Jump to content

User talk:Jytdog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ColumbiaLion212 (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 21 July 2015 (→‎Request for Clarification: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Reliable source noticeboard post for life extension edit

Hello! We recently disagreed about the reliability of a source that I used on the life extension page. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, since I could not find any other Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of posts on Medium, which seems to use a unique model as a publishing tool. For this reason, I made a post on the notice-board about reliable sources. Feel free to contribute. Cheers. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, there actually have been past discussions there. I will link them there. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloving

Despite the article being nominated for deletion a while back, and the result being delete, it still has not been deleted. The discussion is here. There article has no real merit and appears as an advert for a company selling a product involved in "Gloving" (all the refs point to them). Can you cast your eyes over it and see what you think please? I have messaged a couple of admins who were involved in the original debate, but they seem to be inactive on Wiki these days. 79616gr (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in March 2014 and then was re-created in Dec 2014. That happens when there is someone paid or passionate about the article subject. I see it has already been speedied. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now, and hopefully not to return. Thanks for checking. 79616gr (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits on Cerner talk page

Hi Jytdog, I have added some suggested updates to make the Cerner Wikipedia article current and more reflective of the company as it is today.

Would you mind reviewing my suggested edits and adding them to the article or giving me feedback on what could improve my suggested edits? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I'm following up to see if you'd take a look at my suggested edits on the Cerner Wikipedia article talk page. I'm trying to update the article for factual accuracy and to give readers a more current understanding of the company. Please let me know if you're willing to either make my suggested edits or give me feedback on them. Please advise either way. Thank you so much for your consideration. JNorman704 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your patience and for following up! I will get to that tonight. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I know you're busy so I appreciate any help. JNorman704 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment Response

Dear jytdog,

Thank you for your very thoughtful suggestions as to how I might contribute more competently to Wikipedia articles. I have read your "Five Pillars" and can see that you have considered this matter in some detail, which I respect. As you suggest, I will go through the Wikipedia:Identification process to validate my RW identity. I am always grateful to receive constructive feedback on how I might improve my editing, and I fully acknowledge your comments pertaining to the Raymond Cattell article that I have been working on, and consequently, have gone back and re-checked every reference citation to make sure that the cited reference(s) actually support the particular assertion being made. As a result of that exercise, I have since removed 19 reference citations throughout the text, so that what remains should be highly accurate. I thank you for pointing this problem out to me, and I believe that as a result, the article is now more compelling and concise.

Also, I acknowledge that I am new to Wikipedia and need first to learn the principles within which to operate as a Wikipedia editor. There are many other articles within my area of academic expertise that I am eager to start working on, including articles on Hans Eysenck, the Five Factor Model, personality theory, personality assessment, intelligence testing, IQ scores, neuropsychology, schizotypal personality, depression, psychometrics, item homogeneity, factor analysis, meta analysis, social psychology, Australian psychology, British psychology, etc. Consequently, I will now turn my attention to some of these other articles.

Again, thank you for your informative and helpful advice. Gjboyle (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ketoconazole

Hello Jytdog, thanks for mentioning WP:MEDRS. However, since Ketoconazole was urgently withdrawn in 30 June, I doubt there could be any reliable english source for this. The news articled has been replaced with a official statement from China Food and Drug Administration, which I believe is reliable enough.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a much better source! Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In re Bilski citation style

I reverted your edit here on the talk page of the article. It appears that you followed PraeceptorIP to the article merely to revert his good faith and correct edit. He tagged the talk page to show that the article uses the Bluebook reference style, which it clearly does. It is not a violation of WP:CITEVAR to properly label what style the article is using. Please stop harassing that editor on articles where his edits are correct and made in good faith. If you are not sure of what citation style is being used, ask. I or any number of other editors are more than happy to help. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nope, not accurate on any level. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, as I am not welcome on your Talk page, neither are you on mine. Do not comment here going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tea and iron absorption

