User talk:Jytdog

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)

edits at Jimbo's talk

Hi, jyt -

You said you were done at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please make that for at least a month.

Jimbo leaves moderation of his talk page up to others. I've moderated his page about 3 times now. I try not to over-do it. I've been taken to Arbcom about 3 times on this and it's been upheld each time.

Hope to see you in a month or so.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your intentions. I'll do as I will do. I do not intend to engage Jimmy going forward but I do intend to speak with other editors there, nor do I intend to address his behavior further. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." ArbCom has made it clear that this applies to Jimbo's talk page as much as, perhaps even more than, other users' talk pages. Jimbo has made it clear that other users should moderate his talk page for him. He has made this clear several times in particular concerning my modertion. It is obvious that nobody wants to welcome somebody to his talk page who just outright calls him a liar. So you are not welcomed on that page and I will remove all your additions there.

Of course, if Jimbo says you are welcomed there, I won't remove your edits. Feel free just to ask him. Or ArbCom. Just to be sure you understand - I will remove any edit you put on that page, until I hear otherwise from Jimbo or ArbCom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo gives a flying fuck if I post or not, and I won't beg his leave. He has thoroughly disrespected me enough by pretending to have a conversation with me. And I have no idea why I would talk to Arbcom about your playing gardenkeeper for Jimbo. I am, in any case, uninterested in getting into a dramafest with you. So I bow to your asserted will. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

rendered moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question to tps... so apparently there is some kind of appeal possible via Arbcom over what Smallbones has done. What he says is that he is banning me b/c I said that Jimmy was lying. Which he was. In my view it is not uncivil to say someone is lying, when they are indeed lying. So if I were to bring this to Arbcom, it would seem to me the question there would be whether Jimmy was indeed lying. Which could be interesting. Thoughts on this? Via email or he, whatever you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) To make my question easier to consider.. The relevant section of the jimbo's talk page is User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_we_left_the_discussion, which was summarizing the conversation, now archived here, which I initiated at Jimmy's invitation, here. This question was about where the board was, in their role as the people to whom Lila was accountable, with regard to Lila's acknowledged mistake of not engaging the community on the Knowledge Engine. In an iteration of the question, I wrote this and added a bit more here: it is not answering the question because it leaves a perfect hole where a direct response would be; my sense is you are asking me to read between the lines of "broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure" and "no one told her not to" and the only things I can put there are things like: "Lila refused to bring this to the community although the board told her to do so, and we didn't make it clear enough that her job depended on her doing that and doing it well" or "we actually didn't know the kind of plans that were being pitched in the WMF's name; and if we had, we would have driven community engagement sooner". Please don't ask me to read between the lines. I am asking you to please tell me where the board was, on overseeing Lila as she made the ongoing mistake of not engaging the community. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC) he responded with this: The board has broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure, and I'm unaware of anyone individually giving her advice to hide anything about long term strategy. Going into slightly more depth than that, I didn't see anything particularly unusual or controversial about the concepts being presented to us about the evolving ideas around improving search and discover, and I simply assumed that there was community discussion and consultation about it. The grander concept which, as I now understand, Damon was pitching via cloak-and-dagger PGP encrypted files (one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick because Damon didn't trust the public keyservers), didn't really get traction and was quickly abandoned. By the time of the board meeting in Mexico City, we specifically discussed that this would not be anything like a "Google competitor". As to the exact details of every single discussion with funders, obviously the board is not privy to those as a practical matter. Certainly had we understood that a disconnect was going on, and that the community was not being consulted, we absolutely would have pushed harder for community engagement sooner. As it is, I think most likely other board members, like me, simply assumed that it was being talked about and not treated as some kind of super top secret thing. Is that helpful?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC) to which i responded with this, calling saying: Thanks for replying. With all of the sturm und drang that is detailed in the Timeline - much of which concerns transparency (which includes engaging the community of course) - and it is all right there, from the funds dissemination committee in May, to James email in October, to Asaf's response to Lila in November, especially the Funds Dissemination Committee note on November 23 ("They state that they are "appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF's approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof)" ..... all the evidence says that Board was well aware that Lila was not engaging the committee. I started this in the hope that this could be an authentic engagement and you could move toward regaining the community's trust. You. are. lying. You are displaying the arrogance of power and demonstrating the reality that you and the Board are not accountable to the community. And that is where we are. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I was treating Smallbones' thing as annoying and blew off the drama, but it just struck me that maybe it would be useful to take him up on that, and have Arbcom look at whether my statement was justified. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo restored the statement here, 7 hours after i posted the above. hatted it. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a note of appreciation for pursuing clarity at Jimbotalk by asking questions to which "the community" is entitled to straight answers. Writegeist (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Pharmacological torture". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Pharmacological torture, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Template:Sfn/doc

