing, I did read what you wrote, and nothing there actually says "edit directly". I very much disagree with your distinction between PE and COI; you may evaluate your clients carefully before taking them on, but once you take them on, you have a COI. COI distorts judgement, generally, which is why we have a process to manage it - disclosure and prior peer review (which means not editing directly).

I have been considering an RfC to add the prior peer review step to the PAID policy and apparently that is needed. I believe that this actually has broad consensus, but we'll see. That will be the only way to resolve this, I believe. I believe that someone with your reputation will abide by community consensus once (if!) it is made clear on this issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course whatever I personally think means nothing against community consensus, I'd never dream of intentionally violating policy. I've made clear in the past that there are several policies with which I disagree but still abide by. :p But FWIW, "don't edit directly if you have COI or are being paid" is not something that I believe will find community consensus considering the "anybody can edit" pillar. I'm sure many people would rather have transparent disclosures than people trying to hide their status to edit directly. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on the third thing. Everybody "can" edit as long as they follow the policies and guidelines, which puts restraints on the kinds of things that everyone can do. Putting articles through AfC and offering suggestions on the talk page, only where one has a COI, is still "editing".

Please comment on the first thing. This is very serious to me, and something that I will escalate for community resolution if we cannot resolve simply by talking. Soeterman actually moved the articles about both executives to mainspace, which puts this well outside the scope of coincidence. The community does not like drama over paid editing and it is better for everyone if we can resolve this simply.

To give you a heads up I am going to note the conflicted AfC "review" at both AfDs. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I just have no idea what to respond at all, sorry. FWIW I don't see how the AfC thing has any bearing on the notability of the article subjects, which is what is being discused at AfD, but feel free to mention it if you feel it is relevant to the discussion.. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

At both of the AfDs you wrote (diff at Weinstein; diff at Izad): but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" and such maintenance clean up is desirable overall for the project -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags..

You wrote that at the AfD, and the nature of what actually happened in the AfC process should be noted at the AfD which I have now done. (diff at Weinstein; diff at Izad).

What I am asking you to respond to, is whether it is appropriate or not, to have one editor who does work for Mister Wiki submitting an article for AfC, and another who does work for Mister Wiki approving it and moving it to mainspace. I understand that Mister Wiki is kind of new. Maybe it was a fuckup. Fuckups happen. But if this was perfectly fine to you, we have a serious problem. Please address this directly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who "accepted" it, signed up for AfC only a few hours before they accepted it. So this appears intentional but is perhaps something that upon reflection you understand is not OK.

Please think carefully before replying this time. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You all did it the other way around on Datari Turner, where Soertermans fixed up a failed AfC submission and then you moved it mainspace. While Soetermans discloses Turner as a client of Mister Wiki, you have no such disclosure on your page. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was not paid for any edits to Datari Turner nor had I even ever spoken to anyone at MisterWiki at that moment. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been around a long time and you must realize that this statement is difficult to believe in light of what has happened at Izad and Weinstein articles. I am not saying you are lying. It is just difficult to believe. It also doesn't make clear if there was any other relationship at that point (like just helping a friend or something). This just looks dirty, especially in light of your continued silence on what happened with the Izad and Weinstein articles. So please clarify already. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

For all I know it's possible the contact with MisterWiki resulted from my them noticing my uninvolved approval of Datari Turner's draft, I can't speculate. As for the other matter I literally have no idea what to say and will await Soetermans' post just as much as you. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Man you are not helping. The two of you have done this three times that I have found so far, all related to Mister Wiki clients.

I am not looking for blood. I realize this is all awkwardy but what I want is to get this clarified and set on the right path. There should be disclosure of everybody involved, and there should not be direct editing in mainspace or any kind of collusion (or even the appearance of collusion - indeed there should be rigorous "I am not touching that as it might look like collusion") in reviewing submissions. That is how paid editing and COI can actually work in WP without getting into this kind of "this looks filthy" kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mister Wiki website, like too many of these paid editing websites, is not transparent about "who we are". You and Soutermans are the only people who have disclosed being involved with them on Wikipedia according to this search (there used to be a user called "Mister Wiki" as well as a MisterWiki that were associated with Diego Grez who is community banned.... but those seem (?) unrelated to this venture which appears to be new - the website was only registered this year.)

In any case, the website says that people working for it follow the TOU, so apparently it is just you two. You have made a serious decision to associate yourself with this company; things related to it are going to end up associated with you. You will not be able to just shake that off. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've responded to the concerns of the similarity to an old vandal's previous username on my talk page -- the name "MisterWiki" is clearly not a unique construction like Salvidrim or Jytdog. As for the AfC review, I maintain that I have no idea what to say and am unwilling to say more until we know more (he's on European time and this is the weekend, not everybody checks Wikipedia every hour like you and me!). As for the identity of the person behind the MisterWiki website, one of the first things I did was research because I did not wish to associate with unknown parties of uncertain trustworthiness. I won't WP:OUT the guy but he's a an experienced PR guy working mostly (but not only) in the music industry who decided to seek help from experienced Wikipedia editors to help respond to his clients' inevitable Wikipedia-related requests. I wish more PR firms would do the same instead of believing themselves imbued by some ultimate truth and trying to edit Wikipedia themselves, not knowing Wikipedia's purpose and policies. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You keep distracting from the point here. You knew that Souterman was working with Mister Wiki well before he accepted the two AfCs that you submitted. (and what the is up with that revert on their user page?) You are looking filthier every time I scratch this. You actually cited your integrity at both AfDs (diff, diff) and I am looking for that to come through.

