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)

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!

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 - this kind of tit for tat tagging is newbie bullshit. 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)

Jesus, tag bombing of established users after a single revert is big ego bullshit, no? Aren't we a wee too heated by the subject, colleague? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty fed up with sloppy editing by advocates on these topics. Please read what I wrote at COIN in the thread linked at the AfD - my definition of hell in Wikipedia is subjects where there are online communities involved in X who come to WP and hijack WP pages and even fight out their pitiful rivalries here, all without giving a flying fuck about Wikipedia and what is best for the community. My sense is that you may have unintentionally stumbled into this shit hole but.... there you are. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How is that I am acting like them? My rationale was spelled in the edit summary, and it was quite along with your own sentiment: the article is about a product and must describe the freaking product, and Wikipedia is not a platform for their owners' petty bickering. Staszek Lem (talk)

I understand from your strike at the deletion discussion that you are reviewing the history more. Please continue, and please see the history of both pages and the conversations I have had on the talk pages of almost everyone involved. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on American Heart Association talk page requesting a topic ran counter to NPOV

Your edit (deletion) on American Heart Association talk page requesting a topic that discusses AHA's robo-dialing campaigns, hung calls and harassing behavior ran counter to NPOV. If they are going to act like telmarketers and bill collectors then it should be discussed. Your desire to only put forth the positive information is disappointing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG; that was abuse of the article Talk page to talk about the organization; it was not about changing article content. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your clearing of Buffalo General Medical Center and John R. Oishei Children's Hospital

I am curious as to why you made these two articles into redirects again. Are the not notable enough to stand on their own?

There are countless examples of hospital articles that are separate from their network articles, and with the COI issues at Kaleida Health anyway, now more than ever is the best time for them to have stand alone articles.

Trivial and intangible articles are added to Wikipedia consistently and on a regular basis, although I'm not condoning that by any means. I did have plans for these articles. I just want to know your reasoning for not letting it stand on its own. Thanks, Buffaboy ^talk 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they can stand on their own. As they were, they were stubs, and Kaleida Health had no sourced content at all, really. This is a situation where it makes sense to combine things. If content about the hospitals gets so elaborate and bulky at the Kaleida article that the separate hospitals needs to be split, then of course a WP:SPLIT would make sense. But there is rarely that much to say about most hospitals. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, that's understandable. Buffaboy ^talk 16:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, glad that makes sense.  :) thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Replied to Your Post

Hi Jytdog! I responded to your post on my talk page and wanted to let you know since you haven't replied yet. I apologize if I'm not supposed to post here or something, but I wanted to make sure you knew I replied. Thanks! FredCrumbledge (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring at "David"

You know better. YoPienso (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What would be useful would be if you would help the support the consensus language that we negotiated with difficulty. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at GetResponse 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.. Kevdaren (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do see your talk page. It is now quite obvious that you are not new here and increasingly less likely that you have no connection with this company. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Heads up -- Barbara (WVS) and me

Just letting you know of this in case it starts up again. Her editing restrictions at the time involved you as well, but they mainly concerned me and I remember that you were extremely helpful during that time. You have no idea how much I appreciated that help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been debating how to reply to this. I appreciate the heads up. Barbara seems to be going through a somewhat combative phase which is unfortunate for everybody. She has an ornery streak that way. Please do what you can to allow the phase to pass but of course I understand that may not happen.

I do not play wiki-politics -- not ever. I just follow what I see as best for the community. In the original case of Barbara, her actions were terrible and this was clear to me and to others, and resulted in serious sanctions, and she has not only never acknowledged this but has done similar things on a lesser scale since then, which remains a point of concern for me.

But generally, you and I have disagreed before, perhaps as many times as we have agreed, and we surely will do both again. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Aphasia research section???

"Wikipedia is not an instruction manual." This was meant for me?? I didn't write any instructions about anything... I made edits that were very pertinent to Aphasia research and used data from a government website. In fact, I don't see how the page is complete without that section after its been there. What possibly could have been the reason for removing that very useful information?