I think combining iron absorption with Aluminium and other metals may not be such a good idea. Iron is not toxic like Aluminium and Lead and is very essential to the body. Secondly are there any objections to the details I provided ? Why remove those details unless they are wrong ? Reference being old is not valid, IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking, but let's do this at the article Talk page.... if you comment there, I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

[1][2] ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the last bit of http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/jun2013_Young-for-Life_01.htm very interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mercola

Please stop the edit warring tactics on Joseph Mercola. You're attempting to have the article one-sided and that is very un-Wikipedia like. To the untrained eye it could appear that you may have some motivation in stopping info about mobile phones and the link to cancer. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you'll allow the Joseph Mercola page to evolve into a balanced article that it should be. Thankyou Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to the bottom of this page, where it belongs. If you continue to use Wikipedia as you have been, you are going to get thrown out of here. You have been given warning of the discretionary sanctions we have in place for pseudoscience - be mindful of them. If you have not read WP:NPOV carefully (and I do not believe you have) please do so. Please especially pay attention to the section on pseudoscience. NPOV =/= "fair and balanced". And if you are not aware of it, please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia has a very deep commitment to science. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Mercola. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points Bill. Firstly, you forgot to sign, and secondly, do you know what edit warring is? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder of what I forgot to do Roxy the dog. forgot to do :I have now fixed my sign off with the — Preceding unsigned comment template as you can see here. So that's the first point. Now, in reply to the second, well ..... edit-warring is what Jytdog and a few others engage in. Quite often the articles concerned are ones that involve GM crops, activists dealing pharmaceutical companies. Nothing new! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, Bill. Because you issued an edit war warning to Jytdog, I went to see where he'd been edit warring. Turns out he wasn't, hence my question above. See? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI editor Fklatt

See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing.

It looks like he is making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't revert due to 'no consensus'"

Hello Jytdog,

You have suggested several pertinent Wikipedia essays in our recent correspondence, so I thought that you might appreciate a suggestion of my own.

Since you reverted my latest edit with "there is no consensus for this on the Talk page" as the only given reason, I recommend that you read "WP:DRNC". If you do not read it, then please at least note its "nutshell" description: "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it."

If you do read it, though, then please let me know what you think of it and how it relates to our situation.

Best regards,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Stay off my talk page or the iBan you threatened me with earlier will become a reality. Atsme📞📧 22:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to talk to conflicted editors on their Talk page before bringing things to the community. I have posted at COIN here and as I posted there, I will not be participating going forward, since that would be a distraction. This isn't personal. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hello again,

I just want to let you know that I filed a dispute resolution request (here) regarding our disagreement about content on the life extension page.

Cheers,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer moderator has taken our case! They are requesting first statements on their analysis. If you would like to resolve our dispute, then please take a look. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Just another courtesy update for you: Ronz responded here to your comment about the appropriateness of our resolution attempt. Feel free to take your time with your response, though. I hope you're having a good day! --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Another update: the moderator has asked for clarification on your commitment to the resolution here. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Quick heads-up that I've [[advised a good-faith person to head over to COIN for gentle advice on how to pay someone to write her autobiography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I will try to get there first and respond kindly but she is likely to be met cruelly - so many editors react negatively and swiftly to paid editing....Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Who's SerialJoe? That's not my name. I'm sure glad that COIN was closed. Perfect timing I would say.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The close was changed. You can check those external links against current policy. This isn't explicitly said but where the website is used as a source you could check that against current policy on reliable sourcing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi, I've moved the discussion here instead of the article talk page, I hope that's OK. I have taken some care to avoid getting involved in the interminable edit wars, and I hope you noted that I have not commented on whether your claim of COI was a correct call.