That revert happened at 03:24, 20 October 2017.

You accepted the Turner article at 03:27, 20 October 2017

The more you write here and try to distract me from your own accountability here, the deeper a hole you are digging. Please account for your actions. Yours. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Misclicked reverts are the least of concerns here XD -- I'm not trying to dig a hole, I'm just reiterating -- you're trying to understand what happened, that's fine, and right now we're both waiting on more information. You've made it abundantly clear that this is no about my actions or my integrity but about the AfC review. Not everybody edits Wikipedia on a Monday in the middle of the night. Let's give some time for clarification. I'd rather be thorough than rush to judgement. You can see here I've not been avoiding engaging in discussion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No this has come to be very much about your integrity. You are an admin here which we means we all trust you very, very much, but you are giving very un-straight answers here.

You already knew that Soutermans was working for the same outfit as you.

So you ~might~ have known that Soutermans was going to accept them via a pre-made plan (and him joining AfC a few hours before he accepted the drafts sure makes it ~look~ like planning, especially given the prior Turner interaction). I don't want to go too heavy on that, as that is speculation. But you definitely knew when they accepted it, that they worked for the same outfit as you.

Yet you did nothing about the very, very bad appearance of Soutermans in particular accepting both - and only -- these two drafts, and even cited the AfCs at the AfDs as though they meant something under your "paid" hat, citing your integrity as a WP editor generally.

I don't see any way for you to be looking good under either hat, at this point, and nothing you have written here -- not a single thing -- is helping. Instead there is one distraction after another. I am still looking for you to say "yes I (or we) fucked up here big time" or something meaningful about your actual actions and your lack of actions. You, the whole person - the paid guy and the admin guy. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And I'll be happy to address that whenever he's back online and responds to your post and we have all the info. Once again, I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't want to rush into anything without being thorough. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You are still ducking the issue of why you took no action on the 15th about Soetermans, but you were very diligent with respect to your paid client with asking JJMC89 not just once on the 17th, but again on the 18th, about removing the tags which was the paid task per your description.

Where was your diligence as an admin with respect to protecting the integrity of the AfC process? I had plans for today, but instead I have gone down this rabbit hole digging up stuff that you already knew. You could have posed the question I put to Soetermans on the 15th, or even asked him to self-revert and let someone truly unconnected do the AfC review. You did nothing. Why?

This is the only question that matters in this conversation, and you can answer that now. If you do not respond to this directly, I have to let you that know I am considering bringing this to Arbcom next, to see you if you should remain an admin. (an answer, "I completely fucked up" will resolve this, btw) Continuing to duck and trying to point at anything about Soetermans, will not resolve this. Soetermans has nothing to do with your lack of action here. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's almost midnight, I work Monday morning and I'm already in bed. Hopefully by the time I log back in tomorrow we'll all have more information as to what happened with and once the what and the why have been explained I'll be able to respond definitely with my thoughts on the whole thing. Once again, there is no rush or time limit put pressure or threaten as you are doing is not conducive to positive resolution. I don't wanna say "I fucked up" or "he fucked up" or point any fingers because I believe that Soetermans is owed respect like any other member of the community and we don't usually do things in absentia', without hearing everyone out. Give a bit more reasonable time for thoroughness' sake. Thanks! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he can say has anything to do with what you did and did not do. Conflict of interest tends to skew judgement. Yours went completely out the window. When you write back here tomorrow, please don't write anything about what Soetermans did. AfC had the very blatant appearance of corruption directly in front of you, twice, and you apparently didn't even see it. You apparently cannot even see that in yourself even now, when I am showing it to you so plainly. This is terrible ....and I will add very human. Which is why community is so important. Please, please see that your judgement went completely astray here. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I ended up getting up in the middle of the night because this nagging issue was literally keeping me awake (I hate looking like I'm avoiding being accoutable and people thinking I'm somehow being dishonest), and fortruitously I received the info I was lacking. Let's be clear: the reason I was so reluctant to speak my mind before speaking to Soetermans was because I did not know if he had spoken to or been asked by MisterWiki to approve these AfC drafts. Only knowing my end of things and not his, I couldn't provide a honest and thorough assessment. Now I can. Here is the timeline for clarity:

Soetermans, with whom I was friends due to years of WPVG collaborations, asked me privately if I had some time to do an AfC review (approval or denial or whatever else, just get it reviewed). I was happy to help, and approved Datari Turner.

