User talk:Jytdog

Need your help on a page that is attacked- Alliance University

There is a family feud going on for Alliance University, where two parties are claiming their ownership. UGC lists alliance.edu.in as the University's website and here is a High court ruling. You are the only editor who knows how to handle and settle the dispute and can really make a correct decision. Save Wikipedia from spammers who are using it as a source to list their claim.157.37.169.248 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the "only one" but I worked over the page. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for doing that, but you are certainly the best and most neutral editor here. A few things to notice and make clear on the page.

• Brother: It does not specifies who is the brother and with dispute tough to determine. Can you from change "his brother was the president." to "his brother, Sudhir Angur was the president ", it will make more sense to the readers
• All universities in India have a legal status only when they are approved by UGC, here is the link of https://www.ugc.ac.in/uni_contactinfo.aspx?id=537 which display the actual and recognized website by the authorized body of Indian government.
• Dispute: "As of March 2018 litigation between family members over control of the university was pending in the High Court." is still not correct, here is the url to refer details

"point 48 – clearly shows Mr. Madhusudhan Misra as Registrar, upheld by the court", "point 56 & 57 – court has upheld the injunction order against Madhukar Angur".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.240.29 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2018‎ (UTC)

I am none of those things.

With regard to the points about the article, would you please post them on the article talk page? Discussion about content should be there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About your AN proposal

Hi, Jytdog. Needless to say, I am unhappy that you have proposed a TBAN for my colleague at ANI. I wish that you would see Danilo's willingness to adjust the wording on the RfC as evidence that he is trying to follow Wikipedia's rules, and consider that a TBAN should be reserved for editors who are truly disruptive. From my perspective, it appears you have escalated a disagreement about content into a claim that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, which I find to be a tenuous argument. After all, if what you say of Danilo is true, then it must necessarily be so for any COI contributor. I have to ask then, are you preparing to propose a block for me next? All COI contributors? If that is not your intention, then I hope you can help me understand your position better. Reviewing the matter, I cannot see what line Danilo crossed at BNY Mellon as compared to any other article where he has made edit requests. If you can articulate this in a generalized way, I would be interested to hear that, too. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You have pretty much completely misread my description of the problem. I urge you to read it more carefully. I will be happy to reply once you express a sense of engaging with what I actually wrote... This After all, if what you say of Danilo is true, then it must necessarily be so for any COI contributor is very, very untrue. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I am having a difficult time seeing how this request by Danilo was any different than those previous, or any that I might make. We might be in the wrong sometimes, but so is everyone else. Moreover, in the situation with the charts, Danilo presented perfectly mundane, mission-based reasons why removing them would improve the article. How does that constitute turning the article into a proxy for the corporate website, or violate WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

All of his proposals were about focusing the page on the bank's current business; not on encyclopedic content describing the whole lifespan of the bank. With regard to the charts, I would have taken something like -- "OK, how about if I draft some prose describing those charts - for example describing how the banks assets and liabilities roughly tripled leading up to the financial crisis, and its net income fell by 50% during that same time, and giving some context to that" -- as a good faith, mission oriented response to my objection.

And if all of your proposals are like Danilo's I encourage you to reconsider your approach to what a WP article is. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it. While I'm obviously not a neutral arbiter, I think I can see where you each express a valid concern. Yours, that the article retain historical information and not reflect only the present; his, that outdated information characterized as current be corrected. I'll admit I haven't read all of his proposed changes, so there may be other issues, but it seems like these views should be reconcilable. Speaking of which, the suggestion you offer does sound like it would be workable as well. As I mentioned at AN, Danilo is on vacation for the next week. If he's still permitted to comment on this topic at the end of this discussion period, it's certainly what I'll advise him to look into. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

characterized as current? The charts are in a section called "historical data". But yes we should be careful about not misleading people about what is current. Editing per RELTIME helps eliminate that problem. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to Request: Operations updates, which largely focused on updating figures and moving some things to the History section, but which you said was not "aimed correctly". As for the charts, well, it didn't misinform but I think it's fair to say its current presentation underinforms—and there is more than one way to resolve the issue. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote at the AN, what I was seeking was to politely shut the door on one article so as to call Danilo's attention to aiming for the mission of WP. It has also caught your attention. That's fine. I look for better-aimed proposals from your team. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that comment now. I still dispute your characterization that his suggestions serve a PR purpose only, and maintain that a TBAN is a disproportionate response. But if you would be willing to withdraw the proposal, I would be willing to more closely review his suggestions before they go live (which until just now I have not been involved with) or even reassign it, if the relationship cannot be repaired. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks for reading carefully. Better late than never.

I do understand that you dispute the characterization.

I don't think I will respond to your offer to supervise your employee or contractor only if I take some action. Other than to say that is an odd suggestion to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand. And I certainly agree it's an odd situation. FWIW, everyone here is a full-time employee. We care about doing good work, and that means we don't farm anything out on contract. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Source we shouldn't use

Hi Jytdog

I vaguely remember one discussion on a source that is now considered generally not reliable and I seem to remember you were involved in that discussion. Was that source The Guardian or am I remembering that incorrectly. Thanks for any assistance you can give on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

I have the answer. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Corrective action.

Thanks for the info concerning copyright errors. I am new and trying to understand/follow protocol. I may have been a bit over confident with early success. No malice was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobeocean (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. No big deal, everybody needs to learn. Happy to help if you have any questions in the future. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I referenced the source after inserting two paragraphs from an online posting. Is there something I'm missing? I did not place quotation marks around the "source" but entered it between the ref/ref marker. The page: Hemp still has a BLATANT copyright infringement note at the top. Can you help with that as well? I have some sources on Hemp cultivation and the page is requesting edits in that area but I am reluctant now that I am flagged.