What I am concerned about is the tagging of pure biology articles where I cannot see how the claimed COI could possibly have influenced the content, particularly a featured article where several experienced articles saw no evidence of biased writing during its assessment. I think you need to demonstrate what evidence of the COI influencing the content you saw when you read these articles, and take the American paddlefish to WP:FAR if you think the original WP:FAC assessment was flawed. As I said before, if you cannot say what you saw in these tagged species articles that made you call them as influenced by coi, you need to remove the tags or it looks petty and pointy

Of course I accept that you didn't tag all of her articles, but that doesn't detract from the point that I'm making. I hope you will show GF here, re-read the articles, and either make it clear where the COI has influenced the text or remove the tag. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I was looking for was clarification that there is a COI, for Atsme to declare it, and for the COI sourcing and ELs to be reviewed case by case. The close of the case now affirms the COI. It is for folks who watch those articles to review them - specifically the use of the Earthwave in sourcing and ELs, in light of the COI. As I mentioned earlier it is not about the overall content but rather the use of Earthwave as a source and as ELs - and only about content per in so far as the content is supported by those sources. Also as I mentioned, nonprofits tend to use WP in just this way, to get more traffic, which has the potential to lead to more donations. I will not do the review myself. I tend to try to stay out of specific content issues when I am working on COI issues - it just muddies the waters. Hence the tags on the articles - so folks who watch them can consider the sourcing/ELs/content in light of the COI Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on - not quite. I sent information to OS Risker providing much more detailed information about my emeritus status. I tried to explain I was retired but the conversation kept getting mixed up with the 2011 edits - all of which were reverted and basically just involved external links. When I came back to WP, it had nothing to do with Earthwave. My first edits were far removed and began with the Holy Land Foundation, then to Anjem Choudary. My first article was Gabor B. Racz. It wasn't until much later that I began working on the fishes and I did so as a retired person (actually semi-retired because of my ranching interests). This needs to be reevaluated for certain. Atsme📞📧 12:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Atsme, you don't help yourself when you remove the COI tags yourself, when I've said I'll follow it up. Jytdog, that leaves the FA article in particular in limbo. If you think the claimed COI is so serious that you have effectively unilaterally overruled all the FAC reviewers, then presumably you will follow it up and challenge the FA. If not I think you should remove it? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note above. I do not get involved in the content - including any kind of GA or FA review - when I am working on COI issues. It just makes things messy. I leave it to the folks working on the relevant articles to reconsider things in light of the COI. For example, please see this note that was just left by one of Atsme's GA reviewers. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I have seen no indication that there has been a change in Executive Director at Earthwave from 2011 to today. Even if you step down tomorrow, the edits you made in 2011 and when you came back, from 2014 up until tomorrow, were made while you had the COI. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tags because of the personal information link. The damage is done now because they kept being reverted. My retirement notice is on my user page and it began January 2014. I didn't start editing any fish articles until April 2014. I was retired. I was accused of COI on articles where there was none - such as Gabor Racz and the Ambush article. I'm waiting for the final decision from OS. Atsme📞📧 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the RW matches that claim that I have found. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See www.earthwave.org - Atsme📞📧 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things getting changed on various sites you manage in response to these COI issues is getting tiresome - like you deleted this post about Racz on earthwave's facebook page after i pointed it out. Whoever updated the earthwave.org site forgot to add information about who took over running the show there. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming just filthy. I am not going to comment on this issue anymore. Please don't post here about it anymore. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is what you've been doing not a violation of WP's privacy policy? Not post here? You are digging way too deep into my private life and private identity. I disclosed an association in 2011. I disclosed my retirement in 2014 on my user page when I came back to WP. What you're doing now is way over the line. I'm not an active board member - I volunteer with regards to public dissemination from time to time and it's not just EWS that I volunteer - just exactly as Risker believed in the beginning - I also volunteer for WP the same as you do. You don't see me digging into your private life or where you work. What right do you have to dig that deeply into mine? Your probing into places where you do not belong because you are trying to make something into what it is not. What this involves now is not a simple disclosure of my association with EWS. Risker and the OS team really need to look into your activity and to the extent you are willing to go. The question now is why are you so obsessed. You have not gone this far with any other declaration. You have no right to do that. This is outrageous. Atsme📞📧 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Risker's page - you disclosed your RW relationship to Earthwave. All I am looking for is to address COI issues with you. This is not a case of Earthshattering Significance like WIki-PR or Wifione. Earthwave is a little organization and the COI has affected just a few articles. Your behavior with regard to managing this small COI is so overblown that I cannot stomach this anymore. Stay off my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For excellent work in the very recent past shedding light on COI editor behaviour. (I've never done a barnstar before. What does it actually mean?) Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Roxy - i'm honored to be your first. For the what's it mean, you can see the intro to Wikipedia:Barnstars which tells the history. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unpromising draft

