User talk:Jytdog

Response to my Message

Hi,

I responded to your concerns on my Talk page but did not get any response from your side since then. Could you please check the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Faizan81

PS: I am copying my response here too in case:

Hey Jytdog,

I am sorry for any inconvenience occurred because of me. You can check out the following page here:

http://electricalacademia.com/about-us/

I am an Electrical Engineer and Ph.D. Fellow at Energy Systems Laboratory, Miami, USA. I like writing technical articles, i have my own blog where i usually write about Electrical Topics. ElectricalAcademia.com is MY OWN portal and i have been working on it for last one and half year.

I realized some articles here needed citations for further verification of the material so i provided some references from my OWN website.

I DO NOT have any intentions of promoting or advertising my website somewhere. If you think that "providing references from my own portal" conflicts with Wikipedia policies, accept my apology. I won't do this anymore.

Please let me know if you have any further question or query regarding my activity here. Thank you

Ahmed Faizan Sheikh

should probably say...

You and I butt heads almost as often as we see eye-to-eye, but IMHO you're a damn good editor who does a lot of good for the project, and are a joy to work with every time we get together to improve something. That's pretty much verbatim what I told Bish and I sure wasn't lying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the drama.

I like that we butt heads as often as we agree. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Regardless of the intensity of the resulting stars, it's cold, hard evidence that we're not just following the pack, as it were. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that you have been angry at me lately, and I hope that it's OK for me to post this (if not, think of me as a butthead!). But I sincerely want you to know that I was worried about you, and, above and beyond any disagreements we have, I sincerely respect and value you as a member of the editing community. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your note - that was very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your work has been critical to improving Wikipedia. And thus glad to see your remaining with us. Yah COI issues are incredibly controversial and working in this area is generally a thankless task. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

it gets harrowing sometimes and if it ever comes to it that i lose the confidence of the people i trust like Guy to the extent i thought i had, it will be time to go. fortunately this was a misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James. Sometimes I think your approach might be too aggressive, but for the purpose of improving Wikipedia they have been incredibly beneficial. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I'll try to keep the too aggressive thing in mind. I do try to keep that in mind. not well enough always... Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

CREATES Act (US bill)

Hi Jytdog,

If you have the chance, please review and take a look at the article I recently created today on the CREATES Act. I found a few interesting topics that would be interesting to expand upon relating to the FDA's Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy with Elements to Assure Safe Use. Figured you have an interest in the topic with some of your previous editing, and would appreciate a keen eye on expanding this—thanks!

Regards, Shaded0 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Please see the talk page...Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

query

You removed entirely 2018 info to restore 2012 source wrt prostate cancer? OK. Here's hoping your docs don't read Wikipedia when it comes to interpreting PSA. It would be helpful (since I do not have journal access) if someone could update the entire suite. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So nice to see you back! Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I hereby award Jytdog and Masem the two halves of this barnstar for their work and discussions regarding Malacidin. LukeSurl t c 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

user:LukeSurl I never responded to this. Thanks! And I never got a half barnstar before - funny and clever. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

CCCLM

There are more than 30 colleges with separate pages for both Oxford and Cambridge, and 14 for UC Berkeley and countless others for U.S. institutions. Brown University and several other medical schools have sub-pages that describe individualized curricula as colleges or even tracts within colleges. Can you explain to me the difference, particularly in the latter scenario? The only reason that the article is redundant is because you've chosen to remove all content and summarized it with significant brevity. The distinction of a college within a university is the presence of an acting dean, individual admission process, and alternative curriculum and educational aims. This article distinguishes these. If you take issue with the content of the article this can and should be discussed, but your unilateral decision as to what constitutes an institution of higher learning is not appropriate. The individual entry stood for almost 9 years without issue. I propose that the article stands with a link added to the content you've placed in the main CWRU page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTRL2003 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic has abused the hell out of Wikipedia to promote itself, and that time is over. Yes it went unaddressed for a long time. No more.

