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)

Question about Information-theoretic death article

I mentioned in passing in the "Medical definition of death" AfD discussion that I was preparing a rewrite of the Information-theoretic death article, which at that time had been reduced to a redirect. In the meantime, I see that a cryonics zealot with no apparent knowledge of the editing history of this article, and no good sense about how cryonics must be treated in an encyclopedia, restored the article text with all its problems. This triggered your understandable deletion nomination. My question is: Shall I wait until the article is deleted before recreating a better version, or shall I substitute a better version while the present deletion discussion is still underway? I know that the latter is encouraged by Wikipedia, however if I'm able to finish the new version at all before the discussion concludes, it would be very late into the AfD discussion, and would likely still be deleted on strength of all the Delete votes cast against the previous version. A fair hearing would then be impossible because recreation of the new article for evaluation on its merits by interested parties would be grounds for Speedy Deletion because of the previous AfD decision.

Whatever I do, I don't want to get on the bad side of a Wikipedian with 30,000+ edits (i.e. you) by handling this inappropriately. Assuming the rewrite will still require a few more days to complete (good sourcing is lots of work!), what do you think I should do for the rewrite to get a fresh appraisal? Cryobiologist (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; it's a good question. I've been wrong before as we saw with the targeted cooling merge I wanted to do, so it could be that a whole article could be created that is neutral. I would suggest starting to build the content in whatever article it would be a natural subsection of. If that subsection grows naturally to the point where it needs to be split into its own article, that can be handled in a WP:SPLIT discussion at that article's Talk page. No need for drama and things can unfold in whatever time they need.  :) Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a redirect to Cryonics (as a jargon term), noting though that Cryobiologist (if anyone could) is working on a good version - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

David in my view that increases the likelihood of a no consensus close, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I just went ahead and published a new version of the Information-theoretic death article. There ended up being too much material to shoehorn into the cryonics article, and it would have been an awkward fit anyway because the idea has crept too far into other places. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Big concern about gutting "patient lift" article

Hi Jytdog,

I have some serious concerns about your removing 80-90% of the "patient lift" article.

I have been developing and working with transfer and mobility devices for a number of years. The information you removed was accurate and the US patent reference in the article was a valid source which you also removed (I thought you claimed you only remove unsourced material).

I estimate that 50% of Wikipedia content is not "properly sourced" by your standards and you can go around removing much of Wikipedia's content thus removing valuable, accurate information while feeling pretty good about it.

But caregivers who deal with dependent patients such as nursing aides and family members desperately need this removed information about “patient lifts” to help their loved ones when they become disabled. It is essential for them and literally a matter of life and death that they have accurate information about these complex medical devices in order to make informed choices.

I believe you have a strong commitment to Wikipedia's accuracy but unsourced does not mean inaccurate. And sourced does not mean accurate. The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to inform users, and eliminating content that you believe "may" be inaccurate does a disservice to these users.

It is a sad day for Wikipedia when people see it as their civil duty to remove content that they do not understand because it has no proper references.

How about doing a little research and adding new sources instead of taking a wrecking ball to an informative and accurate article?

Congratulations on following the rules and making the encyclopedia irrelevant to users thus endangering the mobility-challenged by leaving them uninformed about their choices with respect to this important form of medical device technology.

Jjdd11 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss the article on its Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have started a take page under user my login if you want to correspond. Best, Jjdd11 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles are best discussed at the article talk page. Here: Talk:Patient lift. That way anybody watching the article can participate. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers

Hey,

I'm not sure if you still plan on improving the article, but I'd like to take a stab at writing it. Of course I'll apply better sources and stay entirely neutral. I did want to direct you towards WP:SELFPUB if you're not familiar already; that self-published sources are okay to cite as long as you don't use them for any exceptional claims. I agree they were used too heavily; further text I will write will cite independent sources. I have plenty of time and willingness to tackle this; hope you won't mind. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 14:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the tiniest bit. that is actually a really important company in the history of the stock market. i was so surprised by what i learned when i found sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Wasn't edit warring, just needed your attention, which I got so this process is now fair. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You were edit warring. And if you mean what you wrote there, you are telling me that you were being WP:POINTY, which is disuptive behavior that will get you blocked. Don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