The tag on the article, is a request for an admin to remove the copyright violation from the history of the page.

You are not "flagged" in any way. I gave you a standard notice, which informs you that violating copyright is not OK in WP, which also advises you how to avoid doing that in the future. Please keep editing. Just don't copy content from elsewhere into WP. That is not a hard thing to avoid doing, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Spots

If your question was intended to be about ANI, I did put something in the wrong spot and then caught it and moved it to the right spot. So either way, it's all good. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Subject headline: Issues Concerning JDRF Article ElisabethF (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting

Online encyclopedia and cryptocurrency in a [something] mixture [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I appreciate the experimental spirit but the idea of trying to spur very broad expert contribution with cryptocurrency rewards today seems a bit pets.com-ish to me. But Wikipedia remains a batshit crazy idea but it somehow kinda works, so who am i to talk. :) we'll just have to see.... Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

COIN

Just to let you know that a CU on User:ESparky has revealed no other accounts or editing from their IP. As the autoblock on the IP has now expired, vigilance is still required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not constructive

(This could be a Talk page thingy) I did what I thought was a nice change to the layout of a bit on History of male circumcision and got reverted in less than a minute by Orphan Wiki. (I thought it was a robot, for while.)

I changed a c200 word sentence into a list - only adding 2 letters. But this bozo said it “seems not constructive” - which “seems” like he didn’t look at it. (I got a response so I know now, he doesn’t like it). I think others might like it — I wanted to ask an interested party, but (it seems) all the Top10 editors on the History Revision list are banned or inactive. (That’s where I got your name).

So I’m after advice. Or a (nice quiet peaceful) solution.

NB: his next edit really annoyed me: again, he didn’t give a useful reason; until I asked for it. MBG02 (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PS I didn’t put it on the Talk page because I thought it would be too big. I’m sure there’s a way of putting a link to the (stuff I typed) but I haven’t learnt it yet. MBG02 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

PPS Orphan Wiki is still being annoying (offensive). He says “both edits damaged both article and talkpage” but there’s one article and one Talk page (for a different article). Perhaps you can tell me what he’s complaining about (with the Yo-yo Talk page) (you’ll need to go into View History). MBG02 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Herbalife Edits Spam?

Hi Jytdog,

I am newer to Wikipedia editing and was hoping to learn from your recent revision of my Herbalife edit. I added a recent controversy to the page with sources to a news site that picked up the story and the source material itself (a study). I was hoping you could shed light on why that should be reverted as spam and what I should look out for in the future to ensure I conform to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks in advance! --Miyagikk (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are using very low quality refs to the extent that is appears you are spamming. The content you are adding is generally promotional "business news". Would you please explain why you are editing this way? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I am going to take some more time reading up on the rules to get better at this. I was simply looking to practice by adding in some recent factual history but I need to be much more stringent about what I am updating. Thanks for lesson and the guidance. --Miyagikk (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Feynman Prize photos

The RfC close explicitly said "The consensus is to Keep the draft version", which included the photos and institutions. I'm going to assume you missed that part of the close, but any further removals of content without consensus are clearly going to be considered disruptive editing. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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.

Repeated reverts [2] [3] [4] of an edit that implemented an explicit discussion close is a clear case of edit warring. I realize you self-reverted the last one [5], but it shouldn't have gone that far. The fact that you're appealing the close doesn't give you unilateral permission to change it before the appeal is resolved, let alone come this close to violating WP:3RR. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, i self-reverted the last one. Please be more patient and less aggressive about promoting this prize. I get it -- really I do -- that you think nanotechnology is Very Important. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My belief has always been that the original table was well within accepted practice for this type of article, and that your demands were way outside of the existing consensus. We have a process to work through these disagreements, so we went through AfD/RfC, and the clear consensus endorsed the original version of the table. If you really want to challenge the RfC on process points and go through all this again, on the off chance that it gives a different result, you have that right. But I feel everyone would really be better off spending that time actually improving articles. But to be honest, the reason I'm so driven on this is that I have a distaste for situations where people ignore consensus and try to get their way by either repeating false accusations (in the case of David Gerard) or by exhausting everyone by arguing every minor process point (which I feel like you're doing). Both of these undercut the consensus building process that Wikipedia relies on. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is false: clear consensus endorsed the original version of the table. You were not listening in the main RfC and overplaying the subthread. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the DNA nanotechnology page which is an FA that should no longer be one. I was thinking we might collaborate to bring it back up to snuff.... Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the close review will determine what, if anything, the subthread endorsed.

One thing at a time, but I'm happy to discuss improvements to the DNA nanotechnology article. It does need to be updated with advancements since 2012, and other editors have made additions to the Applications section that have lowered that section's quality. It's perennially been on my to-do list, but I've never gotten around to it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

UNC Pharmacy Page

This is to notify you that I am requesting a third party review of your edits to the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy page. My edits were made in good faith, you deleted them without valid reasons, and you did not accept them as such, nor did you respond to talk on the page that was directed to you. Happy Panda 25 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. My apologies for not getting back to you at the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page

Our discussion regarding restoring an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page seems to have fallen through the cracks again. It's now been languishing since April. If you don't have time to get back to this, can you please point me to someone else who can help? Thanks. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

hi, im notifying you since you had the most edits on the article im asking to be deleted

hi im notifying you since according to this tool - http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl - that wp told me to use you had the most edits and needed to notified

i proposed ZoomInfo for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ZoomInfo

if i put this in the wrong place pls let me know, im new

Tacticomed (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

great! I hope you are going to finish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo (2nd nomination)...Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