Some time later, contact with MisterWiki was established, likely as a result of my involvement with Datari Turner's draft, and he asked for help with a few things -- fixing the Studio71 article title & logo, getting Pierce Fulton's, Reza Izad's and Dan Weinstein's pictures freely-licensed, and most importantly what could be done to have the maintenance tags on the latter two articles removed. Immediately I informed MisterWiki that the reason these tags were there was because they were created by what looks like a paid editor who has not disclosed that fact. I got in touch with WolvesS, had them confirm their status and convinced them to properly disclose it on-wiki as per policy. I thought at that time that the best way to get the maintenance tags off the article was to get it reviewed (I couldn't really do it myself since any appearance of neutrality flies out the window the moment payment is disclosed), and the best way to get it reviewed IMO was via AfC (which it had not gone through when being created) as a first step (and COIN was a last resort). So, I draftified and submitted.

A few days later, I inboxed Soetermans complaining about the long wait at AfC -- not with a request for help, but as a "let's gripe together, friend" thing. He asked if I wanted him to review the drafts, I told him it probably wasn't the best idea for all the reasons Jytdog outlined above. Soetermans said the drafts looked good and reiterated his good-faith offer to put them through. This is where I fucked up by giving in and not sticking to by gut feeling and principles. I should have known better and turned down the offer definitively. I thought since the article was likely to be approved at AfC anyways eventually, what harm can it do whether it's "this reviewer now" or "another reviewer later"? I just figured everything was fine, we were all acting in good-faith, nothing to worry about. This carelessness and optimism was my mistake and I apologize to Soetermans for allowing him to put himself in this situation instead of turning down his good-faith but ill-advised offer. I still think the review was done in good faith, however, and not as a favor without regards to article content.

Hopefully this answers all of your questions, Jytdog. Once again, apologies for keeping you waiting, but first I had to make sure Soeterman hadn't been asked by MisterWiki to approve these drafts without my knowledge before taking on the blame as I did above. Lastly, you probably know my neverending and all-powerful commitment to transparency, so here is the chatlog of my talk with Soetermans about the AfC drafts (released with his consent of course), which proves that everything I have said above is the truth. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

The two of you gamed the system three times - all for money and "wiki-friendship". You helped your wiki-friend serve his client more quickly, then he helped you serve your clients more quickly, all utlimately on behalf of Mister Wiki and its clients. I say that even taking as true that neither of you were paid to do the receiving.

AfC is a process meant to protect the integrity of Wikipedia and meant to be fair to everybody, and the two of you turned it into a farce. Appearances matter. What do we say to the next paid editor who is complaining that AfC is taking too long? Heck what should we say to the next volunteer who wants to see their work published already? "Gee too bad you don't have a wiki-friend who can prioritize you" is not a good answer to either of them.

And I am not even getting into how badly your judgement about the quality of the content may have been compromised, as you appear to be acknowledging here and here.

This is what "conflict of interest" means, what it does to people's judgement, and what it does to the integrity of Wikipedia and the fairness of its processes.

Your response does not fully recognize the actual problem and you appear to still have only a glimmer of insight into how badly you have compromised yourself, your admin office, and the AfC process as you and Soetermans got involved with Mister Wiki. You are still dancing around that.

And what is worse, you bullshitted me all day yesterday yet you come here touting "transparency". Your first response to item #1 was actually Nothing to add to what you've said. when you knew the extent of the backroom dealing here between you and Soetermans, with Mister Wiki and its clients standing behind first one of you then the other, the whole time. (Granted you didn't know if Soetermans got paid for accepting the articles or not, but that is just icing or no icing on the shitcake and you could have left that small part open) Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you please read the WP:COI guideline - I mean actually read it with open eyes and an open heart -- with this experience in mind, before you reply again? I am really asking. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Although everything was done in good-faith and with an "everything is fine" optimism, obviously no amount of good faith can wash the appearance of untowardness and corruption that has tainted the AfC reviews that were done. I don't appreciate your characterization of anything I've said as "bullshit" but I understand why this would frustrate you and apologize for taking things with perhaps too much optimist levity and not enough of the serious thoroughness that handling such complex situations requires. I am keeping a watchful eye on the discussions/RfCs surrounding this and will of course abide by any consensus and pre-existing policy that arises. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You do not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation nor how you much have compromised your integrity and reputation, and you are making it worse with each diff in which you do not engage with what you did here. COI tends to skew judgement and you will not see that this has happened to you, as you continue to repeat this "good faith" stuff. I am considering my next steps as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say to meet whatever your expectations are. Yes, I fucked up by allowing a fellow paid editor to review the AfC drafts that another paid editor had created and which I was paid to clean up. No, an editor being paid to accept a draft (or accepting the draft of a fellow editor paid by the same outfit even if they are not paid themselves) is not okay and constitutes a perversion of the AfC process, whether the intent was truly to deceive and bypass policy or not -- as you say, what matters is appearance, and there is no way that what transpired here can appear proper. I "appreciate the seriousness of the mistake". I fucked up. How much more contrition and apology do you expect of me? I don't make a habit of grovelling or begging for forgiveness. I fucked up, but prefer to learn from my mistake and move forward positively instead of lamenting on what happened and what could have been. I know your opinion on paid editing and I know I won't change your mind on the topic, thus I'm not sure what constructive outcome can possibly emerge from continuing this one-on-one back-and-forth. You asked me to recognize I fucked up - I do. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to separate the matter of your wrongdoing from my anger at you wasting my time extravagantly yesterday dancing around the issues (which was pure bullshit - I had content I wanted to work on yesterday and instead I ended up wasting my time digging through your sordid history while you danced around the issues).