That article has been merged and the subject is covered in the university article. And please disclose any connection you have to the clinic or this college per the COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic as an institution, and its history of abuses (of which apparently I'm not familiar) are not relevant to this argument, which is granular and procedural in nature. This dispute is over whether or not an existing page should have been deleted and redirected without room for discussion. I cannot see a promotional aspect to this dispute. If a university has a college that is distinguished in any capacity from its university, it is within reason for it to be notable. Further, CCLCM is physically distinct and housed separately from CWRU, making the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine both a "college" and a "place". It is a physical and not a theoretical distinction. This puts it in the same company of any number of thousands of buildings, colleges, and other namesakes which have their own page. Let my COI note that I am a graduate of CWRU and lived in Cleveland, OH for 4 years. Do you take issue with the previous content of the page as promotional prior to your deletion and merger? On what grounds are you opposed to it having its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTRL2003 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your posts (we do that by adding the appropriate number of colons in front, as you can see when you look at this in the editing window). and please sign your posts by typing exactly four tildas at the end) Like many conflicted/advocacy editors, you are blowing off the basics in your urgency.

Thanks for disclosing a connection with the university. Would you please disclose your connection with this college? Happy to discuss the content, after the foundational issues are worked through. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure- I am not connected to the college but as a CRWU alumnus I admit there is bias towards appropriate university hierarchy being reflected. I can understand if this disqualifies me from edits based on advocacy rules. However, I am not requesting content changes, just structural correction. There is no real urgency here. But, I'm effectively brand new to this so I'm just learning the system. Perhaps after this I'll go find something else to irritate me that I feel needs correction and be more facile when I do it.PTRL2003 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replyig (and for indenting and signing). If you like, please open a discussion at Talk:Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine to see if folks there think splitting Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine back out would improve Wikipedia. More generally, for an as-condensed-as-possible orientation to Wikipedia and how it works, please see User:Jytdog/How. You might also want to read WP:BOOSTER with regard to your alma mater - it describes the epidemic problems we have articles about universities and colleges. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Spam" references

Hi, you seem to have reverted a page I edited Cochlear implant. Could you please clarify:

1. Which references you believe I added constitute spam and why? They do not appear to fall under any of the three criterion listed.
2. Why you've reverted the page to a version that contains the statement "there is some risk that it may cause people who never had tinnitus to get it."? This statement was unsupported by references and is untrue.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dientboy (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dientboy: WP:SPAM mentions adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Further down, it mentions people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. That would include linking to sites that put up "sources" merely to sell products and services, as Medel.com and Audiologyonline.com do. The third source, which would be legitimate, still fails in that it is a primary study and not a secondary source or tertiary meta-analysis (see WP:MEDRS).

As for the unsourced statement regarding tinnitus, it is in the intro, which summarizes the body. In the body of the article, in the section "Efficacy", it discusses its effect on tinnitus with a source (a systemic review from 2015, more thorough and recent than a single study from 2001). Up to 10% of patients who have never had tinnitus do get it after getting the implants. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that this user got a level-4 warning after having made a single edit. That was over-the-top. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that was perhaps too harsh, but then Dientboy looks awfully similar to 18.111.21.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gregorybarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SmartSE (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, unless a CU tells me otherwise, I can only believe that 18.111.. is Dientboy. I can't guarantee that 18.111.. is also Gregorybarry, but as drafts don't show up in search engines like articles, it's so unlikely that an IP would show up to edit a draft edited by an SPA with a COI that I again would need a CU saying "nope" to assume they're distinct.

@Dientboy: I'd like a good explanation for this. Like, really good: so good I'll need to shower and make you breakfast. Because otherwise I'm ready to block you for sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, that makes it a lot better in my mind; obviously, I didn't know that backstory. Just don't do that for genuinely new users. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is a deeper yet history. The cochlear implant articles and some others have a very bad history of spam, and particularly from MED-EL. It got so bad that I actually emailed the founder and CEO a year or two ago and asked her to ask her people to stop. To my surprise I got a back a very cordial and apologetic note from her. It has unfortunately started up again. We do not need refs from "MEDEL blog". The spam is particularly glaring added only to the lead, with nothing added to the body. You also might have noticed that the edit right before Dientboy's was yet other spam from some UK blogger.