News from the International Anti-Corruption Academy

Hi Jytdog,

I am a Wikipedia-contributor, who is mainly active in the German Wikipedia. I am currently working at the IACA in order to broaden IACA's understanding of Wikipedia and to share its resources. I noticed that the article on IACA was quite a battlefield some time ago and saw that you had some confrontation there with one of the guys working at IACA. I tried to explain him the mistakes he committed and am assuming that he actually understood what he did wrong. I did, however, also notice that the current article is rather bad in several dimensions. So I might, as soon as there is some free time, make some suggestions to improve the article. Just wanted to inform you in advance to avoid any surprises. Do you know any other user who might be interested enough in the topic to receive such notification? Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. In case you should be interested, I can obviously send you an email from my private account to verify that I am actually an active user. For reasons of anonymity, I prefer, however, avoiding making this link in public.

Thanks for your note. I don't need any special notification; the page is on my watchlist. You should of course use the {{Request edit}} template on that talk page, which will draw independent users to review the edits.

I don't know that the IACA page was that much of a battlefield; it was somewhat typical of what happens when conflicted editors push and push to get what they want.

Please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

if those edits happened on my watchlist in the deWP, i would have requested protection but I might also just be more sensitive in this regard.

my talk page is answered

and thanks for the reminder, will be done like that. --WiR IACA (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Article on Pranic Healing

Hello Jytdog Greetings Article on Pranic Healing was deleted on 14th Aug 2018 citing G11- Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article has been modified and rewritten. Please let me know what are the next steps. With best regards Srikanth Jois --SrikanthJoisNagaraja (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 17/8/2018

Eckankar

Would you mind dealing with this article again: I can’t remember if I’ve taken any admin action in regards to it, so I’d prefer not to deal with the content. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Notforum

Nice try with your reverting a legit discussion on a talkpage. Wp:notforum does not apply here. In case you didn't notice the conclusion on the Jeong page is with the Times standing by tgeir hiring decision. It would be reasonable to note (from a valid source) that neither the Times nor Jeong apologised for the controversial tweets. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Hello Jytdog, re the template you placed on my talk page where you cautioned me to adhere to WP:NOTAFORUM. Please be advised that I didn't write the comment in question, although I think that deleting that comment from the talk page, as was done by Ahunt was grossly inappropriate conduct which is why I restored it. Also, I don't know if it was your intention but the text of this template comes off as overbearing and brusque. In the future interactions, please make an effort to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I agreed with templating it closed (or with deleting it, as I had done originally). It was just a rant and fell afoul of WP:NOTFORUM. Judging by the wording it is probably also a WP:COI issue there, too. Based on WP:DENY, I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

When you re=post it, you own it. I was well aware that you didn't write it originally. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

you now deleted/hatted posts by two editors who are discussing neutrality of the article. I disagree with your assessment that they violated WP:NOTAFORUM, and in any case, deleting talk page posts based on such assertion will always be controversial.Heptor (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Well that got sewn up quickly! - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

why don't you read the source and just fix it? for pete's sake

You asked me,

why don't you read the source and just fix it? for pete's sake

The answer in my case was that I was at a park on my mobile device with limited internet access. In general, there is a reason we have Template:Ambiguous: It is because there could be little work or much work required to clarify the ambiguity. It is always unclear at the outset (without actually trying) how much work will be involved in clarifying any given ambiguity. Please remember that the Wikipedia:Ethical Code for Wikipedians enjoins civility among volunteer editors:

A conscious devotion to civility can help prevent us from forgetting that there are thinking and caring people behind the flickering usernames on our computer screens. Mis-communications are all too common. Sometimes we get tired and rush to reach an editing goal and we can become frustrated and impatient. Sometimes we see others use bad behavior and we are tempted to try it ourselves as a means to an end. Good editing means not taking short cuts. Stay civil. When you cannot see a good way past a conflict, take a break, bring in more editors, take a deep breath and try to find new creative ways to assume good faith.

Thank you for your continued fellow contributions to making Wikipedia ever better!

References

Mavaddat (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic Wikipedia Page

Dear JytDog,

I am interested in making edits to the Cleveland Clinic Wikipedia page to add updated information and correct errors present on the page. However, I do have a conflict of interest (not financial) and would like to ensure my revisions are not perceived as advocacy or academic boosterism. I'm reaching out to you because I saw on the History of the page that many revisions by a user were reverted by you. Although some of said user's revisions looked like boosterism, others were accurate.

Please let me know how I can contribute to this page while managing my COI. Thank you for your time in maintaining the integrity of the articles on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, wikiuser5991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser5991 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll reply on your talk page, at User talk:Wikiuser5991. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding content to Sugar industry

Hello, Jytdog. This is just to let you know that I have added content to the Sugar industry article from an old version of the sugar article. You removed it from the latter, so if you think it should not be in the sugar industry article either, feel free to remove it again. Apologies for the bare URLs, I have been doing that much less often recently. HLHJ (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User: Lester-bangbangs

Hi Jytdog. Would you mind taking a look at the contributions of Lester-bangbangs. The account is fairly new (May 2018) and all of the edits appear to be connected to Joyful Noise Recordings or its artist. It could just be a fan, but it also seems like WP:APPARENTCOI and possibly some undisclosed WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly time sensitive

Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks, I replied. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Zolpidem 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.Declanscottp (talk) Declanscottp (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

zolpidem article NPOV

Jytdog, please do not repeatedly revert well sourced information from the Zolpidem article. I have a large number of specific comments to you on them, you have either not addressed them, or given very short and vague responses to them. Declanscottp (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Declanscottp; the purpose of the notices, is to give you notice. I gave you the edit war notice and the NPOV notice, so I am obviously aware of the policies. What you just did with the two edits above is a newbie mistake, and a petty one at that, treating the notice like some "badge of shame", which it is not. Please continue talking at the talk page. Please read and follow NPOV. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not a "newbie," I did not make a mistake, and I am just as "obviously aware" of NPOV as you are. Rather than your constant no-explanation reversions, please address my comments on the zolpidem talk page. Declanscottp (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't know how to indent your posts, and you did a newbie thing, by giving me notices of which I am aware. You are driving directly over a cliff, toward a topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

Hello Jytdog. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Notable topic, not really promotional. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't contest it, you removed the tag. That's about it for me with regard to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Jytdog: I've blocked the Cleveland Clinic IP 139.137.128.61 for a month for persistent addition of spam and promotion for "globally renowned" doctors etc connected with the Cleveland Clinic. (Not just at this article either, e.g. [6].) Bishonen | talk 06:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC).

Please immediately refrain from intentionally hiding counter-arguments for your deletion request. If you do not refrain, I will seek dispute resolution measures with admins. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you like; there are no arguments that are valid within Wikipedia in the hatted section to keep or to delete the page; there is just a lot of distraction by the now-indeffed editor, you, and me.

If you seek "admin attention" to this matter, your own behavior will be examined as well. See WP:BOOMERANG. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

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.

---

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at European Graduate School, you may be blocked from editing. Please do add material to this article without consensus, or edit war. Per WP:ONUS, it is clear from the talk page that there is no consensus for material you are adding to the article. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Discuss your removal at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It was discussed several days ago. You are the one who needs to discuss you edit warring to insert biased materal not supported by policy or consensus. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Your abuse of COI templates on my talk page is unacceptable and has landed you in trouble before. I hereby caution you against repeating such behaviour. I have made thousands of edits over a decade related to higher education, and my edits to the article on the European Graduate School were explained on the talk page and supported by policy and consensus. You are not entitled to abuse COI templates whenever someone make an edit you disagree with. Please discuss your edits on the talk page instead, and refrain from personal attacks. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, use of COI templates has not landed me in trouble before.

I am not harassing you.

Your post is sloppy bullshit. I do not tolerate sloppy bullshit on my talk page. You are unwelcome to post here again. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 21 August 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.

Ah back to school season

Lovely time of year. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser5991 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your talk page is setting some kind of record for the greatest number of utterly BS warnings and templates in just a few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to win that prize. I've been watching old South Park episodes and having inappropriate discussions with strangers to wash it out of me. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Just tell them to respect your authoritah. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

exactly! Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! See, I'm clairvoyant! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That is one of my favorite words. So pretty. Am so glad it is not a pornstar name or something. But there is Claire Voyant. And yes you are! Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If "Claire Voyant" isn't taken then I've found my drag name. › Mortee _talk 20:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I went to high school with her. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well she'll have to change her bloody name. It's mine now. › Mortee _talk 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Too late: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. All the good names are taken! › Mortee _talk 21:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, it gets worse: [8]. This is what I get for Googling Claire Voyant, which, come to think of it, sounds like a double entendre. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If that's what I'd be associated with then I'm going with Emma Mann, which is frankly genius anyway. › Mortee _talk 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Choosing Wisely

I cannot understand why you have undone the edit on the choosing wisely campaign. I am totally independent from the campaign in the US and just providing information about how choosing wisely has blossomed around the world to promote doing no harm to patients.

I am totally independent and the sources I have referenced are independent references and other campaigns. It seems inappropriate to delet--TransfusionDoctor (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

this is chock full of spam. Nonprofit spam is just as much as much spam as for-profit. Please build content from independent sources. Also please keep in mind that per WP:LEAD, the part of the article above the table of content just summarizes the body of the article. Please don't add new content only to the lead. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to be in an edit war. I removed all the external links from the main text, used references from review articles form 3 different medical journals (secondary citations) and placed some external links in the external links section. I was confused therefore why after taking your advice these changes were removed--TransfusionDoctor (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss the content at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rampant boosterism/promotion on MCSOM Page

Hello Jytdog. It seems you are quite active in monitoring and responding to pages with promotional material and conflict of interest. I'd like to alert you to the following page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic_School_of_Medicine) with rampant boosterism. The page was flagged recently, but a user who has been making many revisions to this page removed the flag despite not addressing any of the issues. I restored it, but suspect it will be removed again. The article is not neutral at all and might have a conflicted editor running the show. Your response would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.83.91 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

172.58.83.91, I removed the flag since no issues were mentioned in the edit summary or on the talk page. I should emphasize that I have no conflicts as an editor on the MCSOM page. Please join the discussion at Talk:Mayo_Clinic_School_of_Medicine#Academic_boosterism so we understand the specifics. Trantorian (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Offtopic?

That was a tad aggressive. I left the comment in that sub-section since I thought the update would be useful for participants in the indef-discussion. But if you/anyone else thinks this arrangement works better, that is fine with me too (as you surely appreciate, too easy on wikipedia to get lost in the meta-debates that are not worth much). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted people to be able to focus on we can do, which is look at the contribs we can see. So easy for people to get distracted. Sorry if that felt stompy. If you want to move it, that is fine y me, i will then remove my comment... Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Just came back online and am hesitant to move it now since it would involve fiddling with more editors' comments. Lets just let the discussion proceed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

we can just let it be. sorry for the hassle. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing war

Hy Jytdog

Hi Jytdog

The Wikimedia page for Brian Morris in Sydney seemed to have been attacked by someone intent on undermining my academic credibility.