I am not looking for you to grovel.

I have been looking for something that is simply clean so that it is clear you understand how corruptly you behaved on both sides of the AfC, so that we don't ever repeat this drama. Every response you have given before now was slathered with distracting, ass-covering, self-righteous bullshit. I have no tolerance for bullshit and I have bitten my tongue, hard, more than once in our interaction so far.

You do not know my opinion of paid editing. I think paid editing can be totally fine when people rigorously follow the policies and guidelines and are self-aware that they are conflicted. Humans being human they very often fuck up, and I understand that, and I do everything I can to give people room to learn and improve. But some people are so arrogant that they think they are "above it all". And those kinds of people in particular tend to double down and make things even more messy when problems emerge and they extravagantly waste other people's time - all for their ego and efforts to keep making money. But people who have CLUE and are resilient and self-aware can actually pull it off and things can work smoothly with no drama. It happens every day. I write about this on my user page, here.

Your last reply is clean enough that I will not seek further action. I cannot say what others will do. But you have completely exhausted my patience, that is for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (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.

Stock manipulation - bearish articles

Today I reported Wikipedia to the SEC and the FCA for their part in this racket

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/instablog/2918951-g-hudson/1026551-how-the-big-players-manipulate-the-stock-market

You'll probably have guessed from my geographic location that I work for a share registrar, so you know I know the ins and outs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.152.40 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Not commenting on the "reporting" bit but the source there is one that I don't use and that I generally advise people to avoid when writing about biotech, since it is bloggy and often about penny stocks, and very open to the kinds of manipulation you are talking about. And since WP is WP:NOTNEWS we shouldn't be drilling down to the kinds of details that make stocks swing but rather should be focused on the fundamentals.

If you are aware of articles that you believe have been manipulated to be bearish or bullish please post at WP:COIN and identify them so we can fix them and see if we can figure out if anybody is doing that systematicaly, which would be a violation of the Wikipedia WP:PROMO policy at least. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Veganism Edit

Hi,

I was just wondering why you wanted to remove the edit I made to the Veganism page. I wasn't trying to spam the page. I understand if it was a legitimate issue I just was curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beccalordon (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! If you would please post this at Talk:Veganism I would be happy to reply there. Discussion about article content should be there, for a bunch of reasons. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if they just notified you when there isn't a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved? ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Article talk page

I cannot find article talk page - it gives me either yours or mine... How do I respond or ask questions "If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolcevikasf (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dolcevikasf. Every article has a talk page, even if blank, which can be reached by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the menu of any article. Alternatively, you can find it through the search box. If you want to comment on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln, then enter Talk:Abraham Lincoln into the search box. So just add "Talk:" before the precise article name. I use the desktop site on an Android smartphone, because some of the apps/mobile sites do not provide good support to serious editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen.  :) User:Dolcevikafs, before we start discussing content, would you please reply at your own talk page, here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Imprudent to reply right now

Addressing the central point

Regarding the question for me at COIN, I don't think naming names is prudent "at this juncture" as they say. There's enough SHTF for one day. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Just to be clear I want to lift up white hat paid editors. It was not any kinda "lets get 'em". But i appreciate your desire to keep it outta that context. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Followup. Though I didn't want to go into ad-hominem stuff – even if only perceived or potentially perceived as ad-hominem – I do want to elevate it into a discussion about policy here. The central point I want to address is this: is WP:PAID just and good? Or in the vernacular, "how's that working out for you [us]?" No hard feelings, I hope. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

V.S. Ramachandran: pending edit war.

There appears to be an edit war developing on the V.S. Ramachandran entry. In particular, NeuroWIKI99 is doing quite a few reversions and using the edit summaries to attack me personally.Neurorel (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As you probably remember, I used to watch that page for that sort of thing (I no longer want to do so). It might be a good idea for you to post about it at WP:BLPN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons file deletion discussion

Jytdog hi. I nominated the Age of Consent - Global.svg file for deletion over at Commons [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Amos Yee

Hi, posting here as I did not get a reply on the article talk page or my own talk page which you posted the notification. My recent edit was actually in reply to your edit summary that Mythcon 2017 was not mentioned in any decent refs, hence the removal akin to a citarion needed rationale. The Independent has been used repeatedly thoughout the article, so I thought that was a qualified source, plus I was actually using a more updated report (my last addition was from a report on 15 Nov, while the previous ones were from 12 Nov. Just trying to understand where I went wrong here. If look at my edits the past few days on other articles, you will notice that most of the time I had been addressing citation needed, so I thought this is a similar issue? Please advice. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw the reply in the article talk page, thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