In general, among corporate promotional editors in health and medicine, probably the worst are from medical device companies in my experience. (It was people from Medtronic who went after Doc James, emailing his university and the like.) Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I got tired of waiting and blocked Gregorybarry/Dientboy (GB for a week, sock indef). Gonna go trade cigarettes for duct tape. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

fwiw, i had not thought that gregorybarry was dientboy (just hadn't thought of it). but i trust your judgement. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OH I see, it is through the IP which made the same edit to CI and also edited the draft on the alliance. Yes I totally agree now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Neuralink Revision

I want some clarification to why you deleted my revision on Neuralink page. You claimed "No mission statements" but most of my contribution was not that, and there is clearly a mission statement that you kept at the start of the second paragraph. You seem to be purging this page on a regular basis. Edit part of my contribution, but don't get rid of it all? Zennox1 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

happy to discuss content at the article talk page. if you review that page you will see that there has been lots of discussion there about what to include. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ludwig's angina

Thanks for your kind reply and edit. We are currently revising in order to produce a better version for all readers or audiences. Would you prefer me to send in the edited version to you prior to uploading it directly onto the main page?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerprince95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. What do you mean by "we"?

Also, usually we edit incrementally. But if you want to work on drafts you can do that in a sandbox; I made one for you here: User:Gingerprince95/Sandbox. You can draft there, then post a link and ask for feedback at the article talk page if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor Re: questioning of meta-analysis

Dear Jytdog,

I would like a clarification why I am not allowed to post peer-reviewed commentary for the 2017 systematic review regarding efficacy and side effects of SSRIs. The conclusions that appear on the page are merely a result of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors, as pointed out by the commentary. The reasons I have heard from you and other editors so far are i) The criticism wasn't heavy enough and/or this is not notable. I could not agree less - such lengthy commentary is exceptional and the result is that none of the main conclusions of the original paper are supported ii) Single comments shouldn't be used to refute reviews. Other authors have also criticised the paper, see for example here or discussion here (in Danish) . If one source of criticism isn't enough, I'm happy to post both letters and/or the news article. Thank you.

References

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.109.14 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page, Talk: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is KarimKoueider and his unconstructive edit. Matthew_hk tc 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledge having read your COI comment

Hi there,

Can we have a discussion about my proposed edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A04:B900:2134:7AC1:9986:D354 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what article or what edit you are talking about.... but sure I am generally happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Jytdog, please see the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding edit war with Perky28.Perky28 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Near-death_experience Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with advertisement tag?

Hi Jytdog. I edited this version and found that the article was given an advertisement tag.

I looked up this good article and this good article as models for modification, and I translated the Korean version into English. I would appreciated it if you could let me know what was written like promotional contents, so that I can improve or delete.

(and, should I have put this talk on the talk page of the article?)

Thanks.

Bigsmile20 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The page is horrible; your edit was more of the same but not why I tagged it. Yes please use the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Young Pioneer Tours

I believe it is best taken to AFD. I will not participate in that given discussion because I have a declared COI with this organisation, but I think it is notable enough not to be "speedy deleted" as it is the leading company in this specific industry- TF92 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I disagree. The page would have to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are only for blatant offenders which have been instantly created. This article has been on here quite a while, I think this one would require at least a "PROD" or consensus of the community --TF92 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct - we have speedy deleted pages that have been here for ten years. And you should not be directly editing that page as you have a COI, per the WP:COI guideline. I have self reverted as it was speedied before and declined. I am filling out the rest of the connected contributors on the talk page and will AfD it. What dreck. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was A7d and declined. So you are free to nominate it for G11, although I doubt you'll have much luck from a hardliner that isn't willing to grant considerable leeway in light of the COI issue. GMG^talk 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just did the AfD; better to do that than have more drama. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since that leeway would probably be well into IAR territory, and just as likely as not to end up at DRV. GMG^talk 19:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There are several more DPRK tour companies up for deletion if you are interested in these debates [1] [2]--TF92 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I found your comments on JacobPace's talk page to be well reasoned and tactful. Thank you. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An answer to your remark

Hello,

Let me ensure you that, I’m not supported by any brand, person or company. I’m fully independent ! Nonetheless, I understand your remark and take into account the rules you mentioned.

Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.59.184 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what remark you are talking about or what article this deals with.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Medical Journal isn`t a reliable source. I finally understand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sy036267 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your editing, is that all you have been doing is promoting He-Ping Cheng's four stage theory of death. Several people have noted this at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Habakkuk

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.

---

Question 1: Can we agree that the book of Habakkuk had a human author? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

At least one, sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 2: The Book of Habakkuk names this individual as "Habakkuk", with no further explanation of who this individual was, except to state that he was a prophet. The name "Habakkuk" might be the author's real name, but some scholars content this is a pen name or pseudonym, so the author's name may or may not be known. Agreed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this article content on the article talk page. Please do not ask about what I believe. We edit per sources, ideally secondary ones. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is cited from secondary sources in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page with nonsense.

Thank you. Mfwitten (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as nonsense if I were you but hey it is your path here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AE edit

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not sure what you meant to do with this edit at WP:AE but it has been reverted as a mistake by Power~enwiki. In the process, you've pinged a bunch of people (including me because of the old thread on EJustice), so I thought you might like to know so you can (a) re-try whatever it was you meant to do and (b) so you are aware a bunch of editors will be looking and wondering.  :)

PS: The section immediately above this puzzled me, giving yourself warnings, but I see they are part of the text that was added by an editor upset about being given warnings. You removed the edit warring notice but not that part, FYI, in case you want to ditch it too.  :)

EdChem (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad night for me eh? At the AE page i was trying to update the link to the statement by Wiki ED which has fallen into the archives there. should not have done that. will fix the thing above, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hugo Gottesmann

Hi, Thank you so much for your help in one of my reference (2) for the year 1915. I added another reference 3 for the year 1916. Gottessman is referenced in 1916 for his awards. WS114WS114 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Studio71

Thank you again for your message on my talk. At this point, I'm obviously not trying to push harder than I should and have gone quiet on certain discussions to let things cool down. I understand the controversy of contesting a merge, but do you actually think Studio71 is not notable for a WP? You said I see no real chance in the near future for Studio71 to have its own article in WP. That may change in a year or two.

This is more just for my own understanding: I believe they are notable but why exactly is a contest of the merge not the right thing to do aside from the fact that it will generate more bad feeling for me? Thanks for your patience with me. JacobPace (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You asked me that already, and I answered already. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of GA Reassessment: Behavioral genetics

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just curious - I do recall at one point you had said that there are holes on Wikipedia that need filling. What kind of examples were you referring to? JacobPace (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is always a ton of work to do. Things get outdated and need updating with more current refs; somebody comes through dump a bunch of content into an article throwing off the WEIGHT which then needs rebalancing; people create SPLITs and leave stub content in the main article, which then gets built back up with different content and sourcing, leaving the main article and split article out of sync and leaving us with "meta-editing" gardening work to do; and there all kinds of notable subjects that don't have articles at all. In the fields of stuff I edit about, some day I intend to write Susan Niditch ( biblical scholar, Rich Aldrich (investor in the boston biotech scene), and Barbara Dalton (pharma VC)... I am sure there are holes in subjects you are knowledgeable about too! I don't think there is a universal "to do" list anywhere but I am sure lots of wikiprojects have to do lists you could check. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will research this over the weekend in more detail. JacobPace (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up question here so I can fully understand. I'm assuming you find these notable through WP:BIO correct? Any specific part that you see validate the notability of these people? No rush at all. You've given me more than is needed as it is. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Niditch will fly per WP:PROF; the other two I am not certain. I imagine they will be but since I have not really gone searching yet I am not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wondering. JacobPace (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Exodus article is one sided and offensive. Please help to resolve.

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.

---

The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page with respect to article content.

You should also be aware that Wikipedia follows scholarship and is not confessional. The history of the Ancient Near East is a scholarly discipline that is conducted in the secular world, like the rest of the discipline of History. I realize this can be frustrating from some religious people. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that postings should be scholarly and not confessional. That is my point. The current post is confessional in that it presents a belief that the historical source material is untrue and disregards the majority of scholarly work that explores the source material including these below just as a few.