The Wikipedia page was also years out of date.

I have updated it. It is not promotional. Rather, it is accurate.

I should appreciate your assistance in what you refer to as an “edit war”.

Many thanks

Best wishes

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Professoremeritusbrianmorris: You are not supposed to edit the article about yourself. You can make edit requests on the article's talk page. It should be plainly obvious that you have a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• And it was promotional, and lacking secondary sourcing. Basically, it's the kind of thing we send to tenure and promotion committees. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for your note Brian! What would be wildly helpful, would be if you could post citations for any articles that you are aware of that are about you (not by you), on the talk page, at Talk:Brian Morris (biologist). Any ideas you have, would be great to hear, there. Thanks. I also noticed that we have no article on Eugenie Lumbers which seems like a damn shame. (hint) Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As requested --- articles by Eugenie Lumbers

Dear Jytdog

I am not aware of any articles by others about me.

As requested, this url provides a list of recent articles by Eugenie Lumbers:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2035325937_Eugenie_R_Lumbers

I'd like the Wikipedia entry Brian Morris (Biologist) Sydney to get updated.

And I certainly don't want it to be promotional. Rather, it should be factual.

Tabloid text added by others should be deleted and the entry can easily be a lot more concise.

I'd be grateful if you would help to achieve that seeing as I am regarded as having a conflict of interest.

Simply reverting it to the out-of-date version seems counterproductive to the kind of usefulness Wikepedia is striving to achieve.

I would be happy to cooperate with you if needed.

Many thanks

Best wishes

Brian J. Morris, AM DSc PhD FAHA Professor Emeritus School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute Anderson Stuart Building (F13) Sydney Medical School The University of Sydney Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Email: brian.morris@sydney.edu.au or brianm@medsci.usyd.edu.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hunger

I'm busy and I don't get many moments these days when I'm free of pain and fatigue and it's only during those moments that I can read and make sense, so I'm going to be really slow here. Thanks again for raising awareness on this, and for giving it your attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know you were doing so poorly. I am sorry. Thanks for your time and attention to this stuff; it is so precious. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lethality of firearms

Thank you for your contribution to the May discussion RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles at WP:RSN, in particular thank you for suggesting several excellent on-point medical references as supplemental to The New York Times. One of the sources:

• Smith, Edward Reed; Shapiro, Geoff; Sarani, Babak (July 2016). "The profile of wounding in civilian public mass shooting fatalities". Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 81 (1): 86–92. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001031. ISSN 2163-0755. PMID 26958801.

was recently summarized at Mass shootings in the United States as:

A retrospective study of 139 autopsy reports from 12 civilian public mass shootings in the United States published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery in 2016 found that gunshot wounds from high-velocity rifles have a lower rate of potentially survivable injuries as compared to other firearms. 371 gunshot wounds were found, included gunshot wounds from handguns, shotguns, and high velocity rifles. Potentially survivable injuries were about equally distributed between handguns and shotguns; no gunshot wounds from high-velocity rifles were found to be potentially survivable. Compared and contrasted with the results of earlier studies of injuries in military combat, military combat injuries include injuries from explosives, military personnel wear body armor and ballistic protection helmets and so have more injuries to extremities, while civilian public mass shooting events are closer range, have more injuries to the head and torso, and have a lower rate of potentially survivable injuries.

...and quickly reverted and is currently under discussion at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States#Recent edits. Some of the same editors who objected to the NYT as unreliable are now opposed to the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. As with most academic papers, the source includes a "Limitations of this study" section which is being cited in opposition. A letter written in comment (largely agreement) to the source is being cited in opposition. Opposition includes objecting to the retrospective nature of the study as biased. Opposition arguments include WP:BLUE, that it is so obvious that high-powered rifles are more lethal than other firearms that Wikipedia need not say it.

Similar summarizations of this source were also attempted at Gunshot wound and were reverted. We could use your help, in particular your experience with WP:MEDRS. What do you think of the neutrality of the above summarization of the source? Could you take a look and perhaps weigh in? Thank you again. AviRich6 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will not respond at the article. If you want to draw more attention to this issue, please post neutrally at an appropriate notice board. Do be careful with regard to WP:CANVASS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your request to please make suggestions in the talk page

Dear Jytdog

Thank you for your request. The information has improved since yesterday. Thank you to helpers. Here are some suggestions.

Education and appointments Please add the degree: text becomes: ".. where he graduated BSc with First Class Honours from the University of Adelaide in 1972." Last sentence: Since appointment as Professor Emeritus is only made coinciding with retirement, this should read: "... and upon retirement in Sep 2013 was was appointed Professor Emeritus.[2][3] He retained his office, while the Bosch Institute of Medical Research took over his lab space in 2015.[4]

Career A few things are not quite correct. In line 2 (3rd sentence): "He remained interested in the field during his PhD in Melbourne and postdoctoral years in the US, where he had the good fortune ...." In line 4: Since "prorenin" is encoded by the renin gene, "the prorenin and" should be deleted.

Awards and Honours At the very end, ref [3] is the wrong reference as it refers to the Dahl award. Instead it needs to refer to the the Irvine Page--Alva Bradley Lifetime Achievement Award. Please add this reference: .

Thank you again very much for your kind help

Best wishes

Brian

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post the message above at Talk:Brian Morris (biologist). Please do not continue posting things about the article here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Myriad Genetics "Controversy" section edits for NPOV

Hi, Jytdog!