FYI, Draft:Adam Bold looks a whole lot like the former article, nuked twice: once at AfD and subsequently speedied by User:Tokyogirl79. The AfC now has failed twice and has an SPA nursing it along, who has not replied to my COI notice on his talkpage. Do you think that I should post this at COIN, or just see if it dies a quiet death? — Brianhe (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, there's another rewrite in the works from same editor: Draft:Mutual Fund Show. — Brianhe (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will reach out to them. By the way - the text created by the COI notice doesn't ask any questions or call for any response, so when people don't write anything in reply to it, it is kind of not surprising. That was what prompted me to start adding things around it - to make it more of a conversation opener rather than a flat notice. If you add a question after it like "Would you please tell me if you have any relationship with the subjects you have edited?" they have something to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The additional text is a great idea and I like the way you have crafted it. Maybe there should be a second "official" template that includes it? That said, I would expect a GF COI editor to at least reply to he current {{uw-coi}} as compliant, or a non COI editor to reply somewhat indignantly. A non response means to me they are hoping not to get noticed again. — Brianhe (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that, about the types of responses. The various wordings I have been using are in my sandbox in several iterations along with a bunch of other junk, and I tweak them for each situation. Feel free to use them, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources?

Hi, sorry if I edited again at "Domestic violence against men", but as you can see on the article, ALL the sources are primary sources, see for example at the paragraph "the CTS" when it's written: "Linda Kelly states that etc. etc.". Isn't that the same thing that did I did too? Iamwho (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just wrote at the article talk page, see you there ;)Iamwho (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptions

I've asked you before to stay off my TP because you have shown nothing but ill-will toward me. You have committed the ultimate violation against me and WP privacy policy by probing into my personal life and work associations where you had no business going. Now you've posted an inappropriate Canvassing notice on my TP because of my post to Tsavage that again was none of your business and was perfectly appropriate. If that wasn't enough you had to come back and interfere in a discussion where your input wasn't requested or desired. It's my TP - my discussion. It was deleted. Your behavior has gone beyond questionable. It's actionable. Stay away from me. See WP:APPNOTE (my italics for emphasis) An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) Editors known for expertise in the field Editors who have asked to be kept informed Atsme📞📧 02:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You canvassed, so you received a notice. Sorry for the additional comment. Please stay off my talk page as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The transparency of the canvas attempt is amusing, Second Quantization (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok with you if I release the COIN related emails you sent me to ARBCOM? Atsme📞📧 13:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason for that, is that I have concerns about how you would do that. If Arbcom wants them from me, I can provide them to Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Harcourt

It looks like the subject of the article might be editing his page. It is certainly from the law school offices. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

A green cannabis leaf

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (nothing bad, but I did mention you so here it is) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Eframgoldberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI Discussion

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors are mass deleting, Mass PRODing, and Mass redirecting articles as well as content under the guise of WP:COI--JOJ Hutton 00:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2015‎ (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for stopping vandalism on Irom Sharmila page

Hello Jytdog,

I would like to thank you for stopping vandalism on Irom Sharmila page. Specially the spam removal is appreciated. Kindly keep a strong vigil on this page, as many spammers are trying to spam here by promoting some self proclaimed activists with poor citation. As per my knowledge and understanding about Wikipedia, I have understood that Wikipedia is not for any self-promotion or link building service.

My two cents.