My appreciation for what you do

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this for cleaning up the mess at Acamprosate today. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		...and I'm awarding you this for dealing with the user who created those problems – Campral1234 – on his talk page and then at WP:ANI. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I shamelessly jacked your edit notice and copied it here (with some minor revisions). Hope you don't mind. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hijack away! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, User:Seppi333, the GABA pharmacology stuff in that article needs sourcing and love... right down your alley kinda? Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the pharmacodynamics of pharmaceutical drugs is probably what I write about the most on Wikipedia, hehe. I'll take a look at it shortly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think

I think that most people will have an easier time figuring out if a source is "independent" than if it's "secondary", and for probably 90% of information being added by newbies, independence/non-self-promotionalism is IMO the factor that's more important. Even within our own favorite area, which is just a tiny fraction of articles, "please do not just cite the company's own press releases" would solve a lot of problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

May be of interest

In case you missed it: ArbCom motion on crosswiki issues —PaleoNeonate – 03:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes i saw that. gotta watch those DS! :) Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Boyle

Re this. Is there an SPI about them? I see that they're very ducky but none of them are blocked. They're also refspamming e.g. at Personality test. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. CU is done, needs adminning and closing. it is under HRS395. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. I would block and tag them all, but I disagree with Katie about moving it to the most recent confirmed sock so will wait for a clerk. I don't think there's any particular rush to block (correct me if I'm wrong). SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is somewhat severe disruption at the circumcision-related articles but nothing unfixable. I only noted that they had not been blocked as the CU wrote the standard "blocked awaiting tags" note, but has not actually blocked them. must have been called away in the midst or something. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound

No intention of being promotional. Intention is to provide unbiased information on the topic. Your harassment and over-reach have been noted before and you are continuing this behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex dj (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reply to the notes at your talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

NO COI - Unbelievable that a balanced sharing of information cannot exist

Especially on pages related to health, etc...Agreed Wikpedia is no place for promotion but what you appear to be doing discourages the open sharing of information that is cited in peer reviewed medical journals. Differences can exist and readers should be presented with all credible information that is available. Ex dj (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to a direct reply, at your talk page, to the questions posed at your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello,

I have noticed the revisions to my edits to the page. I thought they were balanced and neutral. I have left a note on the talk section of the article.

I am trying to raise the quality of the article as much as possible. As a patient of the condition I take a deep interest in the content of the page, I realise this can cause problems with Wikipedia pages but I think I have done the best I can to keep the content as neutral and balanced as possible.

I try to follow the rules of Wikipedia medical aritcles the best I can. Any help in being able to make this a better article would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I have provided you with the WP:MED welcome on your talk page, which has a bunch of information that will help you. The key pages linked from it are WP:MEDRS (sourcing); WP:MEDMOS (style); and WP:MEDHOW, which has a bunch of helpful tips to writing about health in Wikipedia. Because you are passionate about this, would you please also review Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), which is much broader than its name implies and talks about various kinds of mistakes that people make due to passion, financial conflict of interest, or for some people, writing about their own theories about medicine. Thanks very much for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you hate me?

Why did you decide to destroy my edit. What have I ever done to you. Do you hate me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minho007 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors do not hate vandals, who are not worthy of an emotional response. Experienced editors just clean up messes, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, by sources

But why did you delete this source? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17485267 This is an excellent article, and is not the primary source. Can I return it to the article? According to it, the article will be completed. Путеец (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is too old per WP:MEDDATE and Frontiers is something to use gingerly in any case. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I will use it gingerly. Anyhow, there are no any recent studies on the matter, but this one is very comprehensive and has never been refuted. It's also been cited in many relevant works up to 2017. Путеец (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sleaze

- with its slightly different meanings in Ae/Be, is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the signatories of this list.

Your first hand experience with some of them clearly appears to demonstrate that they deliberately disregard the voluntary work that goes into building this encyclopedia and maintaining the quality of its contents; they are hell bent on making a career out of it one way or another. Dealing with commercial abusers of Wikipedia is a serious drain on our resources. In the light of recent events (KDS, Arbcom, etc), paid editing may not actually be on the increase, but it would appear so because we are getting more proficient at smoking it out. That 4 year old project and its signatories have become a joke. Or at least a recent anachronism. There's no reason why outdated agreements can't be revoked. I think it's time for it to be revisited, and from my opinion, with which you are well acquainted, with a view to banning paid editing altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of all the people who signed the statement. Some of them clearly did it for lip service only as they have no actual presence here, but some of them are good citizens. I object to the broad brush, very strongly.

I don't think it possible to "ban paid editing" in any meaningful way.

I don't there will ever be consensus here to "ban paid editing" so even getting it done symbolically is very unlikely in my view. Don't know if you read the several efforts made in 2013 to do that, and listened to what the community said. (I put links to them here, under the "historical" subheader. It is worth taking an hour to read them and really listen).