I can see that my editions on Myriad Genetics were weighted, but how would you suggest making them more neutral? The current paragraph includes errors such as, "...Patenting genes has been an established practice since the beginning of genetic research," which the listed source (blog post) does not support; it states that the first genetic patent was in 1980, which is also not entirely accurate. It also somewhat trivializes the concern regarding the patent. Additionally, the statement that the patent "...Did not interfere with scientists’ ability to study the gene" is also not accurate because scientists had to first get permission for any non-negligible study and had to pay a fee for doing so, as noted by the source I listed in my edit. I'm just not entirely sure how to edit or replace the current sentence stating otherwise without making the section weighted in the other direction. Lastly, the final sentence of the paragraph seems to directly support the prior argument and try to invalidate concerns that scientists have difficulties publishing papers under the described restrictions. I was thinking of simply altogether removing it.

Thank you for your time!

MaxtonTheGreat (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please post at the the talk page, and I will reply there. There are many reasons to discuss content there. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A better reference: New York Times rather than "The Beast"

Dear Jytdog

Further to my message a couple of hours ago, I thank that ref 7 to a local letter box newsletter in Sydney ("The Beast") can be improved by citing instead the article that appeared in the New York Times (whcih has very much greater credibility). Thus instead of "7. Zadrozny, Brandy (2 April 2014). "New Study Says Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks 100 to 1". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 31 March 2015." I suggest the following as ref 7:

"Childhood benefits from circumcision. By Nicolas Bakalar, New York Times, 8 Apr 8 2014, page D6.), http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "

Many thanks again for the great job you have been doing to improve the Wikipedia entry.

Kind wishes

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post the message above at Talk:Brian Morris (biologist). Please do not continue posting things about the article here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Prager talk

Hey I just wanted to say thanks for inviting me to suggest some content in your last message. I feel like it is still possible for us to reach a consensus, and I just want to apologize for frustrating you, and for any ways that I misunderstood policy or failed to express myself well. For now I think I'm going to hold off making a proposal of content, because my voice has been heard too much on that page, and there are a few other folks involved now that are probably better positioned to make a proposal that could win acceptance from all of us. But I'd like to believe that we can still work together despite some bad blood that has come up between us, and I wanted also to say that I have found a number of points you've made to be insightful and well-considered, so thanks for that.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin E

I am getting back to this article after some digressions into bringing moth articles up to GA. The issue of what it does is still a mystery to me, and possible the antioxidant activity is not the only function. i.e. gene expression regulation. See Manolescu 2008 (PMID 20108516). By the way, appears I am retired from being a consultant to dietary supplement companies. I intend to wait to end of year before changing my User page. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm! There is so much we don't know about basic stuff like this. Amazing. I hope the change in your professional life is a good one for you. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am coming around to a belief that thinking of vitamin E as having an antioxidant function is akin to using the handle end of a wrench to hammer nails and calling it a hammer. In addition to Manolescu 2008, now trying to coalesce my thinking around Rimbach 2010 (PMID 20336011) and Azzi 2016 (PMID 27095224) = gene expression and signal tranduction. Intending to get it all into the article. Strong deja vu of thinking of flavonoids as antioxidants when the mechanism(s) are something else entirely. Retirement looking good. Working faster on third and fourth books (local history topics). David notMD (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

i am laughing. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting articles: PMID 28624327 PMID 27095224 PMID 27816611. The evidence for benefiting NASH appears to come from PMID 26059365. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

yes! Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sugar replies

I left some replies to you at Talk:Sugar. HLHJ (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Dead link under User Page section "Privileges removed then restored"

It currently says "ARCA discussion archived here; notice given to me here."

The first link, which currently points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment_request:_Jytdog_.28February_2017.29, doesn't contain an archive. The actual archive is currently located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_12#Amendment_request:_Jytdog_(February_2017).

Gbear605 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gbear605 fixed, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up / Signpost

Heads-up that I used your words at the about-to-be-published The Signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Eek User:Bri that is decontextualized. Eek. My message was that this is getting paid for behavior not for influencing content, but getting paid for saving an edit is getting paid, and should be disclosed, and we should treat this like GLAM with no prior review. That "bias" thing only came up with respect to people involved judging how to handle it. Please don't quote that bit. Thank you for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you restate what the bias blind spot pertains to? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It pertains to people judging themselves if something they are doing is a COI or OK or not. The diff is here. See comment prior, to which I was responding. And do note the response after where offense was taken. This was really a small, unimportant part of the bigger discussion in my view. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Restated, hope this captures the idea – I can't quote the entire discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That is better, thanks. But again it is not the main thing, and the people involved came to AN to ask about it. That was good of them -- very good! This is a minor piece and I don't like it being pulled out this way. But you are the reporter and all I can do is ask. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion involving you

• There is currently a discussion seemingly involving you at the Teahouse, if you wish to participate. Just a heads up, Stormy clouds (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia. You do a lot of work on things that matter, particularly medical articles and the effects of paid editing. So please, keep up this good work, rather than getting involved in an argument about biblical criticism, a topic which doesn't affect anyone's life. (In my irrelevant opinion, your views there are right while "shine on a turd" is gratuitously offensive.) Maproom (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I echo this sentiment, and agree with your position in a broad sense. I would similarly urge you to keep up the stellar editing work. Merely posted here to alert you to the Teahouse discussion, particularly as the H-word has been invoked. Like I said, just a heads up. I share Maproom's admiration for your editing work. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I agree that "shine on a turd" is harsh.