no, jytdog, still no

Accurately describing your comment with a touch of humor and suggesting ARB should deal with you is sure not a personal attack but of course you wouldn't know. Anyhow, I asked you just recently not to post on my talk page and hope I don't have to install a "no jytdog" banner for you to remember as you clearly still are not paying enough attention.--TMCk (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Warning you about personal attacks is appropriate on your Talk page; I will of course not show up there with random comments or anything not formal. And I meant what I said. I have almost enough to bring an AE case. Just please cut down on commenting on contributors, especially with snark. You may think it's funny or light-hearted but tone is impossible to control in writing and in a contested article, it is just unwise to go there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Posting that you will file a case against me and then shortly after redacting again b/c there is according to yourself "Not quite enough yet to really nail this" is nothing but soap boxing. Don't do that, "don't be a pixel waster" on my talk (to use your own words). That's the end of your drama from my side.--TMCk (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just giving you fair warning. You will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cousin Marriage

Hello Jytdog. You reverted some stuff in Cousin marriage recently because it was based on primary sources. The original material seemed to me to be in good faith and although it might have needed tidying up, it was genuinely useful to an encyclopedia and didn't appear to me to be contrary to WP:PRIMARY. Or was it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I did this because yes they are primary and also they are not good faith, but an editor promoting their own work - see Special:Contributions/Mfareedk. If you feel that the content adds value and want to "own" it, feel free to restore. I don't use primary sources when I edit unless I absolutely have to. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it - very clear - thanks Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bipolar disorder

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on Motivação's disruptive behavior. At least the slow-moving edit war is highly visible; the rapidly made edits that are usually marked minor, but that show no understanding of the particularities of each subject are more of a concern to me. I'd estimate several hundred edits should not have been made because of problems of accuracy, MoS, or nuance. Many will need to be cleaned up.

If there is some way to get Motivação to read these articles—and communicate on talk pages, then we could have a productive editor. But until... I don't think any amount of discussion will help. I will follow developments. Thanks again. (I feel I know you by way of long term tp stalking at DGG — Neonorange (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aloe vera. 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.Paul venter (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:PA

Jytdog, you're a smart guy, but you're really bad at resolving conflicts. As a matter of fact, you're pretty talented in escalating conflicts, and you're doing it right now.

1. "Your POV is showing" is about the worst in that Kim's message, and I wouldn't qualify it as an attack. Kim is pretty frustrated with (what he sees as) your repeated avoidance of substantive engagement with his arguments, and pretty much WP:IDHT attitude of yours.
2. Even if it is too personal, it is really bad manner from your side to remove a comment that has been replied to meanwhile, and that only you perceive as a PA. Leave that to others per the principles at WP:INVOLVED. WP:RPA is highly controversial practice and should be reserved only for most egregious cases. You have not only removed the "PA" but the substance of the post as well.
3. If you feel that strongly about that comment, talk to Kim about it first. You know that templating the regulars is considered rude and is frowned upon. Doing what you did (remove the comment pointed at you, then template the editor) is really likely to infuriate the editor.
4. On top of that, you now template me (something I have politely ask you not to do earlier) and threat with an AE.

I don't really care about the e-cig topic (and don't mind that AE), but sorry, you are the one who comes across as escalating and getting in the way of work being done: your statement that people are passionate and they allowed their passion to spill into [...] that got in the way of getting any work done comes across to my side as pretty ironic.

I hope you will take my message as a friendly advice, the way I intended it. But no, I don't plan to self-revert, that kind of beats the point. No such user (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I hear your perspective. However you haven't even acknowledged the context of DS here, and why those DS are in place. I struggle with that. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that these discussions tend to become heated, but as far as I follow them, they have been much more civil lately than before the Arbcom. I would attribute that largely to removal of QuackGuru. However, one should not use presence of DS to create a chilling effect: you need to give some leeway to good-faith editors to express their opinions and vent a reasonable amount of frustration, not run to mommy AE for every perceived transgression. I would rather leave that to most egregious cases. Obviously, it is all a question of good measure (and that's where reasonable people might differ, I'm deeply averse to "zero-tolerance" approaches), but I believe that communication between good-faith, experienced editors, can resolve most issues. To repeat: I'm not endorsing Kim's comment, but your further actions just added fuel to the fire. No such user (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing - the exact thing - the DS are meant to chill are personal attacks like "Your POV is showing" and people making arguments not carefully grounded in sources and the policies and guidelines - not to chill discussion about content at all. Not at all! I recognize the likely futility (and possibly tension-escalating effect) of me doing the removing and warning, but it is only fair that someone do it. I really am very close to filing an AE and people need to be aware that the DS are coming into play again; folks are losing their self-discipline. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jytdog, it's really preferable not to remove what you consider (debatably) to be a PA against yourself. Really. Compare WP:RPA. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you bishstalker. Message received. You know I was just talking with someone about going vigilante against community norms and I need to STFU and listen now. So thanks both of you. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Minimum inhibitory concentration