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Chart H2 73 0012 – El 'Aqaba to Duba and Ports on the Sinai Coast, UKHO, Taunton

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Hansen, P, Timeline from creation to Jesus

Finkelstein, I & Silberman, N (2001), The Bible Unearthed, The Free Press, New York

Gospel Pedlar, James Ussher: The Annals of the World

Merling, D (1999), Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba?

Shaw, I (2000), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Uphill, E P (1968), Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance, JNES, Vol.27 No.4

Wyatt Archaeology, The Exodus Conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again please discuss specific article content at the article talk page which is Talk:The Exodus

Also, threading and signing comments on talk pages, are both as fundamental here in Wikipedia as "please" and "thank you" - not doing them will make you come across as rude.

I fixed your indenting above, and a bot signed on your behalf.

We indent by putting colons in front of a comment -- put one more than the person who wrote before you -- the Wikipedia software displays an indent. We call this "threading" - see WP:THREAD.

Please sign your post by typing four tildas at the end (exactly four), and the Wikipedia software will turn that into a "signature" - links to your user page and talk page, and a date stamp.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Silberman and Finklestein deny the historicity of the Exodus, as does the Oxford History of Egypt. None of the rest of those sources are even remotely reliable, and would only represent scholarship to a fundamentalist who explicitly denies real scholarship. Hell, the first is by a regular contributor to AiG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytog, may I intervene by pointing out that history is a scholarly activity that is also pursued in the religious world, according to multiple traditions, but which traditions are generally accepted even in the "secular" world? I realize this can be frustrating for some non-religious people. Sorry about that. But that's the real world. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obnoxious edit summaries

can the obnoxious smug shit you are putting in your edit summaries (in re Imprimis edits) - ridiculous. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

again see my talk page

Is there anyway I can notify you when I make edits there or do I always need to leave a message here too? Upoon7 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to notify me at all. You dont need to leave a message here. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm

I object your delete, which I am going to revert, and find your edit comment "This is treating legend as reality. Not OK in Wikipedia" to be quite inane, or insult on my intelligence. Of course I realize these stories are far-fetched, and I expect every conceivably sane-minded reader to figure that out, without requiring a caveat at every step that this may not be the "reality".

If you want to figure out some way to contexutalize without making it overtaxing to read, then you are welcome to do so but you have no grounds to do wholesale delete.

These primary sources are also quite properly introduced here and there through secondary sources, generally 19th and 20th century article pieces in folktale type journals as well. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cat-headed illustration

On the image file File:Houghton Swi 607.23 - Ouresiphoítes helveticus, fig X.jpg I will explain why you should not have reverted to the old caption "18th century cat-headed illustration".

It misleads the reader into thinking the creature is called Tatzelwurm in the book it is taken from, whereas it is not. Therefore I called it a dragon (in Latin) as it does the book. Additional information like "encountered ca. 1660" was meant as additonal info on the corresponding text, not to dress this up as real. The caption has been amended to "Depiction of the cat-headed dragon claimed to have been encountered on Mt. Kamor". --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dont delete explanatoy notes that are referenced

Like in your edit here, when my text reads

".. dialects.{{Efn|Dialect of [[Canton of Aargau]].. according to Rochholz}}<ref name=doblhoff-apud-kohlrusch&rochholz/>

isn't it quite obvious that the text enclosed in {{Efn}} is probably given in the same citatin that has "rocholz" in it? Don't delete text as WP:OR without checking if it is in the inline citation. You did this same thing 3 times. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this note and the ones above, please post them at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. If it were a content issue, where you had some source evidence to contradict the information, that would be a worthy topic on the page.