I do think there is broad consensus to manage COI and paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, of course it will never be possible to eradicate paid editing, but 'banning' it would at least be symbolic. I don't think I'm mischaracterising anyone when I state yet again that paid editing is totally antithetical to the concept of voluntary projects - which it is, and there can be no counter argument. Many of us volunteers have a right to feel exploited and abused, not only, but also for the work we have to put in to smoke out and block the miscreants and find solutions. Someone was even advocating creating a Paid Editors' Club on Wiki - how absurd! Is that the concept of 'management'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That was me. And yes it is what I mean by "management", and on more than one level. :) Discussions about it are here (at the Statement), here at VP-proposals (where it was not loved), here at WT:COI where it was kind-of-liked. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This list was voted to be kept at this MfD. However, not without some disquiet and from people such as DGG who, like me, would prefer to see paid editing ultimately banned entirely. The other pages you link to have no bearing as they aer essays or failed proposals - they are only kept for historical purposes.That list is as a worthless as a dead parrot and is a joke. Its not a binding document of any kind such as a professional charter or a recognised code of practice such as the Bar Association or the Law Society. These people who blatantly exploit our voluntary work will sign anything if it keeps them in business.

I disagree with the idea of a Paid Editors' Club - we are not a web host, and I would be vehemently against our volunteers having to manage it. nevertheless, it was a good try - keep the ideas coming.

Consensus can change, and as some of these discussion go back early 10 years, consensus is changing, and there is a growing manifest disapproval of paid editing of any kind. Already in some of those older discussions is was stated that so much of the paid editing is black-hat anyway it may as well be completely disallowed. Add to that the fact that we have moved ahead quite a lot with our efforts at COI and SPI, and that we have a new, supposedly, more competent team at NPR who with ACTRIAL having significantly fewer pages to check, paid pages stand out even more clearly.

It should be obvious to any honest person that Wikipedia was not created for people to make a living out of. I'm already frustrated at the bloated WMF staff list of over 300 that our efforts get the donations that foot the bill for. There were 15 employees when I joined Wikipedia.

At the moment we'll have to wait until the outcome of the current Arbcom case before we can even begin to think about what the next step should be. then any RfC will have to be extremely carefully worded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand everything you are saying. I don't understand what you think the symbolic ban on paid editing would change in terms of what we actually experience as editors (the amount of bad content that paid editors add to WP). What do you think the symbolic ban would do? Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

see what I just posted on the COI talk p. It would enable us to clearly say and publish: Anyone who asks for payment for writing a WP articles is deceiving you. I intend to bring another MfD on the list--I do not think it would stay on now, & I think someof the people who organized it may be having second thoughts. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I did see. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know

I'm getting notices from Wikipedia about donation time. I used to donate money as well as edits to wikipedia. I liked wikipedia. Still do. But not as much anymore. After some unsavory messages (later edited to be slightly less unsavory) from @jytdog and off-hand deletions of contributions, I no longer trust Wikipedia's reliability as an information source. I really don't want to spare the time to discuss it, but suffice it to say, I feel that genuine, valid, truthful contributions are being disrespectfully swept under the rug off hand without investigation or thought. Maybe some feedback will give you insight. --Synthopedia (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)w

I interacted with the Synthopedia account at Talk:Functional_medicine and at its talk page and I have written nothing "unsavory" to that account. I have never reverted an edit made by that account. Perhaps you have edited under other accounts here? Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hi,

We recently talked on my talk page. So I started editing other pages and I would appreciate your opinion on how I'm doing. I've noticed IPFire page had many unnecessary sections and marketing materials. I've made some changes. Can you confirm this is acceptable? I'm not sure if addons section should be there either. Thanks.--Mr.hmm (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would you mark IPFire page for speedy deletion after I reach out to you for advice? You undo my edits, re-do same changes and then mark the page for speedy deletion? Why? --Mr.hmm (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice is that it should be speedy deleted. Your edits were good at removing some of the bad and I appreciate you doing that and calling my attention to the page. I went to clean it up more and there was nothing left. This happens sometimes. When that happens I go back to the state of the article before the clean up and speedy it. (I reverted my removals and yours - our edits were the same in my view). If you had rewritten the page to make it a WP article, sourced to high quality, independent sources, I would not (and could not) have done that.

Let's see if it gets speedied. If it gets speedied and you want to take a stab at writing a new version, you can start it at Draft:IPFire. If the speedy is declined, you can work on it, where it is now. It does need a complete rewrite.Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it needs complete rewrite. Sounds like a a plan. Thanks--Mr.hmm (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Andre Marin

Hi Jytdog! It looks like there's a new editor wanting to polish up Mr. Marin's public image via Wikipedia. Your nonbiased input would be appreciated. Lurker9999 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jytdog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What's going on?