Thanks for cleaning this article up. The students have been driving me crazy. I've removed their copyvio multiple times, and they just re-add it, along with random additions of "instructions" written in the 2nd person and/or 1st person plural and overwriting the existing article. Their copyvio additions to Minimum bactericidal concentration also had to be rev-deleted. I had asked the instructor to work with their students on these problems three days ago, alas to little avail. They kept right at it. Interestingly, in the course of my ministrations, I also found and removed preexisting copyvio. Anyhow, I assume this is now on your watchlist and I can take a rest. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have struggled mightily. Thanks for that! It is on my watchlist now and i will check the other. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for a template:

To replace the one currently at Carol Wayne - its been BLP tagged due to BLP violating info about a third party being added to the article, however the subject herself is long dead - so the template as it stands is incorrect. Is there one that says something along the lines of 'Material regarding living people' rather than 'this biography of a living person'? Or would it be worth creating one? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oy. I would say {{Refimprove}} or even better {{Unreferenced}}; that one ref is just so not enough.. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at Refimprove, it doesnt really take into account the additional burden for BLP sourcing. Merely being a reliable source is not enough to include material about non-notable people. Essentially the BLP includes the contentious bit that makes it clear what is required, its just the first line that refers to 'this biography of a living person' that is the problem. I might look at doing a new half-way one for use specifically where BLP material has been an issue, but the article is not itself a BLP. I was just wondering if there was one like that out there already, guess not. I suppose I could do an edit request on the BLP one and see if that gets consensus first.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

OH I completely misunderstood you. Yes I think a new template would be very useful! OR just tweaking the language of that one. I suggest bringing up that change so that it is more broadly useful at the template talk page. yes! Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death - We have one! It is here: Template:BLP others. There is nothing new under the sun in WP... Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah great! Now I need to go remove the post at the other template before people think me completely incompetant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note: I am of the opinion the name of the male companion in the Carol Wayne article who was accompanying her when she died probably should not be in the article for BLP concerns - firstly because he is not notable and secondly past wording in the article has implied/inferred he was responsible in some way. As it stands now, his identity has no bearing on the information given the (lack) of reliable coverage of her death beyond the basic 'was found dead in shallow water'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ecoboy90

You probably saw that he and his sock were indeff'd. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, went to leave a talk page notice and saw. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

PJ Media typo

OMG! How did I miss that typo.

Yes, I intended to change 2014 (which was also probably a typo) to 2004, which is the correct date. Thanks. Fish Man (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being bold and helping clear up that COIN case! Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

thx, sorry for not helping earlier. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Deflation vs inflation

Might I humbly suggest that you get the difference between deflation and inflation straight before you add claims to articles that certain activities are "deflationary".--greenrd (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

Hello. I am writing you to ask if I can go to other editors, on their Talk Page, editors that have contributed to William L. Uanna and get their advice? Am I all alone in this now? Can I request advice and help from other editors? This is my last question. BrownHairedGirl suggested I read the policies, I will. I am sure somewhere in them is the answer to this question. But, can you tell me this? I would appreciate it? CIC7 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Attribution when copying within WP

Thanks for fixing Pethidine. I knew I needed to provide attribution, but did not know how. I found the instructions within Wikipedia confusing. In desperation, I made the translation obvious, and hoped someone would either complain or fix it.

Next time, I will know what to do.

Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

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

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding your objectivity. The thread is (Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN. Thank you.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.28Enforcer.29_Jytdog_has_lost_objectivity_in_COIN Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing material on other Charter school pages

If you keep on talking about the laundry list of schools on IDEA Public Schools, why don't you do the same for YES Prep Public Schools, who also happens to have a similar list of schools on their page? Eastwood Academy also has a laundry list of universities that students have been accepted to with a reference to a self published article, why don't you delete that portion from their article? De88 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of puddles of bad content, alongside the puddles of good content. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then fix it, since you basically rewrote the whole IDEA article, might as well contribute to other Charter school articles. That would only be fair at this point. De88 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me reiterate myself: You rewrote the article IDEA Public Schools to make it "less promotional". There are other articles with laundry list of schools and universities such as YES Prep and Eastwood Academy. I am asking for you to change those edits since you did the same to the IDEA article. None of this "bad content", "good content" BS. Comprehend? De88 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on IDEA Public Schools are extremely sloppy. For someone criticizing the promotional tone on this article, your edits are not of any help either. Try to improve your edits on this page. De88 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Poor, sloopy edits on IDEA Public Schools page

Your edits on the IDEA page are extremely sloppy and "rushed". Please fix grammar and punctuation. Some info is also vague. De88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat like putting "sloopy" in a title I suspect. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Motivação

Hi, concerning this revert of Motivação replacing mental disorder with psychiatric illness, see also a similar edit, and I recall having seen them do the same thing to other articles: [1], [2]. Also reverted: [3]. To me the difference is not obvious, so I will not revert. I thought you might like to know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes that user keeps making these idiosyncratic edits. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Edit ; Site Deep Sky Browser

This edit[4] should have not been made, and I would request an explanation on why this was done. It is clear that this editor was doing WP:PROMOTION, but reverting this just reinforces this User's own deliberate actions. There is more going on here, and by saying "Hi Sebagr. I work on COI issues along with Lemongirl and Platypusofdoom.", I can only conclude you have ignored the deliberate avoidance of this User to promote his page. User: Sebagr, based on the evidence, has deliberately avoided telling about the association with this site, which is an objectionable offense. (By closing the WP:COIN, allows this sanction to be avoided.) User: Sebagr statement "Ok, I didn't mean to promote it..." is a falsehood, as with many other statements with the section stated within "Wrapping things up" on that User page. Regardless of the "disclosure", which this User has deliberately avoided, means this site cannot be added into any Wikipedia pages. This is made more prevalent, especially if the User's claims of a "consortium" exists. Although I have overwhelming evidence this is COI, I have even more than exposes the purpose of these edits. I have more IMO, this User should be automatically banned from editing pages on astronomical topics altogether. Please justify these actions, or I'll be posting an WP:ANI for avoiding proper protocols in solving this issue. Clearly disappointed.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I do understand that promotional editing is upsetting. I get that.

However...

Per your link Sebagr did finally disclose and they also posted at WT:AST as we requested, to see if AST is open to the link or not; I see that one person has said thumbs up and two have said thumbs down. It will be interesting to see how that develops - we do things by consensus here and if folks at WT:AST are OK with the link being added, then it can be. Also, based on their contribs they have not continued adding the links.

Arianewiki1, Sebagr is doing what we ask editors with a COI to do. Many many people when they first come to Wikipedia use it for promotion like Sebagr did, and don't understand the whole COI thing and need educating. When we try to educate them, some of them don't/won't "get it" and just plow ahead, and they generally get indefinitely banned. As I acknowledged on your Talk page Sebagr was indeed resistant at first, but as I also noted and as I've described above, they came around.

I have been working on COI issues for a pretty long time, and I don't think you or I could get consensus for a TBAN of any kind for someone who comes around that way. And if you bring an ANI against me that too will probably go no where, since what you are asking is not realistic. You are of course free to file it. As I also noted on your talk page, you are taking a really confrontational approach, and that is, in my view, good for no one. I will now add explicitly that it is not good for you. Hounding people who are actually complying with the COI guideline and PROMO policy - now that they are aware of it - can come back to bite you.

If I have missed something (like maybe the links are going back in under an IP address or something) please do tell me.

If you want me to try to explain anything more, I will do.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers

Hi again Jytdog,

I am working on the draft to merge and improve both Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers Group, and I thought you'd be interested in the result. There may yet be things to tweak or add, however I'd like your thoughts and comments if you would. The draft is located here: User:Ɱ/sandbox30. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Empty nose syndrome