I do care about and work on biblical/religious topics as noted on my userpage. This is an issue of advocacy, which is also something I work on across the 'pedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

COIs

See recent edits to my user page and two talk pages. Let me know if you think this is insufficient. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm really grateful to you for just now striking various comments that seem to have flowed from a misunderstanding. Not an easy thing to do, and I think it's a great help. › Mortee _talk 23:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the other very reasonable explanation. If I am wrong or reasonably wrong, that's it I back off. I hate bullshit. But thank you for the note. I feel bad that all i can do is strike and apologize, but that is all I can do at this point. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You could do something about the leadsection at Women in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hi Jytdog. There is a problem with a new editor and associated IP user having issues of WP:COI, WP:Casting aspersions and WP:BATTLE. To avoid crossing the WP:OUTING line, is it OK if I contact you by email so you can help me figure out the best course of action? Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I sent you email. I checked the option to send me a copy but I didn't get it. I hope you got it... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

uh...

Hey, though I realize we have had our differences, I really am honestly trying to improve that article. Thanks, I think, for your help on the references? Do you think there's any chance we could be friendly to each other? I would like that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Its about the work. Focus on the work. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:CIV is one of the five pillars, and it makes success with the work more likely. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you actually were giving a fuck about the citations? Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to improve the article and bring our exchange on this little section of text to a close. I haven't really figured out how the reference tag ups work yet, so I did need help on that. Are you saying that you're respecting WP:CIV? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything you have done has expressed disdain for Wikipedia, as nicey-nice as you are. Please stay off my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Ilwd

Left 'em a PAID warning. Not sure at what point this goes to ANI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes people in PR don't view what they are doing as "paid editing" It is strange but true. I am hoping that they will disclose with time. I am concerned about socking. If you look at the history of the Woods page and the now deleted history of J Metro, you will see that an obvious sock Sozerburk, moved the Woods page to mainspace, and that FoCuSandLeArN moved the J Metro page to mainspace. This is all fishy and socky. Don't know if that is paid editor(s) + company rep or all one person... Hm. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

They denied PAID, though that means little. THe page is still hanging out. I can make an argument for G11, but I wish someone else would delete it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My response to them is here. The Rueben Wood page is gone. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Posting at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Toastmasters International

The main thing I added was a description of the Toastmasters club meetings. Everything I added in that regard has been a matter of fact in the real world for nearly 100 years. How is that promotional rather than informative? Every day of the year these meetings are held precisely this way and that is a big citation in itself. Do you disregard the real world in favor of journalistic articles ans such? This would constitute self destructive behavior if you think of wikipedia as a person who disregards what they see before them. Regarding promotion, does it mean anything to you that you are dealing with a non-profit educational organization who's mission is to promote good character in the society you have to live in? Encyclopedias are educational and have always had an affinity with other educational institutions. How is my description of the meetings not encyclopedic? People come to wikipedia to be informed about things and I want to add information to this article. I can only add what you will allow. If I find secondary and tertiary citations will you still limit the article for some other reasons? I fixed four mis-spellings and you did not respect the article enough to leave those alone simply for wikipedia's sake. If articles have wrong spelling it also damages wikipedia's reputation as a whole somewhat. I added a note that Smedley served as director of education at the YMCA and I'm mystified why you seem to resent that historical documented fact quite interesting to the readers. I will assume this is all about citations so I wonder why you didn't flag the article as needing citations before wiping it out. Metaphysics Man (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the worst abusers of WP for PR are non-profits; in my experience non-profits are actually nastier because of the self-righteousness.

If this is all common knowledge then there should be independent sources discussing it, right?

But above, all please keep the mission in mind. The page should be encyclopedic - not focused on what they do now or their activities now - that is what their website is for. It should provide an overview of the whole history of the organization. Again, sourced from independent, high quality sources. It is OK to use the website to fill in around the edges, but the page should not be driven by content from their website.

Does that make sense?

You might find user:Jytdog/How helpful, as an overview of what we do here, how we do it, and why we do it that way. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Dash (cryptocurrency)

Hi Jytdog, I notice you removed our version history infobox from the Dash article, can you please explain why? The infobox was approved by a neutral reviewer (see the talk page). I also note that the article on Ethereum contains an infobox of their release history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum#Milestones), and Google Chrome has an entire wikipedia article that follows the same format as the infobox you removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history). Technoir2 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Please do post at the articletalk page; I will reply there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dash_(cryptocurrency)#Releases Technoir2 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Updates to the DNA data storage entry

Dear Jytog,

Thanks for being so diligent in maintaining the DNA data storage entry. I am writing because it can be improved in several ways:

• Results in 2015/2016 by UIUC and UW/Microsoft demonstrated the ability to perform random access on data stored in DNA. These results were published in major peer reviewed venue and are cited frequently in recent advances.
• In 2016, Microsoft/UW encoded an HD Movie from the Ok Go band. It was part of the 200MB world record that was announced and later published in Nature Biotech in March 2018 (long editing lag!), the premiere scientific venue for biotech-related results.
• There have been multiple major public research programs (DARPA Molecular Informatics and I-ARPA Molecular Information Storage Technologies) in the last year that could be featured, to show that there is building momentum.

The reason I care is that people that want to know more go to wikipedia, but as is it is not pointing to the really fast developments in this field.

I am happy to help offering more information and links if you want. I tried editing the page, but you keep undoing it, so it might better for us to agree on how to improve the article.

Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambraia (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post at Talk:DNA digital data storage, and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hey Jytdog,

I appreciate you reverting my most recent edits, at first it hurt a bit, but after reading your user page I think I'm getting it. After graduate school I found a job where part of my responsibilities include parsing continuing medical education for local MDs, so I'm around this information often and felt like I should share it with the world.