Please revert your edit. Per WP:BRD, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) was bold, I reverted, it should now be discussed. Instead, we have three users (the third is Izno (talk · contribs)) going against WP:EW. More at User talk:WhatamIdoing#Template:Sfn/doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BRD is optional, as you know. But I'd be happy to host the discussion, if there's more to discuss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I self-reverted and opened a discussion on the template talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) (reflect my actual status. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

As a talk page stalker, it occurs to me to ping EEng and Mirokado, both of whom I know to be interested in the subject. And the real reason for me to post here is that it gives me an excuse to make a joke, which is that I very much hope that Jytdog has not really everted himself! Ouch! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

is that even a thing? let's see ... oh ack! "to turn outward or inside out.". well, there is learning by making mistakes for you. fixed above, to avoid causing alarm. i am rightside in. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And with that, I will link to Sea apple#Defense! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Now there is a trick i would like to learn. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries

No worries about Gamma-Aminobutyric acid, good luck with its improvement, — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

hooray! Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Response. Page "Homotaurine"

I add even more sources. All you do is prevent knowledge also what you have erased about alzheimer is completely valid. Instead of deleting all, you should look a little google and contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonsy74 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Moved from user's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EverygreenFir. Fonsyn, this is for discussion at the article Talk page - happy to respond there. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list

changed the header from "Gaslighting" to "Mailing list" Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This refers. I'm interested in whether you have always had this opinion of Jimmy or whether it was the recent events that prompted your reaction. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You view that as gaslighting? Hm. Didn't mean it that way; I tend to be direct and simple in Wikipedia as tone is too hard to control. Recent events, including my effort on his Talk page to actually talk with him about what happened, which failed. I never paid him much mind before. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, it was this post which refers to gaslighting. I followed your discussion with him on his talk page, but very hard to understand the narrative. I fully support your effort to get an election, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Great. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation on and off, not with great attention, but with a lot of befuddlement and dismay. Is it really the case that Jimmy Wales has said in writing that DocJames has low emotional intelligence? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

here is the email from Jimmy to James, copied to Pete, that Pete published on the mailing list. Jimmy is kinda sorta trying to be nice, but it is very much "does your mom know you beat your wife" - claims are baked in that make it unworkable for authentic dialogue. Jimmy says he can't figure out James' behavior and wonders if James' behavior may be due to low emotional intelligence or something, among other things. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I remain befuddled and dismayed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I was for a long time too, with the "he said she said" of this, and wanting to be careful not to judge. Jimmy's behavior has led me to believe he has not been talking in good faith. I have judged now. He has done lots of great things and probably will in the future but he is acting with no integrity in this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Jimmy, and also asked James, where this was 'publicly stated'. I always worry when J says 'I won't supply exact quotes'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

. Two "J's here. hm. I am not too interested in nailing anyone to the wall on any specific thing, because most of the specific things that have been said are denials, distraction, etc etc. There is a gaping hole, where there should be a clear and coherent disclosure with regard to what actually transpired with the KE (what was planned, by whom, the lack of transparency around that (within the WMF and with respect to the community), and how that played into James's dismissal and Lila's failures). All that stuff is one story.

Peter - please hear me - trying to pin down any specific statement is playing whackamole and in my view actually helps Jimmy's efforts to distract everyone from the gaping hole. In my view, we need to stay focused on the gaping hole and call out anything else for the garbage that it is. If Jimmy worked for me I would have fired him after our second exchange. It was bullshit - in the Harry Frankfurt sense of "speech intended to persuade, with regard for truth"; it is an expression of profound disrespect for the person to whom it is delivered, or complete sloppiness, and neither is helpful for solving problems. The truth matters- knowing it, is the first step in solving problems.

We have a gaping hole where a description of the problem should be, and so it is hard to fix it. The persistence of the hole has itself become a problem, so we need to fix that. And since that is not forthcoming, we need to fix the source of the hole. We have to get the board elected. That is what I think.

But please don't get distracted by things in the donut around the hole. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I do get distracted by things like that. I am fascinated by the philosophy of lying. I write about it occasionally. Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see we are both fans! Wonderful. Those two books helped me, a lot. Such clear thinking, and such great focus on what matters. The point you pull out there is really interesting, and you hang him on his own language. The key thing, is to be looking in the right place, and to discern what is there, as best you can (to know "the truth" about that). Liars insert a falsehood at that place, yes. What you point out very well, is the bullshitter is trying like crazy to get you to look past that point, and buy what he or she is selling, and you really should be looking at the place when you evaluate their pitch. You are right, it does matter to the bullshitter, that you don't look there. Nicely done. ( i studied medieval history in college and fell in love with Etienne Gilson's Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. haven't thought about that book in forever....) And thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I also like to document things very carefully. I have just looked at my notes and what really puzzles me is the extreme anger with which Jimmy pursues Heilman, contrasting with the fairly mild statements Heilman has made, always carefully qualified and always going to the sources. On the other hand, we can't get round the fact that there was an 8-2 vote. It's very puzzling. Peter Damian (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is weird. I think the public fierceness of Jimmy is proportional to the amount he knows he acted badly in private. That is often how things go. I see the usefulness of identifying specific contradictions, especially with people who are committed to digging deeper instead of climbing out. everybody has their part, i guess! Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ELS