Regards-

Dhruba Jyoti Deka 03:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Dhruba — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhrubaDeka (talk • contribs)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Jytdog. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse of COIN. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L235 Some of my post is replies - do the replies "count"? Thanks. My initial post was <500 words but I tweaked it and It is indeed now 561 words... will edit that part down now. Please do let me know about the replies. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the replies count. We're usually pretty lenient; 600 words is fine probably. Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh crap. OK, more trimming then - got it down to 543. Thank you for the slack. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verify vs. preserve

I was curious why you cited wp:verify for this edit. I tend to think of wp:preserve. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI, thanks for asking. First, I was 90% sure that was an edit by a sock of Nuklear but didn't want to give that reason b/c I wasn't very sure. (It turned out that the account made other edits that were perfectly Nuklear-like and I could have removed it per REVERTBAN.) Second, WP:VERIFY says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". I acknowledge there is tension between PRESERVE and VERIFY. If you want to find sources for that, ensure it is accurate, and restore it, that would be great. I am very committed to WP's mission to provide articles that serve the public "accepted knowledge" (per WP:NOT) and unsourced content is not verifiable as being accepted knowledge. I'll add that this is an article about a drug, and at WP:MED we are very committed to providing high-quality, accurate information. So VERIFY is all the more important there. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup appears to be User:Nuklear. All we can do is continue to delete his content and block his socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for the explanation. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the content is good, not copyright infringement, and sources you could return it. But often I will just revert dozens of Nuklears edits at a time. His stuff comes up on the copy and paste detecting bot fairly often. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:GregJackP, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been asked to stay off of my talk page. Please do not put any more bogus warnings there or I'll propose that you be blocked for harassment. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the power to block me, and I do not believe an ANI would survive. You are so so over the top, GregJackP - you are on fire! Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Jytdog we need your work at the COIN notice board. Please be slightly more careful. Do not step back for more than a day or two if at all :-) I at least realize how nasty it can get. You are dealing with people who are trying to make money off of Wikipedia through PR work and in violation of our terms of use. I have already been threatened with a lawsuit by someone involved with PR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James. The thrust of the arb's caution was to pause to listen to what folks are saying about my work there - folks who have concerns - and take that into consideration before I restart. I have gotten some feedback and am looking forward to a chat with Risker later this week. I'll be back into gear soon, with some rethinking. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes one needs clear evidence of COI before making a case. Off wiki evidence; however, can only be hinted at on wiki. It makes the work difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it a minefield. Jytdog, I echo what Doc James says above, you are a pillar of that difficult noticeboard and an example to others there. Perhaps sometimes when frustration or tension build up you could think about stepping away rather than stepping closer to the (personally drawn) lines of good behaviour here? But please don't step away for too long. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to echo the above. Please don't stop working at the COIN. I think the issues arise (e.g., the Atsme Arbcom, which though a few of her points have merit is blown way out of proportion) when you unilaterally play judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users. I think when legitimate policy-based questions are raised (e.g. non-retroactivity of new policies) about the executioner part, you should probably step back and let someone else, or a consensus, help decide what to do and help in those actions. Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. The stepping away for a bit is to get feedback and check my assumptions and strategies. That will take as long as it takes. I did push the Atsme thing too far. While nothing I wrote has been oversighted, it was bad taste. I know. And I can think of a couple others (literally - a couple) where I got too fierce. I hear you both and will try harder to keep emotion out of it and to step away when I feel restraint slipping. So little room for error in this work.
Softlavender with respect to your description of me as "unilaterally play(ing) judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users..." the generality of that statement is hard to read and the "executioner" thing is especially... inapt, as I am not an admin. (and if i ever become one, i would use blocking with extreme care due to the "no room for error" thing just mentioned) Are you saying that you see me doing that a lot, or are you reacting to the current ANI and Atsme things more specifically? If you are making a general statement, I would like to hear more about that - it would be useful to hear. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By executioner, I do not mean admin actions, I mean making and carrying out unilateral decisions about what to do in a COI case despite objections: repeated unilateral mass deletion actions or edit-warring, longterm "stalking", "battleground" behavior, etc. -- the things that are currently in question in the ArbCom and current ANI. (I don't follow your wiki behavior or edits or even closely read the various ANIs that mention you [other than a glance at their length and contentiousness]). I simply happened to see and closely read both the ArbCom and current shopping-mall ANI at the same time, and note that the issue common between the two of them seems to be not stepping back when legitimate policy-based objections are made. It's one thing, and a great thing, to stamp out COI; it's another to be so vehement about it that you shoot yourself in the foot and/or repeatedly remove content that may not be COI or may simply need citation. If other uninvolved editors request that you slow down on a particular case/article and go through more of a due process, then perhaps that's the best thing to do. All of us can get very zealous about what we do on Wikipedia ... and for all of us (myself included), that's not always in our best interests. In any case, you don't have to agree with or take to heart what I have written (especially if it's not an issue that is more general than these two cases); I was basically simply asking you to please continue the COIN work and offering a suggestion on how to avoid possible overkill that may possibly be to your detriment. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - again the purpose this "timeout" is to get feedback, so I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I've yet to get a clear understanding of all the discussions, but the first thing that stands out are the bad faith accusations against you that are a major part if not driving force behind it all. I'm still trying to figure out what to do in such situations, but I don't seem to do too badly when I just focus on deescalating the behavioral problems while putting aside the content problems. Doc James has given you great advice. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