What I am pointing out is that you deleted information claiming WP:OR even though the information was in plain sight in the inline citation I gave. That does not constitute substantive discussion on the topic of Tatzelwurm helpful to others interested in writing about the topic. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

PLease discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Large Paid Editing Declaration

Hi Jytdog, I received a message from User:Bbarmadillo, who seems to have made a gigantic declaration of paid editing. I wonder if you have see it. He sent me an email, for some reason. scope_creep (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm! Looks at first glance like they are being a good citizen. Will look further and keep my fingers crossed. Odd that he emailed you. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shirley Ratcliffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sex chromosome disorders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I revised your notes on my editing on Barefoot and I'd like to ask you the following:
- Didn't you notice that all your corrections where you refer to unsourced text didn't have any connection with my text? I never add the text without citations.
- Your notes about badly sourced information have nothing to do with my citations added, they are not mine.
- Can you show me which text that I added is regarded as promotional - for me to know and not to make such mistakes in the further editing
- Why any book I added to External sources you regard redundant (is it enough to cite the website where they are in the Bibliography?)

And as to the editing of Atkins - I didn't mean any editor war beginning. I didn't reverse your editing I just eliminated the sentence where I enumerated the names of celebrities that had used his diet as you wrote it was promotional and continued editing. That's all. If I do it by mistake, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I didn't pay attention to your notes. Will you be so kind to show me what text in this article is regarded as promotional for me not to repeat such mistakes further on.Lyupant (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Please be aware that not everything is about your edits. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"this is not good and we should perhaps consider MfDing"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Inherently non-neutral forum used to canvas keep !votes in AFDs?. This is classic "Rescue Squad" behaviour, where the one person seriously opposing deletion responds to a weak-but-steadily-growing consensus to delete by posting to the Rescue List, and several of their regulars show up to auto-!vote "keep" with superficial "See! I found these sources that I clearly haven't read! GNG!" comments.

Sometimes they even show up and steamroll an AFD, and never make any effort to fix the article under discussion, until yoi explicitly call them out on it so they either (a) make a feeble attempt to improve the article with sub-optimal sources and OR or (b) unilaterally change the topic of the article completely, delete everything in it, and create an entirely new article in its place (which still is not ideal but meets WP:NLIST), while still claiming that they are "keeping" the article and that the article was always on their new topic.

But don't dare talk about any of this in public, or you'll be hounded for weeks for your "battleground" mentality and your being a member of "the deletionist camp".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to the discussions you opened; it is very useful to know what past conversations were. An effective MfD or other community action would require a lot more homework to show the behavior, and then work to present that concisely so that other people can quickly grasp the issue. I have not done that work yet to see if this is a trend and if so, if it is serious enough to try to galvanize action around; my "if" was an authentic "if". But thanks again for making me aware of those two discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I just read through all of that background, and it leaves me feeling saddened. What I am seeing is a group of editors with a battleground attitude towards AfD, as extreme inclusionists, who have figured out a way to canvass without getting caught. They constructed their project so that they can always say that they are not about canvassing, and just as you said, they are trigger happy to hound anyone who says otherwise. An MfD will get shouted down. I think that the best one can do is to open an ANI thread after each AfD where they show up and make trouble, knowing full well that the ANI thread will degenerate into a long argument that leads nowhere, and after building up enough of those to justify an ArbCom case, open such a case and be prepared to document that they just !vote without actually working to improve the pages. It's a matter of documenting each time an editor comes to an AfD after a post at their project, but does nothing to actually edit the page that was nominated for deletion. And I'm saying this on-Wiki with an expectation that they will see what I have posted here, and will take it as a challenge to actually do rescues the right way, which would make such an ArbCom case unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not so hopeless about an MfD, if there is indeed a problem. The project's own guidelines say that participants are not supposed to show up and votestack but rather do the work to actually rescue - I was happily surprised to see that guidance saying the correct thing. One imagines that this became so prominently posted because participants (being human like everybody else) tend to slide into doing the easier, incorrect thing. If there is a pattern of doing the wrong thing despite their own guidance, that would be a strong reason to delete at MfD - the argument would be (subjunctive, as I haven't done the research yet) that the project leads people to disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very doubtful an MfD would succeed but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anyway. My recollection is that the last time the ARS folks had a bright light shined on them they backed off afterwards and weren't so blatant, at least for a while. You'd have to be scrupulously civil, non-accusing and so on at any MfD for this to work, because (like much of Wikipedia) it's basically a PR game. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are good points. And if nothing else, such an MfD would at least provide further justification for going to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)