Hi Jytdog, I was wondering what "inappropriate embedded ELs" - I googled it but a little confused. I want to make sure I avoid them for sure. Thanks!KHBibby (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @KHBibby: It stands for external links. Brianhe (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits

I'm finding many of your edits at the Stone article and at the Energy therapy article problematic and borderline disruptive. First, adding a source to an article isn't spam. Second, I've asked you to please wait until the AfD discussion has completed for you go and delete massive chunks of content from the article, and add templates that have the potential to poison the well. The article may be deleted anyway, so leaving it alone isn't hurting anything, but chopping it to pieces and templating it as you've done gives an impression of personal bias and is disruptive. Thanks for your consideration. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How interesting! I just left a note on your Talk page. I work on articles about health all the time, so am very familiar with how we approach these topics in Wikipedia, including the sourcing guidelines and the way we apply polices and guidelines to health topics. I also work a great deal on conflicts of interest issues, and the Randolph Stone article was profoundly affected by the COI of its creator - it is plain as day. I opened a discussion about that at the talk page, here. I'd be happy to discuss further, if you like. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's concerning to me that you may think assuming bad faith is a normal course of action. I guess it doesn't surprise me too much, with what Wikipedia has become over time. My only desire here is to see the AfD run its course, with people presenting their evidence in an objective manner, without playing dirty well-poisoning tricks or trying to smear a new editor. If the article is deleted, then it's deleted, and we can all move on. Until then, I would like to see a new editor helped instead of pilloried, and an article that may very well be about a notable subject receive actual review instead of votes to delete because it is about quackery. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep coming at me with accusations of trying to poison the well, and you do so here. That is not the case. I do not view AfDs as some kind of existential battle. If someone fixes the article during the AfC, i will be very happy. If you want to fix it, then fix it. You will note that in my !vote I suggested that the article could be moved to draft space or userified. The subject may well be notable but this article should not exist in anything like its current form. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave you the courtesy of a response here, but you still have not replied at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

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.

---

Wales is no stranger to rewriting history. He claims to be the sole-founder, but he was busy with his other project called the Bomis. See History_of_Wikipedia#Early_roles_of_Wales_and_Sanger. The first search engine Wales worked on was "The Babe Engine". All his search engine projects failed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

there is no reason to be mean, now. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

But I'm rolling my eyes over "The Babe Engine". Same way Zuckerberg started "The Facebook". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Babe Engine was less a search engine, and more an unholy hybrid of an old-style webring and a linkspam site (although their search page is good for a laugh, complete with "swollen red baboon ass" as a "fetish"). Jimbo's old T-shirt page is always good for a laugh, too. ‑ Iridescent 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a blog based on Slashcode?[1] I am sure a reporter could gather all the evidence over the years and write a shocking story. Larry Sanger did not create Wikipedia?[2][3] QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

now, now, everybody comes from somewhere. enough of this now. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2016 (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.

COI

I've never been involved in a COI case, so I don't know how to begin it. Since you are a regular contributor over there, I thought I'd bring your attention to Andy Tomlinson who purports to be the author of a source he wishes to cite, and who edits frequently in his field (which is not a COI in and of itself, I know), and who is currently making some highly questionable COI-ish arguments at the reliable sources noticeboard. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SELFCITE which is definitely part of the COI guideline. I will check out the RSN discussion and perhaps open a discussion on their talk page. These kinds of discussions are delicate.... Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Joint statement

If the section is automatically archived and Wales does not respond to the section regarding the disclosure of the KE than I want you to cut and paste both of our comments in a sandbox and we (and possibly others) can work on the text and make a joint statement. I'm not letting this go. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was archived. Please cut and past it into a sandbox and then we can work on reposting it. It must be done right this time. Each comment must be put in a separate section. A specific subsection is for Jimbo and another subsection for other replies. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Am thinking. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I will return in a few hours. I hope by then you pasted the content into a sandbox. Our statements will still be separate. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You can copy/paste what I wrote into a sandbox, if it is urgent to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please update your comments and post it at Jimbo's talk page. See User:QuackGuru/Foundation#Disclosure_of_the_full_scope_of_the_Knowledge_Engine. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and just created a subsection at his talk page. please feel free to add to it. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

But what about your comments in the sandbox? QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I already said all that stuff once. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I posted my comments. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am confused by Wales' response. He did not address my specific questions. What is going on here? The mystery (and secrecy) over the KE project continues. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixing pings

Re diff, it is not possible to "fix" a ping. Thinking about what would happen when editors correct typos or make other adjustments to their comments shows the reason for that. A notification will only occur when adding new content with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

right, so if I change the formatting of a ping, delete my signature, and then sign again, it pings. here I will show you. Johnuniq (broken ping formatting) Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

were you pinged? Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No! Imagine this is on another talk page and I pinged you in this comment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I notice a typo which means the ping did not work, so I would write a new comment something like: [new ping goes here] sending notification to fix earlier mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

hm. i need to set up a play account to figure this out. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs in case they help

I haven't followed everything on Jimbo's talk, but a current issue seems to be whether someone mentioned removing Board members in the period leading up to the Knight vote.