islamic banking

Please let us editors of Islamic Banking know when the cleanup of Sukuk's edits is done as I hope to make a lot of edits on that page. Thanks BoogaLouie (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoogaLouie - last I saw of that case, Ronz had brought up the two sites, islamicfinance.com and sukuk.com, at the Project Spam discussion page, here - the outcome was not to blacklist them. So the only question is whether they are reliable sources or not. I don't see that Ronz listed them at RSN. That would be the next step for a community discussion. But I would say that editors working at articles where they are cited can keep them or remove them, as they see fit. If disagreement arises then that discussion can be brought to RSN. That's how I see it. Ronz may have a different perspective. Thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why take them to RSN? There's no reason to believe they're reliable, and no one claiming they are other than the author. My thoughts/plans were to review it all, remove the sources, remove any material that appears questionable, and look for some authoritative sources which the articles sorely need. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ronz. So there ya go. If you and BoogaLouie/others disagree, RSN is where you will end up. I don't plan on digging into that content myself. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No plans to contest Ronz deletions, (not that I have looked over Sukuk's edits). Thanks folks --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacogenomics Edits

Hi Jytdog,

I noticed you made an edit, with a note saying "academic spam." I ask for you to elaborate on that note, and possibly provide any reference to Wikipedia rules that validate that edit. That way, for my peace of mind, I can confirm whether to maintain or undo the edits accordingly.

Cheers,

Jarslan (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of that section was unsourced promotion of a few academic programs. No source saying that any of those courses is especially noteworthy. Universities spam Wikipedia all the time. If you want to restore that section with some sourcing and content that is meaningful (what is special about, say, University of Utah's courses) I will not object. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. Well, I'm not affiliated with any of those institutions. So, rest assured that the intent was not to promote or spam. I've taken note of your concerns. It may be a few weeks, but I will restore and make those corrections appropriately. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Jarslan (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at V

I hope this was okay. I'm thinking that you just missed that there was a separate "support" section. If I'm wrong or have been presumptious, please rv and trout me as may be necessary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for fixing my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EHS

Shame that article exists already, it would have been a wonderful choice for an April 1 TFA. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed! Now I understand what my own head has been doing! ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Femarelle (DT56A) clarifications

Hello,


The "Femarelle (DT56a)" article has some incorrect information, along with the general feeling of a person trying to sabotage the product and the firm's good reputation. Femarelle is a food supplement for the management of menopause with 17 published studies in leading journals.