I'm not sure why I was linked in that Arbcom case, but generally it's courtesy to notify someone when you do. In any case, that hounding on my talk page was done by four editors, not the community. The community's lack of response to their hounding may say something, but the WP:AN thread I opened did not support their arguments. Other than that, what's going on with Salv?--v/r - TP 04:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TParis Hey sorry about that. I was rehearsing the history of people with advanced privileges/admins and paid editing, and originally was going to cite what happened with you as someone who did something very like paid editing (writing an article for pay that someone else posted), but not extensively and with no apparent abuse of tools, and who has not been desysopped. I also noted that you have been treated very badly. I removed that due to word limits.

What is going on with Sal, is that he, pretty unreflectively, started editing for pay, created an alt "paid" account and gave it advanced permissions (like page mover), and used those permissions for his client. He also coordinated off-WP with another editor, who was working for the same outfit, to draftify then hop two pages through AfC as a strategy to get N tags removed from them, and then cited the corrupt AfC multiple times. And cited his integrity. Wasn't at all thinking clearly. Thought he was above COI. That all got brought to light in the big closed section above, if you scroll up. I think the lights went on some by the end of that.

And I made a timeline of it here. It was only a three week period.

But then at COIN a bunch of people wanted him to resign the bit and go up for RfA again (this is influenced in part by his disastrous -- and also careless - RfB in the summer.) And he refused to do that and instead was pretty defiant, here, clinging to his bit and his own judgement, instead of letting the community tell him if it still trusts him. I had been asking everybody to hold off at COIN and let him think, but after he posted that, an hour later the Arbcom case was filed, and I can only support it. All this drama over making a few bucks, and his desire to keep the bit.

The broader context is that we just indeffed an editor who had NPP and autopatrol rights who was editing for pay (he gave those up voluntarily) but who also was an OTRS volunteer, who was actually soliciting people who had emailed asking for help.

There is a big thread at VPP arising from that mess.

So paid editing and advanced privileges are kind of "hot" right now. Sal picked a bad time to use crappy judgement with the tools and then to be defiant about keeping the bit.

If he had actually surrendered the bit and gone up for RfA, I would not have had an easy !vote there. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (re-sign for ping in case not watching Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC))

I see. This is quite a storm brewing. I have more comments, but I'm in a rush. I might speak to Salv about the issue.--v/r - TP 13:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Brewed, but yes. It would be great if you would talk to Salv, and I look forward to your comments, where ever you put them. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Party at Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case

Hi Jytdog, the Arbitration Committee has directed that you be added as a party to the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case. This is not a finding of wrongdoing. Please submit any evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence by 15 December 2017; as a party, you are allowed 1000 words and 100 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I will restore some stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You can call me Ben or Salv

Although I'm used to people misspelling "Salvidrim", it seems like it's a significant obstacle and I wouldn't want silly typos to detract from the seriousness of the arguments you are bringing forward. You have my blessing to shorten it to Salv or Ben as others commonly do. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Les Mills International Page

Hi Jytdog,

My name is Brynn, yesterday I made changes to the LMI page for my boss and this morning when he went to check them the were changed and I saw that you had changed them due to the fact you thought they were spam. Can I ask why? I work for Les Mills and the sources for the change were both reputable (one of them in fact came straight from Phillip Mills himself). 203.29.87.142 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brynn. Thanks for your note. You have a conflict of interest and should not directly edit the article about the company you work for. Wikipedia articles are not social media and are not vehicles for promotion. The references you added are not what we call "reliable sources." If you would like to be involved in the article - suggesting changes but not editing it directly - please create an account and let me know, and I can teach you what you should do. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Misophonia

Hiya! So, I had a question about a couple edits I made that you reverted. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in this area, so figured it'd be a good chance to ask. A while back, you reverted this citing that it was a primary source. Then recently you reverted the same content with secondary sourcing here saying that it's a "primary source + popular media". Which is a bit confusing since I can't see why HuffPo and Telegraph could be primary sources. I'm by no means questioning your judgement, but I guess I'm asking what would be a good source in this case? Anywho, any feedback would be appreciated and thanks in advance! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit note that you cited said, in complete: "primary source + popular media. Please see WP:MEDREV". Did you see WP:MEDREV? Please let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Gibmul and paid editing

Hi Jytdog. I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at the suggestions I have given to Gibmul in User talk:Gibmul#Paid editing, etc.. I I don't think Gibmul is really trying to hide anything, but some of their statements seem to indicate a possible misunderstanding about what a Wikipedia article is intended to be. For reference, I did start a thread at COIN about this, but so far no one has responded and I just want to make sure I am not giving this editor any bad information or advice. The editor seems to be making major revisions to articles like this and then posting a message on the article's talk page asking what others think, instead requesting the edit first on the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting changes For Les Mills International

Hi Jytdog, Brynn from les Mills here, I was just wonder what the process is to getting changes made to the Les Mills International page is. The reason for the changes are that the wiki page could be more accurate in terms of the create of the business, if you could assist me in the process that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegumnut (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, we will do this at your talk page, User talk:Thegumnut. See you there. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, and thanks for contributing to AfD. Just a note that at this deletion discussion, you struck out the entire commentary from a person who !voted multiple times. I have changed the edit to only strike out the duplicate "keep" !vote, and unstruck the commentary. This is because while multiple !votes are not allowed at AfD, multiple comments are. Thanks for keeping this in mind into the future. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you fixing that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No problemo. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Feedback requested