James has said that did happen, and that it made him feel under pressure to support accepting the Knight grant (not only support it, but propose it). People have asked whether Jimbo was present when the remark about removing trustees was made. Jimbo said on 10 February that he was checking with every Board member, and that he had reached a "preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie." [5]

James later said it was Jimbo who made the comment: "Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during the days before the Knight grant vote." [6]

James had earlier confirmed that just one trustee had made such a remark: "One board member stating that they wish to remove other board members I believe applies pressure and is a fairly specific example." [7]

It would be worth asking another trustee whether they heard Jimbo say that. It's a serious matter, because James is not someone to whom pressure is easily applied, so this has implications for the independence of the trustees. It's one of the issues that makes me think an independent inquiry would be helpful. Pinging Peteforsyth, Doc James, Nocturnalnow, Smallbones. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary, SlimVirgin. I can add one more piece, maybe helpful. I had a conversation with Doc James on Oct. 28 21, 2015; I remember the date distinctly because it was during Open Access Week; I was on the UCSF campus for an Open Access event, on my way to the week before an OA panel discussion I moderated at the WMF offices. James and I had communicated a little prior to this via email, but this phone conversation was the first time I got a broad sense of how worried he was about things going on with the board. James was careful not to share too many specifics with me, which as I saw it was entirely appropriate since I assumed there were confidential issues at play. (For any who don't know, I had briefly run for the board myself in the race where he was elected. So I had thought a good deal about the topic of dealing with confidential information while working for change; and I was pleased to find that James' words seemed to align with how I would probably approach it in his shoes. FWIW, I stepped out of the running before voting opened, and endorsed James among several other candidates.)

One specific thing James did say, though, was that he was concerned that if was too outspoken about his views -- within the Board of Trustees -- that he was worried he might be removed from the board. I told him I thought that was ridiculous, that while I understood the discomfort of challenging prevailing views, that no reasonable board would ever remove a colleague for following his own conscience -- that indeed, it was his duty to represent what he believed to be in the best interests of the WMF. I pointed out that his position as a community-selected Trustee strengthened that position, that his colleagues would be even less likely to eject him for representing his views, since it would be interpreted as a rebuke of the community. He told me that the Board had the legal right to do so, which came as a surprise to me. (I took his word for it in that discussion, but checked the bylaws myself as soon as our panel discussion was done.)

James did not tell me that any specific Trustee had threaten to remove him specifically; but that was entirely consistent with the care he was taking not to breach confidentiality. I would have been very surprised if he had told repeated to me what a fellow trustee had told him in confidence.

But clearly, the issue was very much on his mind as of October 28, to the point where he was familiar with the bylaws' exact provisions about removing trustees. There are many issues for a Trustee to read and think and learn about; in James' first few months, that was one of the issues that commanded his attention. There must be a reason for that, and the most convincing possible reason I've heard since is that Jimmy Wales brought up the possibility of removing Trustees prior to October 28. In fact, it's the only possible reason I've heard articulated. -Pete (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment regarding the potential removal of board members occurred on Nov 7 or 8th. But there was of course disagreements among board members before that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Pete, that is very helpful. I have asked Dariusz whether he heard Jimmy or anyone else make such a remark. [8] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

30 Dec email

Perhaps I missed this being published but Doc mentioned an email sent by Jimmy on 30 December 2015 that he was going to publish. Was it published? Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

who is "he" in "he was going to publish"? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

'He' being Doc James. Pronominal back-reference heh! Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I did make a comment that I would publish one of my own emails and that email is this one.

With respect to publishing other people's emails such as one that Jimmy sent me Dec 30th, this is something I have given him permission to do but not something I will do myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. On 18 January 2016, Doc James asks Jimmy to publicly share the email he sent to Doc on Dec 30th, 2015. As far as I know, Jimmy has not publicly shared it.Peter Damian (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes that has been brought up several times in the mailing list, too. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicotine page edit

Regarding your edit on nicotine, on see p. 8 of the Cancer Research UK report which is clearly referring to the safety of un-regulated doses of nicotine from e-cigarettes. (FYO, it is well-known that users self regulate the amount of nicotine consumed.)