The first mistake is regarding to the (12) reference, Femarelle is not a Drug, it is a food supplement and has gone through PreIND reviews in the FDA as a botanical drug candidate, and was approved to go into Phase III based on existing data. Femarelle has tried to get a disease prevention claim for the reduction of osteoporosis and other bone disorders among post-menopausal women under article 14 of Regulation (EC) no. 1924/2006 at EFSA(1,12) , however the claim was not accepted and the file was withdrawn from EFSA. Hot flushes has noting to do with this reference as well. This information is correct, it is important to write it all and not only a part of it.

The second mistake is regarding to the ingredients, The ingredients in Femarelle are 322 mg DT56a (a tofu extract) and 108 mg flaxseed powder,[2] which act as a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM).

My final question is why did you delete the references? all of the references in my article are published and authorized by professional committees and peer reviewed journals, i would expect them to have great value for this article because they are public domain...all that needs to be done is to go to Pubmed"

Please take this information in consideration while re-editing this article.

Thank you. SecurePharma (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securepharmaltd (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please post at the article's Talk page: this conversation belongs there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tartrazine July 2015

Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough information in Femarelle article

Hello, This article has almost no information what so ever. Wikipedia is a tool used to help people get an idea about things they don't know about, a tool to get information. You deleted almost every reference that was added before, Why did you? In addition to all, you gave no information of the "mode of action" of the supplement, no information of the positive effects of use, not enough information what so ever, good or bad. I believe it is important to inform the articles writer that:


1. The legal regulations for marketing/presenting of such supplements are different i US, EU and in other parts of the world. the writer's EU-POV in this article is geocentrical and therefore not in line with W-policies.

2. As W prefers review articles as a source for medical and health information, it is important to draw the writer's attention to such an article with specific references to Femarelle: S. Bedell. et al., The pros and cons of plant estrogen for menopause, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.004

3. the writer has removed so called «inappropriate categories» from the article, while another article on a SERM the writer has edited (Menerba) still are categorized in Menopause, SERMs, Herbalism and Botanial drugs. Why are these products treated differently?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by קוריןבןקים (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You left the same note on the article talk page. I'll reply there. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Who do you think you are leaving such an offensive, unfounded personal attack on my talk page? I will continue editing as I am doing and learning along the way by reading guides provided. Don't threaten me again because you feel sorry for this editor who holds a blatant COI and only entered Wikipedia to edit his friend and mentor's article. He has had conflicts with over 5 other well intentioned and experienced editors. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages! If you leave another message like that on my talk page I will take it your personal attacks to an administrator myself. Bring it on! I hope I have made myself patently clear sir!Baroccas (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Such ferociousness. Jytdog left some helpful advice, so this response is way over the top. Your battlefield attitude is not helpful. User:Gjboyle is a new editor who is learning how things work here, so don't bite the newbie. Your animosity toward him needs to be kept out of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one appears to be a sock. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. I'll file an ANI momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least he said "sir". — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged_hounding_by_SPA_User:Baroccas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Femarelle (DT56a)

Hello, on your last edit you removed all categories, leaving not even one. Could you add a correct category no the article, broad as it may be. TNX, DGtal (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is a better comment for the Talk page, however. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification

Thank you for the invitation to engage in a dialog re: the editing of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and initially created my account for the purpose of editing the page. I am a subject matter expert as a result of working for a medical device company, but am not paid to promote any product or write Wikipedia content. I discovered the page to contain misleading information and wished to correct it. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a technology category that is in the public domain (all CES tech that I’m aware of is out of patent), so there are no companies or private interests that control or exclusively benefit from Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation, and those companies that do make CES devices are very small, unlike the giant pharmaceutical companies that produce competing products. Indeed, one of the obstacles that CES companies have faced is the overwhelming influence of competitors that often use well-placed, influential surrogates to disseminate misinformation about CES.


Following is my assessment of content on the page that is grossly misleading:


There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not CES with alternating current is safe and effective for treating depression.[6]


[6] Kavirajan HC, Lueck K, Chuang K. Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 8;7:CD010521. Review. PMID 25000907


This extremely misleading statement is supported (in citation) by a published literature review, not a clinical trial, and the publisher of this review is a small undergraduate teaching college within the University of Bristol.