And then: "please also see WP:MEDMOS to learn how we write about health in Wikipedia." I've gone through that entire page. The common pitfalls, writing style... I have no clue why you referred me to it. It doesn't even apply to anything I wrote. "This page delineates style guidelines for editing medical articles."

Can I please put that stuff back on the page or are you just gonna take it down again? If you are, please tell me what was wrong with it instead of just leaving a vague comment and removing perfectly good information that definitely belongs on an encyclopedia page about Aphasia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5503:7C00:8083:C8E7:10F0:8C9D (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Jason Rapert

You have removed two entries citing WP:NOTNEWS when they are both accepted knowledge with sourced news articles linked to them. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBSnow (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Annakoppad paid editing

Did you notice that yet another article―Blueshift Labs Inc―has appeared on her list of paid work on her user page? Presumably that's because I challenged her on it at WP:COIN#Annakoppad. I admire your patience but to me she is quite clearly only disclosing paid work reactively, when she thinks it has been found out anyway. Or are we seriously supposed to believe that no money changed hands for Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management, Avaza software, Aninda Sinha, Giridhar Madras, or Dineshkumar Harursampath? At what point do we conclude that a paid editor like this is WP:NOTHERE? – Joe (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is difficult. I don't know if the issues are language based or actual resistance. I agree that those articles that were not disclosed look/looked spammy and may well be UPE.... but are they paid or just kind of incompetent? At this point it is too early to say.

I am hopeful that they will learn and do better in terms of disclosing and putting things though peer review and making higher quality edits generally. I intend to give them some time to see, and if they do not improve and the pattern continues then yes i believe they will end up indeffed. Other people might want to take action sooner of course. 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest

You work for the pharmaceutical industry so you have a conflict of interest. That is the truth. Sorry if you cannot handle it, regardless of whether or not we are involved in an edit war. Perhaps you are less capable of handling the truth than I am. Sorry also for discussing others who know who I am. I understand why that could be argued that saying that was perhaps uncalled for. Michihiro Yumoto Soga (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no COI with Otsuka and I think the digital pill is very cool. That doesn't make the edit any less spammy. I would be happy to discuss the edit at the talk page, which is where you should open a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RE [1]

I recognize the fact that WP:SOCK#LEGIT says legitimate alts are not "socks" but I worry that a broad general swath of the population might wrongly equate the two or misunderstand the distinction... if all socks are by definition undisclosed socks, then adding the word is not wrong (at best redundant) but avoids any misunderstanding due to misconceptions. Just my 2¢. Not every commenter on WT:ADMIN or about the eventual RfC knows WP:SOCK policy as well as you and I do. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

no one who is even moderately clueful will misunderstand that, nor mistake your paid alt as a sock. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding changes to AfD Page over biased statement

Could you please explain to me why you undid my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diak4 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:Alternative for Germany. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Diak4 opening RfC based on objection to "left-wing partisanship" in Alternative for Germany

Hey there. I just wanted to inform you that User:Diak4 has opened an RfC on the lede for Alternative for Germany [here that goes as follows: "I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page." This is based on a previous discussion here:[2] which you were involved with. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Zcash

You made some edits today that were in error:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=prev&oldid=816242368 — This content was supported by the ref, except for the point that Zcash uses zk-snarks. That fact is present in almost every other citation on the page (and is even mentioned on the page).
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816242368 — It follows from the definition of fungible.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816242884 — Zcash is an implementation of Zerocash, and has been since the beginning. It says so in the second sentence of the Wikipedia article. Here's the specification for Zcash which clearly states it: https://github.com/zcash/zips/blob/master/protocol/protocol.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816243299 — This change is effectively censoring the core contribution of the relevant citation. While the added material is fine, the was removed content was relevant and should not have been removed. Additionally, mention of t-addr and z-addr is superfluous when transparent and shielded were already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukedmor (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss edits at the talk page. Please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...