Some of the most significant evidence on the safety of nicotine comes from low-toxic versions of smokeless tobacco, which deliver hefty doses of nicotine but are not associated with cancer or heart attack.

References

- Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 11:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this! It really belongs on the article Talk page - happy to discuss there. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Re edit: please join the discussion: WT:FRINGE#Independent reliable sources required. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment

No problem. I am happy to improve it. But please cite some examples of what you allege to be "almost impenetrable with jargon", otherwise your contribution is unhelpful, being itself unfounded, but simply a sweeping accusation. It is not a matter of being protective. It is a matter of commitment to improvement, which I am struggling to implement without example. This is especially so given that the terminology of the article is consistent with other articles in the field of neuroscience. Again: which terms have you identified as jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 6:27, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I'll reply at the Talk page Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Please be advised that I have reported your threat at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section Grave threat of harm made by User: Jytdog). Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WARNING

This is not acceptable editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=710238548&oldid=710238425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Final warning for edit warring

Stop or I will request you be blocked. It's been revealed you have been edit warring this article for months and attempting to out hapless new users. You still stop or be stopped. Please see WP:ANI. 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge (talk • contribs)

3RR for edit-warring at RepRap project. The rules apply to you too, and you're awful close to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you agreed with Snow Rise's thoughtful analysis at ANI, because what he said really hits the nail on the head (as you've heard me say ad nauseum before). (But other than that, I think the multiple threads about you there today have been some of the most ridiculously nonsensical stuff I've seen in some time. So you have my genuine sympathy there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

not interested in feeding drama. yes; too harsh sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Were you aware of this article in which you are prominently featured? It seems that your actions have angered some in the 3D printing community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, it was added to the headers of the RepRap article. If you read it carefully, it is pretty fair, especially for someone who doesn't seem to understand how WP works, and they are not calling for some kind of war - the italicized note at the bottom of the page is very reasonable. Everybody (with the exception of CaptianYuge) from the RepRap community who has come to the Talk page has been very civilized; they do have a sense that something was wrong (as did the author of that article). I am hopeful that I can work with these folks (and of course anybody from within the WP community already) to make this a really good Wikipedia article on an important player in 3D printing. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz, for drawing attention to that article. Jytdog, although I too noticed ways in which the author did not understand fully how WP works, I think that they were a lot more clueful than the typical critic. I hope that you will take very seriously the things that they criticized about the tone of some of your posts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Everybody (with the exception of CaptianYuge) from the RepRap community"

It's time you dropped these attacks. You're way into specific one-target harassment. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, dead horse. Andy, what do you mean by "it's time you dropped these attacks". You seem to be making a general statement, and this is what I had asked you about on your Talk page. Please say more. CaptianYuge was extremely aggressive and unwilling to focus simply on content and sources. That is not an attack, but a description of their behavior, as was generally noted at ANI. I would have been happy to work through the bits of content and sourcing, bit by bit with them. I would have. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of saying "dead horse", I hope that you will give it some sober thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Yuge got to the article before I did. Don't assume that I'm any happier your edits than he was, just busier. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I am aware of my issues, and I have acknowledged them consistently. I acknowledged them already when you noted them above in this very thread, and at the ANI in my first comment there. so yes, for this instance, dead horse. really, i get it. I still screw up sometimes, but I get it. Andy, I would hope that if you go to work on the article, you would be willing to talk about content and sources, calmly and bit by bit, like we do here in Wikipedia. I went over CaptainYugas edits sentence by sentence and noted what I was doing in each edit note. I did not delete what he did wholesale. I understand that people may disagree with any one of those edits and I would be happy to discuss any one of them. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

" if you go to work on the article" Why the hell would I want to do that? Would you raise another SPI over me? Claim that I have some COI with RepRap? Or just repeatedly revert anything I changed? You have made editing at this article unworkable for any other GF editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No I wouldn't raise an SPI over you. You are Andy Dingley, and are known around here. CaptainYuge came out of no where, and if you are not aware, there was a really vicious SOCK that I had helped get blocked, literally the day before CaptainYuge showed up. Much of the drama caused by that editor unfolded at an ANI higher up on the page (now archived here). Two other editors at the ANI thread CaptainYuge started, who had been involved in that, also noted that they would not be surprised if CaptainYuge turned out to be yet another SOCK of that same user. Maybe you were not aware of that context. But really, if you come and work on content and sourcing based on policies and guidelines, we can improve the article. Of course we can. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Like that never happens? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andy_Dingley

Yes, you had a sock problem. It's OK to raise an SPI on a reasonable suspicion of another new editor. But when a CU then says drop it, it's time to drop it. They're an innocent editor, until proven otherwise, and we should grant them that privilege. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did drop it. I only mentioned the SOCK thing here because you did. But their behavior was terribly aggressive, and they wouldn't discuss content and sourcing bit by bit. Again that was the upshot of the ANI. I would have been happy to work with them, had they calmed down and tried to actually work together on specific bits. That is what it takes to work productively. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Kiberd, Roisin (March 23, 2016). "The Brutal Edit War Over a 3D Printer's Wikipedia Page". Vice. Retrieved 23 March 2016.