A COI edit request has sparked a discussion on which your input is desired, at the Viking Cruises page. Thank you!  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest Edits to Calvin Cheng

I have taken your previous feedback about my edits and have refrained from doing any edits to this page. In fact, I have only reverted edits to your versions. I have looked at your edits and I appreciate you writing a neutral BLP. As a foreigner, you have no COI. However, it would be fair to also use the same measures with COI edits the other way with anti-establishment editors like Jane Dawson and Bukit Bintang? If pro estab Singaporean editors are not allowed to elaborate on the positive parts, why is Jane Dawson reducing the positive parts for WP:Undue and then elaborating on the negative parts? Thanks Historicalchild (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Shrilk

Dear Jytdog, Your vision on Shrilk might be confused. Shrilk was the first material able to reproduce the natural synergies of structural biomaterials artificially. Shrilk is referred, for example, to as “one of the materials that will change the future of manufacturing” (Scientific American), a “Supermaterial” (National Geographic), and has been chosen (with graphene) one of the “five material that could change the word” (The Guardian). I understand this is a topic you don't find important or relevant enough to have its own page, but it is to others. Definitely the redirecting to chitosan is not an enhance of the quality of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.77.60 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is all hype. It is somewhat remarkable that your IP is from the university where the person who invented this works now.Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

How are you doing this is Jenna garnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.38.88 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Silent Siren edit request

Hi Jytog. Thank you for trying to help Gibmul. I'm not sure, however, if they completely grasped the advice you've gave avoid dense, lengthy requests after seeing the edit request they made on Talk:Silent Siren. I cleaned up the formatting a bit and was in the process of adding a comment explaing why, but there's was a ec by you and another editor. I added my comment anyway, but hopefully now it doesn't seem too redundant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Article-subjects providing their own lead-images

Travis McHenry is in a league of his own, I think? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

at least he is following Uncle Ben's advice recently to raise awareness of climate change! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The King and the Land are one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Winged scapula

Hello, Jytdog – I'm in the middle of copy-editing Elasmosaurus. I linked "processes" to Process (anatomy) in a piped link. Right after that there was a reference to the "necks" of the shoulder blades. I thought, since I had linked "processes", I might find an article or section of an article to which I could link "necks". I searched for "shoulder blades", and it led me to Scapulae. I saw a few references to "neck", which I might use. However, the reason I am writing this is because, in Scapula, in the Scapular fractures sub-section of Clinical significance, there is a black-and-white photo of the back of someone with a Winged scapula. The caption reads, "Example of a winged scapula". I was puzzled by this. I think non-experts would not know which scapula, the left one or the right one, was the winged scapula. I guess readers could eventually figure it out by reading the entire article on Winged scapula, but perhaps it would be helpful to indicate in the caption which of the two scapulae is the winged scapula. After glancing at the article on Winged scapula, I figured it was the one on the left, but when I first saw the photo, I had no idea which one was the winged scapula.

The photo also appears in Winged scapula, in the section Signs and symptoms. It appears below a color photo. The caption of the first photo reads, "winging of scapula". Besides needing a capital "w", perhaps this should read, "Winging of the right scapula", and the caption of the black-and-white photo should read, "Winging of the left scapula", or "A winged right scapula" for the first and "A winged left scapula" for the second. Just a suggestion.  – Corinne (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Bork

Hi, Jytdog,

Thank you for your attention on my contribution/description to Peer Bork. The information I'd put in is true, mostly underlined/supported by the provided URL and also based on my knowledge so far. What I didn't understand is how/why you could just easily remove the entire paragraph for Peer Bork's research. There I'd spend extra time to figure it out on the google scholarship and set up the url for the reader's convenience. Your removal of the entire paragraph is really not justified as the research paragraph provides additional support to the first paragraph what was told about the person. Your judge was just based on a very simple linkage algorithm: one person - one contribution: then as doubtful! In some cases, this might help you to identify doubtful articles. But in this case: what is wrong on the content what I'd put in? If you'd point out what was wrong, then I'd correct it. If you're just keeping removing stuff from what I'd put in without a reasoning on the content, then I don't see how I'd continue to contribute anything meaningful.

I hope that you'd take a closer look at the entire article, then judge whether it's right and correct.

Thank you.

Best regards

An occacional writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamBird (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reply here, thanks. After that is done I would be happy to discuss article content, at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved your replies to your talk page. We all have "talk pages". This is mine. Yours is at User talk:StreamBird. Click on that link and read what is there, and please reply there. You can edit that page, just like you can edit this page, or an article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning - works both ways, colleague

Your recent editing history at pfSense 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.. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus christ you are adding incompetence to your advocacy. If I give you an edit warning, of course I am aware of the policy. What has gotten into you today? Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)