Jyt, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That is super kind of you. Many happy returns, to you! Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Jytdog, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

That is very kind of you. Happy holidays to you and yours as well! Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Another possible COI/Paid editor

Hi Jytdog. You were lots of help in providing help to Gibmul regarding COI/paid editing, so I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at HoundstoothSC and AadarshNagarik. I stumbled across Draft:MailControl while doing some non-free image checking and after doing a little digging I also found Draft:BlackWatch Advisors, Draft:Iain Shovlin, Draft:Guild Capital, Draft:List of Guild Capital Investments and Andrew Kass. Both of these accounts (there's a chance they are the same person) are fnew WP:SPAs focussing on articles/drafts related to Kass and Shovlin. So far, the BLP about Kass is the only one in the article namespace, but that was added ‎about a week ago directly to the mainspace without going through AfC. Skimming through all of these, they all pretty much read (at least in my opinion) like PR pieces written by persons connected to the subjects, who might possibly even being paid to create articles about these peoples/companies. IMHO, the Kass article seems a bit iffy per WP:BIO and reads more like a CV than an encyclopedic article; moreover, although the others are still drafts, they also seem to be heading in that direction. Anyway, I just want some more feedback before posting anything on either editor's user talk and adding some templates to the Kass article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, have looked at it. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Do you think this is a case of undsclosed COI or paid editing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

yep it is very very WP:APPARENTCOI. I did an SPI that was acted on with wonderful swiftness and they are blocked now. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now for the cleanup! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The edits seemed a bit suspect, but I didn't even consider that the accounts might have been related to previously reported socking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and calling it out! The SPI I did was just three accounts -- there may well be older ones that are sleeping. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

dreamzgroup.info spam lie

Hey

I have nothing in common with this spam dreamzgroup.info. Please delete this lie from my page. I only added summary of Investments, written especially for wiki.

Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well "lie" is strong. I did put the wrong spammed url. i corrected that on your talk page. I apologize for that mistake. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks. Sorry for probably being too rude - but you just compared my 10 years of work to some spammy webpage which only wants users cash... And instead of just sending message that I should add it in curlie, you call it spam, probably without reading&understanding. For me there is a big difference.

Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some curiosity

To quench some personal curiosity, are you sure about your statement:--Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (this is a branch of the institute that Wifione most heavily advocated for) at this SPI?Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That was incorrect - thanks for pointing it out. have fixed. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No qualms:) Have a happy and pleasant 2018 Winged Blades^Godric 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Som vi säger i Sverige.

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

May the Holy Prepuce protect you during the new year. Which makes me wonder: David collected a bunch of those for dowry. Were any of those "preserved" as relics? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

i am laughing and laughing.  :) Thank you for your always great sense of humor, and may your holidays be filled with goodness. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of paid editor

FYI there's a contribution analysis here that might be useful ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

EU Business School

Hi Jytdog, Don't know if you can remember but we corresponded over the IFA article previously. I was wondering if you could give me a hand on this article with your experience. I don't wish to get into an edit war but it appears some sourced content relating to accreditation/ranking etc are being removed. Can you help? Thanks in advance and Happy Holidays! Audit Guy (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced content

Please check the talk page [3]. You should avoid deleting the properly referenced content. Also, you have revered my edits based on SOCK and WP:RELTIME. But relative time was nowhere present in the article and you have removed the absolute time like 2016(i.e. proper date etc)Amicable always (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. On the behavioral principles, I have said nothing about SOCK and you should strike that. With regard to "sourced content", having sources is the minimum we need but is not sufficient; there are many things Wikipedia is not, and policies like WP:DUE matter as well. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry X-mas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

thanks for your kind wishes, and the same to you! Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

!!!!Merry Christmas!!!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for your happy wishes -- the same to you! Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the addition of Starkey Hearing Technologies

Hello - this company was under Main Manufacturers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_aid

as Starkey Hearing Technologies  is one of the main manufacturers in the industry, the ONLY USA one and all other companies are listed. Not sure how that is blatant spamming?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.100.118.140 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 

Please see your talk page at User talk:167.100.118.140. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Chris! The same to you and yours. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What to do next?