I presume you know about this, because it seems that this media house interviewed you. Thanks for presenting a good face for Wikipedia. I continue to see you stay mostly on point in your communication with promotional interests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I am very, very disappointed with the headline and opening of the article, but if you hold your breath and keep reading it becomes reasonable. But that is the last time I talk to a journalist about editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it, and I think that you presented yourself and explained how WP really works impressively well. I'm sure you must be feeling like you've been going through a shredder by now, but I think you are entitled to know how much you ended up, by the end of the article, sounding like a very reasonable person. You also set the record straight about why WP does things the way it does. In one fish's opinion, you did a very nice service for the project in the way that you represented it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto. The journalist did do a nice job distilling what I said and I appreciate that. I am glad that you and Bluerasberry felt I did well by the project - that's important to me. I just feel a bit burned by the "brutal" and "vicious" rhetoric. Wringer, not so much. I walked away because I don't want to deal with the drama and I don't feel like I can do a lot with that article any way as there are few high quality sources about it. On top of that, as you've advised, I can do without high profile drama for a while. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI mess

Hey, I was going to ask if Tracescoops was also socking as "CharlatangGourou". But was had some difficulty after QG made this edit, in the middle of your comment, messing this page up (and hence the multiple edits I made after after trying to sort it out). Hopefully you can out what he trying to do... good luck to you. - ^theWOLFchild 23:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I don't know. CU has made only two linkages:

• Tracescoops to Rowssusan in this block log, and
• CharlatanGourou to..... this blog log. Hm the blog log appears to have been changed. Drmies did it, you can see their block of OverAverageJoe here - that was the sock that was originally identified in the block log for CharlatanGourou. Drmies also blocked Renameduser024 at about the same time per this. So right now we don't know who CharlatanGourou was a sock of, and we don't know if there is a connection between the two (or three?) sock-strings at this time. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what this edit did to the SPI page. Look at the diff, before and after, and where it was placed. - ^theWOLFchild 00:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on that. I think the page more or less makes sense now. It is hard to organize well with all the possible socks. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering

Hey Jytdog, I wanted to check in and see if you're still interested in working on edits to the MSK article. I appreciate all the help and work you've put in so far, and understand if you're busy.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits

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

---

Hi, I noticed that you are editing Calvin Cheng. Thank you for having a look at it. Just thought to mention this incident to you for context about the socks appearing (or probably going to appear soon) on that article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

yep, I have noticed all that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Your recent edits on Calvin Cheng are amazing. Completely encyclopaedic style and neutral. It takes someone with the will and professionalism to go clean it up instead of just tagging. The only thing to still watch out for is the persistent inclusion of a 'controversy' section that violates NPOV and implies that the person is guilty of a crime or charged with one. Thank you again. You should remove the 'problem with article' templates after your amazing work!! 180.255.248.215 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2016 (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.

Najib Razak

Hi. As mentioned, I am a fan of politics. There is a huge NPOV issue on the Prime Minister of Malaysia's page Najib Razak. I think it also needs the intervention of an objective foreign editor 180.255.248.215 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but i have no interest in that. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Bot to detect and tag advocacy editing

I have started working on the bot per above, see User:LambdaBot. You have said there that you have a list of "features" (statistical variables that may indicate COI), so your help with developing these features is appreciated; just edit the "Other features" section on that page. Since the bot uses machine learning, the features should merely be statistical variables. Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Messages and References

Hi, I saw your message after the edit, and am just getting used to the talk page. I wasn't sure if you would get a response on my talk page, so I just figured I'd let you know I responded here. Thanks. Ceceliamch (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Ceceliamch

Thanks very much for the nice welcome and information on my talk page, by the way. Would've saved me some stress if I had seen them all earlier, lol. Ceceliamch (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Ceceliamch

ack. yes, sorry that neither nor anyone else provided those messages to you earlier! I have the article and your Talk page watchlisted, so I will see where and when you respond. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Report at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giving you notice that an IP editor has filed a report.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak, etc