In a 2010 literature review, published in a much more respected journal, Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, the conclusion is reached: “To date, whether used alone or in conjunction with pharmaceutical agents, CES has been shown to be an effective and economical therapy for mild to moderate depression.” 

J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010 Nov;48(11):37-42. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20100701-01. Epub 2010 Jul 22.Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the treatment of depression.

Gunther M1, Phillips KD.



More importantly, there are at least two well-controlled clinical trials that have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals that provide statistically significant evidence of CES safety and effectiveness in treating depression:


Krupitsky et al. The administration of transcranial electric treatment for affective disturbances therapy in alcoholic patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 27:1-6, 1991


J Affect Disord. 2014 Aug;164:171-7. A Clinical Trial of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Anxiety and Comorbid Depression, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 Apr 21.


I attempted to add this evidence to the page, yet it was repeatedly deleted.


Critics of CES research may point to the fact that subject sizes for most studies are not large when compared with drug studies, but CES study subject sizes are typical of non-invasive medical device studies. Drug studies need to be much larger because drug therapy is a chemical intervention and causes much more serious side effects. Critics may also point to the fact that CES studies examine varying patient populations and that device brands used in the studies have slight variance in electrical output. Varying patient populations are more representative of the real world, and the variance in output of different device brands is too small to skew data. The three most important aspects of studies – quality of controls, statistical significance and rigorous peer review – are soundly met in the studies listed above. In short, the Effectiveness section of this page should not be allowed to mislead the reader into thinking that there is a complete lack of evidence when in fact there is sufficient evidence


Another sentence on the page which, left alone, is very misleading: 


The exact mechanism of action of CES is unclear.[9]

9. Rosa MA, Lisanby SH (2012). "Somatic treatments for mood disorders". Neuropsychopharmacology 37 (1): 102–16. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.225. PMC 3238088.PMID 21976043.


The author of the source (Dr. Lisanby) has a documented conflict of interest with CES. Dr. Lisanby recused herself from the 2012 FDA Panel on CES Reclassification as a result of having a conflict of interest – she has financial ties to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a competing technology. Interestingly, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is listed in the See Also section of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page, along with Trancranial Direct Current Stimulation, another competing technology. In short, Dr. Lisanby’s review is an inappropriate citation for a statement which misleads readers into thinking that the way CES works is a complete mystery. It is not a mystery.


The mechanism of action of most brain related interventions, whether drug or device, are never completely clear, because the brain is so complex and imaging is only beginning to tell the whole story. But the way CES works is by no means a complete mystery. There is very strong evidence, published in respected journals, that CES stimulates the production of serotonin and other neurochemicals responsible for reducing and eliminating depression, anxiety and insomnia:


Liss. S. and B. Liss. Physiological and therapeutic effects of high frequency electircal pulses. Integrative physilogical and behavioral science 31:88-94, 1996


Shealy et al. Cerebralspinal fluid and plasma neurochemicals: response to cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 18: 94-97, 1996


Shealy et al. Depression: a diagnostic, neruochemical, profile & threapy with cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 10: 319-321, 1989


2005Gilula MF, Kirsch DL. (2005). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation review: a safer alternative to psychopharmaceuticals in the treatment of depression.Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(2), 2005.doi:10.1300/J184v09n02_02


Kennerly, Richard. QEEG analysis of cranial electrotherapy: a pilot study. Journal of Neurotherapy (8)2, 2004.


My efforts to provide this research have been met with repeated deletion.


The page as it stands right now seems intentionally designed to make readers think that Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a risky, unproven technology. Not only is there sufficient evidence, but CES is prescribed by thousands of doctors, many at the top of the psychiatric field. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation recently approved the device for use in its 11 hospitals – including Bellevue, Jacobi and Metropolitan Hospitals. The page should reflect the scientific evidence and broad clinical support the technology has behind it.


Sincerely


ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)ColumbiaLion212[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&oldid=672481346"