Hello! Have you closed the wake of the problem (H vs MSM), where and when can we find out the final community solution for using the term? Can you make recommendations? Thank you! Путеец (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no support for what you want to do. The right thing to do at this point is drop it and let MSM stand. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not yet experienced in the work. Is this the ultimate decision? Can it be canceled somewhere? I proved by screens that this term is used in modern sources, without quoting. And in my opinion, what we have now done is distorting quotes. Thank you for your advice. Путеец (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the link at "drop it" above. You are not getting any support. There are other dispute resolution methods described at WP:DR but I can assure that you that pursuing any of them will be a waste of your time, and more importantly, other people's time. If you cannot yield to consensus, you will not last long in Wikipedia - you will leave frustrated or get thrown out of here. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Those involved in the discussion were deceived by Alexei. He argued that modern sources do not use the term "homosexual". I added proof of the opposite, but you did not give a voice to the rest of the dialogue, after I added the proof. In addition, I was supported by two participants, if I understand correctly. English at me is bad. Perhaps you will give a voice to the participants of the dialogue, after acquaintance with my evidence and will a consensus be reached? Путеец (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read everything that has been written, as it was written. I am not deceived by anybody. Neither is anyone else who is saying "no" to you. Editing Wikipedia is not some rote exercise where we mechanically reproduce what sources say. The purpose of the contemporary term, MSM, is to describe behavior and to avoid trying to figure out how people identify themselves. Men who have anal sex with other men are at risk of developing anti-sperm antibodies - whether they identify as homosexual is irrelevant. As I said, if you want to pursue this further use one of the methods described in WP:DR. But I recommend you drop it. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for learning! I will continue WP:DR, as it is fundamentally. This distorts the quotes of the source, destroys the ability to search for important information, and I regret your decision to interrupt the dialogue after providing evidence. Perhaps you will change the decision, and save my time, and the time of others, allowing the continuation of the dialogue? Путеец (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Take the time to indent your posts and sign them.

The discussions at the talk pages are going no where. You will not give up and you are not going to get consensus there. It is time to give up or try another way. I recommend you drop this.--Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I will not use it. I will continue. I'm sorry to trouble you. Путеец (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please Help rather then cause Regression

Hi I see that you have removed most of my additions to the condensation reaction page because they were a, "formatting mess." I agree that they were poorly formatted, but there was a lot of good and helpful content there; why not just edit the formatting real quick if you are so familiar rather then removing the content. That seems far too regressive and counter productive in my opinion. Anyway I'll check the links you posted about chem page formatting and re-upload my edits soon. Any suggestions to the page content are welcome!! Mm9656 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks old-new person. Your name is appropriate for this time of year! :) Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Dear Jytdog, Thank you for your hard work on improving the article Antisperm antibodies (and improving the rationality of discussion on the article Talk page)! I would like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. Same to you! Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

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.

---

Hi! While I understand the reasoning between WP:PARITY, that is simply a guideline, and has to be trumped by policies. We can;t use self-published sources for controversial statements about living people, so I've been removing scienceblogs where it has been misused. In this case it isn't an issue anyway - the blog is acceptable for the claim about itself, and other sources are provided for the only potentially controversial claims. So removing it in the two controversial locations makes no significant difference to the sourcing, and still leaves us following BLP. I'd add, though, that the Forbes reference you've added is also self published, and has the same problem, and the Slate article doesn't support the claim. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a very, very old and boring issue, where BLP and PSCI intersect. Both of these are policy. Both are. The fact that he says things is true; as is the fact that they are pseudoscience almost always and dangerous in others. Mainstream medical sources don't talk about this, yada yada yada. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I probably wasn't very clear.

• I wish to remove the self-published scienceblog source in two out of the three places it is used, but this will not change the content, as that content is already reliably sourced.
• I will need to remove the statement that he claims that cancer treatment is a fraud, as that is not reliably sourced and thus is a BLP issue.

Otherwise I don't think I need to make any other changes to the content. I'll fully explain the second change on talk. - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI which is also policy and that you will be violating by removing this and its source. Please do not cherrypick policy.