I have some questions,

Is there a commonly accepted source for medical information that you and other super-editors trust? in graduate school it was 90% pubmed and NIH.

I just read your user page, and I very much appreciate the information I read there.

Is anonymity part of the mystique of Wikipedia, or are there meetup groups and a big in-person community?

Thank you!

Karmaticfutures (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I am laughing over the goat image! I like goats. Pleased to meet you!

Last thing first. In Wikipedia, people can be pseudonymous if they want and if they choose that, their privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING policy. Some people edit under their real names of have disclosed it here in WP; that is their choice too. There are lots of WP meetups and there is of course the big Wikimania conference every year. You can check out WP:Meetup as a jumping off point; hopefully you can find some place near where you live.

About sources, heck yes. Pubmed is the first stop; just make sure you filter for "reviews" and of course look out for predatory publishers and avoid them. :) NHS and NICE are also very, very good btw. I do urge you to check out WP:MEDHOW, WP:MEDRES, and WP:MEDMOS, and to include WT:MED on your watchlist -- that is where folks in WikiProject Medicine discuss stuff. You will find lots of good eggs there.

Finally, I was wondering what your deal is -- many of the refs that you have been brought have been great and I was happy to see you add them, and see how you used them. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

biblical criticism

I wondered if you had seen the DYK? mention of biblical criticism--I thought you might approve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That's great! Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We worked it for nearly two months, and a shortened version of the original suggestion is the best we did! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that process can really drag out. I did it once, just to see what it was like. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I did it one other time on the Bible and humor--Grabergs nominated that one--and it didn't drag out quite as long as this one, so maybe they aren't always that bad. Gerda nominated this one. She does lots of DYK? Mostly though I didn't think this was the best hook. Once someone has taken against an idea though, it's dead. No amount of defending it will save it. So the one I liked best came to an ignominious end. :-) I was hoping for more hits on the page as a result and maybe someone interested enough to show up and go through the FAC--so far nothing. This article was a long shot for FAC anyway, but I had to at least try--right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Right! Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dennis Prager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Jytdog for the useful Wiki links - I'm now 10 edits in, so should help in getting me up to speed! Xb5210 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Malvern Panalytical

Hi Jytdog. Hope your summer (or perhaps your winter depending upon which hemisphere you're living in) was a good one. I'm not sure how to deal with this draft. I think there's a strong possibility that Kimberlyosoep (the draft's creator) and PANalytical (the uploader of File:Malvern Panalytical logo.jpg) are connected in some way; they've both edited PANalytical and there would be no way for the former to know about the file uploaded by the latter within a minute of being uploaded without there being some connection. My guess is that they are the same person, and the new account was probably created due to the User talk:PANalytical#Managing a conflict of interest. Since the new account wasn't autoconfirmed, it couldn't upload the logo; so, the old account was used instead.

Anyway, this is still techincially a draft and my understanding is that COI editors are given a little room to maneuver when it comes to draft. It could also be that the editor is making a good-faith attempt to avoid WP:ORGNAME; however, at the same time, this may be a case of undisclosed paid editing which is pretty much never given any leeway regardless. I thought about tagging the draft with {{Undisclosed paid}} or {{COI}}, but those are mainly for articles, right? So, I then thought maybe you would have an idea on how to best proceed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have declined the submission as an advertisement. Strikerforce^Talk 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Back pain

Hi Jytdog, I hope that you are well. Do you have a few minutes to review my recent edit? I would greatly appreciate a second set of eyes on it. Another editor added in the Cochrane review, and I made some changes. [9] Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Meniere's disease

Hi,

You quickly reverted an edit I did without leaving a comment. Did I break a rule? I thought I referenced carefully enough (and have seen forums where people are wondering about this, so it appeared useful to add here).

Please teach me what I did wrong if you know better than I do. Not seeing any comments but work simply being reverted is rather discouraging.

-Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:ACF0:EE15:D104:87E7 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I did leave an edit note, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Bisnow article

To Follow up on your comment from Aug 16, I am not related to Mark Bisnow and it's not an autobiography. It is also not a paid post. I understand your suspicions but I am simply writing about a subject I know well. You can look at the references provided, which are all from mainstream sources. You can delete the entry if you ultimately decide it's not notable, there is nothing to be gained or lost. If I can do anything to improve neutrality please let me know.

Post

Hi. I see you left a message on my discussion page and removed all information that I have submitted to wikipedia as it is apparently "marketing or spam". Although I am not affiliated with any of these institutions, I do take personal interest in US and international business school history, culture, and related processes. The information I have submitted is all genuine information that, if you had taken the time to research or know more about business schools, are valid and non-promotional. The reason for my name is so that I could focus on a particular known group of business schools to write about on this account. I understand your actions were done with good intent, but either read the sources for yourself or rest assured that I am not marketing or spamming false information. Please leave a reply on my talk page if this needs further clarification. - m7bswiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by M7bswiki (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. This was posted on your user page so I moved it here. Feel free to change the header to whatever you think appropriate. MarnetteD|Talk 05:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor

My job is not to edit Wikipedia articles. My job is to send emails to researchers asking them to peer-review articles being considered for publication. I chose to edit the Wikipedia article. I'm quite aware of the WP:COI policy on this. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents me from leaving messages on an article talk page, so I have no idea why you would ask me to remove the note.

Because I am not a paid editor and it is not my job to edit Wikipedia, I have no idea what other MDPI employees have done on Wikipedia, although I do recognize at least one username in the edit history of Entropy (journal). If there is anything you want me to do in order to prevent abuse by other MDPI employees, tell me, because I'm not going to read your mind. If we can't reach agreement, there's always WP:COIN. Scythe33 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)