Hey Jytdog, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I assumed you were maliciously attacking my article. I worked with other admins to try and correct any unverified sources, etc. I did not realize the 'history' of this article until you brought it to my attention. Perhaps you could have done that without calling me a sock, and deleting the rewritten article I posted. Why don't we let that whole process play out, and I'm sure you will see I'm just a guy that likes horror movies and punk music. I think you jumped the gun. Assumed the worst. I'm trying not to do the same. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TheVictorCrowleyyou put this comment at the top of my talk page. I, and everyone else in WIkipedia, looks for comments at the bottom. So before you go unloading snark at me at the SPI, understand that you have no idea what you are doing in here. I'll consider replying here once you strike the garbage you wrote at SPI, attacking me for your mistake. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog I actually posted this first, then saw the stuff you wrote about me on the SPI thing. Why would I delete the stuff I wrote on the SPI forum when you said all those things about me? This is what I mean. I'm not trying to fight with you. But it just seems like you 'shoot first', and delete things. I am confused. I do feel attacked -- and I'm trying to figure out what I did to you? (sorry for ending that in a question again). Peace? TheVictorCrowley (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Jytdog I added a note on the SPI page stating that I inadvertently put my question at the top of your page. My fault. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have no malice toward you or Walendziak; you have been taking this personally and arguing instead of asking questions and trying to learn. That has been hard to watch. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Quotes like "That has been hard to watch." aren't productive, and are the kind of thing I'm referring to. Additionally, I spent four hours on that thing. You went after it at first because you assumed I was a sock. Now here we are. Of course I'm taking it personally. No hard feelings. Let's just move on. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are always 2 pieces to things here in Wikipedia, content and behavior. I tagged both articles for speedy based on the content; they failed notability and were thus promotional. I believe there are behavioral issues here as well, but they are separate. You do appear to be a sock and I believe that is how the SPI will play out. But we'll see if others agree. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at Randolph Stone

Regarding this [9], can you please indicate to me where in the article it already says that Stone retired and moved to India? If you're referring to the clinic he had there, I believe that was in operation during the same period he had his practice in Chicago. He couldn't have been retired if he was running a clinic in India or elsewhere. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - that is where discussions about specific article content should go, so that anybody who is involved can participate. If you'll just copy your question, there, I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fasoracetam

@Jytdog: Please, can you tell me why "http://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800003134" is not a reliable primary source for the article "Fasoracetam"? Thanks! :) Redyaco (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Redyaco (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - that is where discussions about specific article content should go, so that anybody who is involved can participate. If you'll just copy your question, there, I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Craig Walendziak

Please discuss either on the draft talk page, or at the Teahouse. I will let someone else review. Please provide a link to the sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I don't know if you are asking for the link here or there, so I'll provide in both places. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Craig mack378. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jyt's "little respect for people".

Re your totally unprovoked comment aimed at me: "As for you, I have little respect for people who shoot their mouths off about things they know nothing about" on my talk page as well as the unredacted 4 letter word you left. I really appreciate you undoing your text later on with only one intermediate argument from you. I now better understand where you stand. No hard feelings nor the need for us two to ever converse again. Thank you very much for the revelation. Gongwool (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot alter other's people's comments. Don't do it. And do read that Atlantic article so you understand the quote you are making fun of - there are serious issues behind it. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I see you removed the shooting-off-your-mouth thing from your Talk page. Better, yes. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Am sorry to be short with you at XyZAn

…but I am not at all convinced that this effort, which is gathering steam, is (i) rigourously correct in application, or (ii) best for these articles.

Vis-a-vis (i), clade diagrams are intended to convey specific quantitative information in the lengths of every line that appears. I have asked for, because I am not clear on, what business historical information is being conveyed by the segment lengths in XyZAn's efforts. If XyZAn manages to capture actual information, will others be as rigourous to do this correctly? And if he does, is this not all a grand example of WP:OR?

Vis-a-vis (ii), if XyZan does not capture any real quantitative information, as is normal for clade diagrams, then their use as a graphical presentation needs to be weighed against longterm ease of maintenance. On this, I am not at all convinced that adding all the graphical apparatus in the markup—which may even be meaningless from a formal clad diagram perspective, that is why I have queried XyZan—is worth the:

• possible future editor error with the markup;
• disincentive it creates for novice editors to add to what is normally simple tabular information;
• variability on content it invites, versus a table with a clear, limited set of table headings, that unequivocally indicate what content is to be extracted from each summarized source.

Finally, with regard to the "best for these articles" point, I have to say I am not a big fan of unlabeled graphs, and that is what a novelly used clad diagram likely has become. What, even, are the labels of the ordinate and abscissa of this graph?

In a real scientific application of clade methods, all of these are defined. Please help me get him to state the maths and principled basis for applying this, here. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are applying a ridiculous standard to something that is just a simple graphical way to show the history of a company. Chill. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So is it your supposition, that there is no usual information contained in the vertical and horizontal elements? If this is true, then the concerns in (ii) apply. Have you worked with these, or read Tufte? And, like it or not, I am perfectly chill, even when arguing firmly. (Please acknowledge apology received. I do not explain my self in paragraphs like this, to those I don't respect.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful to open a neutral thread at WT:WikiProject Companies asking what other folks think of the diagrams, providing links to a few article where they have been implemented, and be sure to notify Xyzan. Including one to the GSK article would be good - someone moved that diagram to a sidebar; that is another way they could be implemented. Sure, I see that you apologized. I don't care - you overpersonalize things all the time and I expect it of you by now. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. Re-read your intervention. As long as you are aware that you have tendencies in the same directions, I am fine. And I don't expect unfairness from you. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already posted at all the places I could perceive might know about and care about clade diagrams. Those invites all point to the Talk page of his Gladogram project page. Invite any further you wish. The more the merrier. 02:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm good lord i just checked your contribs. you actually posted here and this and this and this and this. Those boards are for people who edit articles about graphic design or about math or about math and theoretical biology or about computational biology or about statistics, not people who edit articles about companies. And here to the talk page of the article about Cladistics. And you actually pointed them to this which you actually created in another user's space. oy. Just like the last time, you are handling the thing that is inappropriately inflaming you in an inappropriate way. just oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Google maps demolition story

You should check out Goggle Maps' response to the query "7601 Cousteau Drive, Rowlett, TX, United States" to judge whether the story is relevant. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

People do stupid things all the time. If a wrecking crew demolished a house because they relied on google maps, they are idiots. That is not some big flaw with Google Maps, which has no claim to perfection. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It was of course definitely not bright to rely on Google maps on this occasion. However, I would have thought there are minimal standards for map makers, or are there none in the US? 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

this is an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. If you want to generate some encyclopedic content about the accuracy of google maps over time and space, that would be amazing. This bit of trivia is not encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. If I come across some research on that, I'll look into that. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

how do I cite math? there is no need to be rude. If you care about accuracy of information then you would care about when you have been led to believe false information by the accepted sources. Mathematics proves these sources incorrect based off the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is easy to cite math. You find it published in WP:MEDRS source and then cite that source. You cannot do your own math in WP - you cannot look up how big a human oocyte is and how big an ovary is and how many eggs a woman produces in her life and do your own math. You cannot do that in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Accuracy

Commenting here rather than the messy project talk page. Would you have any problem with a 'seal' that identified a particular version of the article as having gone through some formal process? That would address your objection about the article immediately ceasing to be 'accurate' as soon as a new edit was made. I discussed this with Anthonyhcole a while ago. There is a desperate need for some kind of process that either alerts readers to particularly bad articles, or encourages them in the direction of slightly better ones. Peter Damian (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah just seen this. Now I understand. But that doesn't rule out some kind of project aimed at improving accuracy, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't rule out an effort to improve accuracy. There is just a bunch of things wrong (in my view) with this specific initiative. I would be OK with something like you mention above, in theory. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What was the user with Atsme? Was it alternative medicine related? I followed some of your links but it was a massive wall of text. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would rather not rehearse the whole thing. I have no desire to tear anybody down. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tear me down? I think it would be better if you just told the truth, Jytdog. I will not say another word to you, but if you don't stop this unfounded character assassination using falsities at Griffin, we will be going back to ArbCom. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just said that I have no desire to tear you or anybody down Atsme. I did not respond to Peter's question - I don't talk about other editors on side pages like this.

I have written nothing false at Project Accuracy (!), and in my view very few people will disagree with how I have characterized your editing history when it comes to health topics.

I try to stay away from you, because you and I have bad blood. I've made mistakes with regard to you, for which I have apologized to you, and you have not accepted; you have never shown any inkling of the ways that you have done bad things to me, nor ever apologized to me. I only commented at Project Accuracy because with the mailing list notice, it is now very public (and yes I know that you didn't post that, nor were you very happy about it).

If you went to get all drama-boardish knock yourself out, but you have no leg here. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Made some changes per your remarks. Please drop by and comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability of The Chardon Polka Band

When you noticed The Chardon Polka Band was tagged for notability, you noted "seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit". Thanks for contributing. I cleaned up the article and started a discussion of Notability on its talk page. Please contribute to discussion and/or confirm or remove notability tag, as I may or may not be considered impartial. Lefton4ya (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lefton4ya why would you not be impartial? Do you have some connection with the band? Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I am from the same area they are from and and am kinda friends with the band. I am not paid by them or asked to edit by them, but just trying to clean up their wiki page and noticed the notability tag . In trying to be a good denizen of WP but also help the band I like, I added references and cleaned up the article and also removed notability tag, but when it was added back I didn't want to start an edit war and felt someone more impartial should decide. But check out the talk page for discussion points. Lefton4ya (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

artist Renee Radell draft

Hello Jytdog. I am not sure where to post this for your convenience, so please pardon me if I should use my own talk page. I modified the draft Renee Radell article per your suggestions, taking out any flattering comments and citing all statements of fact. Might I ask when such a piece warrants submission? Both you and DGG have said that notability should probably not be a problem. My COI as a relative of Renee would be the reason I should not submit this directly? Thank you kindly for any suggestions about next steps OtterNYC (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to start a post war, just new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what was going on. sorry Madelinerobin (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Madelinerobin