Also, have you reviewed the many discussions that have been held about using refs like those written by Gorski in just these kinds of situations? See for example Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_2#Request_for_comments_on_SBM_source. Jytdog (talk)

You really don't seem to be getting the point. There is no hassle with content, as I'm not removing any content that is sourced by Gorski. My issue is that using a self-published source for factual statements is not the best option, and where there are alternative sources - as here - the self-published source should be replaced with a better one. The views remain. I'm just removing the sources which are insufficient for a BLP, not the content that they support. - Bilby (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bilby, you just made a serious misrepresentation which I suggest you correct. Above you wrote The views remain but at the article you did remove content describing the views. Would you please fix one or other? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what I wrote was accurate. The content removed was not sourced to Gorski. - Bilby (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Closing this now. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 31 December 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.

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors proposed decision

Hello Jytdog. I would like to inform you that the proposed decision of Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case has been posted. Feel free to comment in your own section at the corresponding talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:paysafecard

Hi Jytdog, sorry to bother you; how was your new year's? Would you take a look at this draft when you have time; the main contributor is very well-meaning and has been cooperative. They have asked me for feedback, my first thought was still half of the content could be trimmed; but as I am relatively weak in this field, I was wondering perhaps it would be easier for you to summarize helpful thoughts. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

it was fun, thanks! i hope yours was the same. will look.. Jytdog (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Shack décor

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For starting the "admin CoI reform" ball rolling in earnest, with sufficient research to give it momentum here; looks like the later RfC [4], based on your draft proposal, is going to pass, and this is long overdue (even if maybe not entirely sufficient – baby steps!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

+1. That was really helpful, what you started. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring 'votes' at talk:Alternative for Germany

Just a heads-up - saw you commented. An anon removed two 'votes' here. The 'votes' were both 'remove'. Say, you voted 'keep'... That wasn't you logged out, now? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

nice catch, thx Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Good deeds rarely go unpunished—and, sure enough, here is a request for help

Fellow Wikipedian (I don't know a more personal name to use and hesitate to use the familiar Dog. I've followed your thoughts on conflicts of interest and paid editing—and approve to the point I am asking your help.

Edits popped at pending changes at an article on my watchlist. I checked the edits and found enough to impel me to consider the other eight or so edits made by the account. I then reverted these four pending edits (previously, four other pending edits made by the same account to the article had been reverted. I'd like to know what you think about my reaction. The account left a polite message on my talk page (the message and my reply are here on my talk page). My reply, containing diffs, should present the necessary information. The account has likely been used by at least two persons, one of whom presents as a published college professor. Thanks. - Neonorange (Phil) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will look! Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You reaction was entirely appropriate. Thank you for that! I wonder why you think more than one person is using the account. do tell... Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning

• The account, Profrich, is so new as to be non-autoconfirmed
• from the message posted on my tp, reads, in part

I wrote a current AI book and referenced it in appropriate places., a claim to be Richard Neapolitan

• the sig to this message is just profrich in plain text and otherwise unsigned; the ip address appears
• yet the references added to the AI article were properly formatted (though the URLs pointed to sales pages rather than citable content)
• the sentence from the nessage that reads

I would imagine they or their students put most of the references in. (speaking, I think, about cites added by other editors to the AI article.)

Q.E.P.

I may very well be wrong—but now it seems a copyvio has been added by the Profrich account (and quickly removed by another editor). I think the dual use is probable, but not actionable. I am confident no paid editing is involved in this rapidly developing train wreck. Just coi promotionalism by possibly more than one person. I am interested in A.I., but not enough to help out here because of all the preconceptions Profrich evidently holds about Wikipedia.

Thanks for listening and responding. Keep up the good work. If you have anything I could help work on, please ask.

Neonorange (Phil) 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversions

You provided no explanation for your last reversion and never addressed my comments, never seeking to use any talk page. All three are pretty improper as well. I'd appreciate if you did that before blindly reverting. Read my edit summaries and please provide a valid rationale. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit notes are clear; I did not blindly revert and for writing bullshit on my talk page that I did, you are now formally disinvited from posting here. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution link re: Myofascial Release

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Myofascial_release".The discussion is about the topic Myofascial release. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the article about R.E. Neapolitan

I am an ex-student. I thought that would be okay. I would guess most professor pages are produced by students or ex-students. Sincerely, profich

Profrich (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)