Hi, I saw you took an interest in the Empty nose syndrome page. I'd really appreciate your advice on how I can get some editors with proper expertise to look at the page and help me get it into shape and keep it that way. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I will do! I am all intrigued. Got caught up in the salt articles which is going to take me a bit of time... Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated whenever you can. I feel like the little Dutch boy except my finger is up a curiously capacious nostril. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm admiring your work from afar. Please let me know what I can do to support it (including keeping my mouth shut on the talk page if you think that's what's needed). Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do as you will! There are three very recent reviews so revising wasn't difficult. We just have to keep the sourcing level high per WP:MEDRS and hew closely to MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your reverts to remove advertising/brochure tags at Stanford University. The entire article reads like a sales brochure and problems need to be fixed; if you don't wish to fix the tone and work towards a more balanced article, then please leave the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I and MelanieN have each been actually editing the article to WP:FIXIT. All you have been doing is making drama. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CiproKills

I've already reported this name to WP:UAA after some of the earlier edits. Meters (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back at the article again, but I'm signing off (and out of my depth in any case). Meters (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Maria Lewis

Hey Jytdog. I know you do good work with COI editors. Could you take a look at Maria Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Gretz2471 has admitted to a COI, and I suspect other editors of the article may also have a COI. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Response to edit war warning

Ok I will add the subject to the talk page. I forgot I added that to gene drive didnt see the revert . And you left this comment on my Userpage - please don't write on anyone's Userpage - they are for users alone. Thanks. Quantanew (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. btw, left both my comments (the edit war warning in this dif and the moving of your reply here) on your User Talk page. You made a comment on my User page (which is different from a User Talk page) here. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanford University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kappa Alpha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For your scholarly rewrite of the Empty nose syndrome article and sang froid in the face of the backlash on its talk page. Dubbinu | t | c 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Metamizol

Hi Jytdog,

As I'm getting more familiar with Wikipedia, I realize I should have used this talk page. I apologize. I've read the suggested stuff and reviewed my contribution thoroughly.

I guess we both agree that the previous "History" based entirely on the activist book "Bad Medicine ..." was inappropriate pharma-industry bashing. The IAAAS was not "commissioned" by Hoechst. Not every type of support from pharma industry is bad.

There is broad consensus that the two Swedish studies differed from all the other studies, which were much larger. People disagree re the study methodology. Kramer et al. started a "response war" with their criticism of the IAAAS. Several articles (and reviews) note that the second Swedish study included cases co-medicated with known risk drugs and treated longer than the approved use for, e.g., kidney stones and surgery (typically: one day). The review by Nikolova also reviews a study suggesting that Scandinavians may have some special genetic risk factors, but that's not broadly accepted and, thus, I didn't include it.

The regulatory back-and-forth in Sweden is also just a fact and of interest, in part, because it rarely happens that regulatory agencies reverse themselves twice on the same drug.

The question now is where to put this information. My suggestion remains to put the estimates at the end of the first paragraph and describe this regulatory history under "History".

I really don't understand why you call asking for advice "warring".

Kmwittko (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your problem

What is your problem man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.59.12.46 (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Randolph Stone. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do discuss your edits on the Talk page - you jumped in and started making changes while the discussion was still under way. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

tDCS

Dear Jytdog, please find comments to the revisions (in bold) that I suggested to the tDCS article:

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of neurostimulation which uses constant, low current delivered to the brain area of interest via electrodes on the scalp.

This statement is not true, as it is unknown whether and where the brain is stimulated when attaching electrodes to the head and delivering very weak currents. 99% of the current flows over the skull, while 0.9% is shunted through the cerebral fluid and 0.1% of the currents actually enters the brain (but probably not immediately underneath the electrodes). Thus, stating that currents are delivered to the brain area of interest is misleading. Please also read the recent article in Science Magazine on this issue: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/cadaver-study-casts-doubts-how-zapping-brain-may-boost-mood-relieve-pain

It was originally developed to help patients with brain injuries or psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. tDCS appears to be somewhat effective for treatment of depression. However, there is no good evidence that it is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people, memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, pain, nor improving upper limb function after stroke.

This whole paragraph is misleading. First, tDCS was already applied by the ancient Egyptians using electric catfish and found its way into the literature about 200 years ago (http://www.aipass.org/files/TDCS_State%20of%20the%20art.pdf). It was certainly not purposefully "developed" to treat brain injuries. The underlying mechanisms of tDCS are widely unknown (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368894/) as it was impossible to record brain oscillations (brain electric activity) during tDCS. However, recently, a new method was developed that allows for in vivo assessment of brain oscillations during tDCS (published in Nature Communications, one of the highest impact journals in the field). Given the controversy around tDCS effects, stating that the mechanisms are unknown seemed appropriate, and referring to recent neurotechnological advancements that promise to uncover these mechanisms did not occur to me being "spam referencing".

Also, use of terms like "no good evidence" or "somewhat effective" seems vastly imprecise for an encyclopedic article. Either there is evidence or not, so why not better provide the actual information about effectiveness (or its absence) by referring to the effect size as calculated by Horvath et al. It should be noted, though, that Horvath's let to substantial controversy in the field due to methodological issues. I have thus toned down the paragraph by revising into:

While there is limited evidence that tDCS is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people (probably due to ceiling effects), memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease,[4] schizophrenia, pain, or improving upper limb function after stroke, tDCS appears to be effective for treatment of depression.

Best wishes! Elias A. Rosenberg (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We should discuss this at the article talk page - if you would be so kind as to copy your content there, I would be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

D.V. Rao Speedy Deletion

As I noted on the talk page of the aforementioned page, the reason the article was marked with speedy deletion is the result of consensus at the AfD discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. You cant speedy an article already at AFD. Mainly because if an AFD was closed with the result 'Marked for speedy delete' the speedy could then be removed and article sent back to AFD. An AFD can be closed with 'delete', 'merge', 'keep' etc. If people think it should be deleted, the AFD will just be closed with delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Glycopyrronium bromide

You accuse me of trying to start an edit war, but that's exactly what you are doing. You have reverted my edit 3 times. Moreover, each of my edits included additional citations. The final edit provided two peer-reviewed citations. It's ego trip "I own this article" crap like this that pushes people away from contributing to Wikipedia. Arx Fortis (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had opened a section already on the talk page, here: Talk:Glycopyrronium_bromide#Ménière's_disease; please reply there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

TechnologyOne Edit

Hi Jytdog, you recently messaged our corporate user Technonebrisbane explaining that we were in violation of Wikipedia's COF guidelines. To try and amend the situation we've created a new user to address the issue (still a corporate representative but with a generic name) and have added a section to the Talk page for review. Can you please take a look and provide advise on whether we are on the right track. We are trying to be non-promotional and include only the facts and would appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

How awesome is that!! I will check in. Thanks very much for working with us. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi, Jytdog. Can you please redact the following comment from Josh's AN/I report?

User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 3:23 pm, 15 June 2016, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

That comment was made a full hour after I had already replied and is indeed nested inside of my reply section. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I redacted the weigh in part. You didn't acknowledge that you made a big mess of things. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog. OK. Thank you for that. Which part of the mess was big? In my reply I acknowledge and apologize for the messes I made. Those messes were quickly fixed by Sainsf, Josh and me. My original edit made no messes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to continue the ANI here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, Jytdog. OK. Sorry. I am not trying to continue the ANI here. I was going to post a PS to you here that I just went back to make a reply and Josh's AN/I report was partially closed so I have asked the closing admin if I can make a closing statement along the line of Josh's. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edits on the Iglesia Ni Cristo Page?

This is the first time I've posted to Wikipedia and I'm still learning of the proper protocols.

First of all, the information that is currently there about its membership size is incorrect. The data I provided came from the official Philippine government's decadal census of 1990, 2000, and 2010 per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22 and The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf). [Retrieved Nov 2, 2015]

Yes, my book is a criticism of the INC religion, but the data I provided is valid and the membership size is based on historical trends of where they were in 2010 by pushing it forward with the natural growth rate of the nation of 1.9%/year per http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics to the end of 2015. I cited my book because it contained the data and tables. 2.76 million is the most accurate number. Not three million, and especially not ten million (which I already heard in 1989, before the 1990 census showed the real number was just 1.4 million). You will note that did NOT criticize their theology or practices.

You kept Karl Keating's Catholic Answers figures despite that data is pulled out of the sky. If one of my staff posted my information and not myself, would it have been acceptable?

Furthermore, the ethnic composition, while anecdotal from my personal observation when I attended several INC worship services, can easily be verified by just going to one of their churches during services and looking around. AFAIK, there are no formal studies done on their ethnic compositions.

Lastly, what I said about fear by outsiders is absolutely true - just ask non-INC Filipinos, especially Philippine-based publishers. Just google "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "violence" - I've personally experienced attempted intimidation and others I've spoken to told me stories of how it was with the forced conversions during the Marcos era.

Please restore my edits. Thank you. EdwardKWatson (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson