Jump to content

User talk:Jytdog

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humberto Valle (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 1 August 2017 (→‎Magnetic Therapy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For fixing up Altor BioScience after I moved it from AfC. Thanks a lot! Cerebellum (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" Edit on Abraham

This is well known Biblical cannon. Abraham gave birth to Isaac, which gave birth to Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Jacob/Israel gave birth to 12 sons and one daughter, the fourth son's name was Judah. Taking a look at The Online Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm): "[...] technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time [...]" 68.225.237.140 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

happy to discuss at the article talk page, if you want to post there. but this you tried to say a lot in a little space, and entwined the indeed well-known family tree with notions of covenant in ways that were probably... too condensed, and not supported by the source at the end of that bit of content. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I do realize the wording was not ideal, however I think this is an important point to make. Reason being, this is a very common misconception about Abraham, the Abrahamic Covenant, and the relation of the Jews to God. The common misconception is that somehow Abraham was Jewish and I was attempting to make clear that this is not the case, the current wording implies that the the Abrahamic covenant was for the Jews, which it was not, it was for Abraham's descendants, of which some are the Judeans. I'd be happy to move this to the talk page for the article: How about this, if you could draft up a re-write of that particular section that makes the clarification I'm seeking to establish in a way that you find acceptable, at that point I'll either accept your revision and we'll have it pushed to the page or I'll submit my changes to your re-write. Thanks! 68.225.237.140 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for sources, rather than reverting content

Hi. When you notice new content that is not properly sourced, you can ask the author to source it, rather than simply reverting it. When you ask for sources, you allow other people to contribute and improve the content. Simsong (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please never add unsourced content to Wikipedia, especially when it involves living people, as you did here. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce

Since you have improved that section, I just wanted to let you know that it also was added to Answers in Genesis, in case you'd want to also edit it... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page and sourcing

Hi, Jytdog! I have noticed the talk page from solvation shell and the sourcing discussion there. Is there any problem if I insert some citation for that content from NON-ENG sources? (Romanian and/or Russian souces). Thanks.--82.79.115.107 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elyonim veTachtonim

Hello! And thanks for reacting to the changes I made. I know about the rule of not linking to blogs, forums and the like. Yet, though hosted on a blogspot platform, EvT is an academic project and contains some valuable research and tools for those interested in the subject of Jewish angelology and demonology. I am not sure whether the author of EvT is a "recognized authority", but he is far from being anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetgar (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Holk Nielsen

Hi Jytdog, Mihai - social media at Novozymes here. I know you have been a strong contributor to the Novozymes wikipedia page in the past and I wanted to know if you would be interested in contributing to the CEO page for Peder Holk Nielsen. We have a strong list of external references that could help in building it. Mihainovo (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, here are some 3rd party articles that describe him and that I think might form a strong base for creating that page. What are your thoughts on this? He is a member of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) G20 CEO Advisory Group [1],a member of the Danish government’s Digitization Council [2] , an advisor to the Foreign Economic Forum under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Denmark) [3] He was named among 30 Global Game Changers by Forbes (April 2016). [4] and among 100 top business visionaries by Business Insider (June 2016). [5] He was also a finalist in The Fortune Award for Circular Economy Leadership at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos Summit 2015 [6]

Mihainovo (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. He seems competent and accomplished. I don't see that he has done anything really interesting that people can learn from. Wikipedia was and is intended to be learning tool. It is not a directory like "who's who". It is not social media. Please do review WP:NOT, which defines what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. I do appreciate that you have asked for volunteer help instead of directly editing, and that you have disclosed your relationship with the company. I appreciate that very much. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anneliese Dodds

Hi Jytog, i see you removed the updated information i added on Anneliese Dodds for being un-sourced. If you clicked on the link(s) that were added you will see they lead you to the election pages where the results from those elections are displayed. Her name for instance in the 2010 election is quite clear on the Reading East (UK Parliament constituency) page. Are you suggesting that i use the linked page as a reference? cheers Dexcel (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRCULAR. You need to provide a reliable source per the WP:RS guideline, especially for content about living people, per the WP:BLP policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gard's article deletion

Hi Jytdog,

I would like to know why you consider CRYSTALBALL hype the section about nucleoside therapy referencing papers published in high-impact, peer-reviewed international journals such as EMBO Medicine, and led by scientists at Columbia University and other top scientific institutions.

Since this is a subject of high interest in relation to this case and the scientific aspects of it, it deserves an encyclopedia article with reliable information. All the scientific references I added come from PubMed, with just one reference to a Washington Post article about Arturito Estopinan, which is the first known human patient.

Which are your credentials to censor peer-reviewed scientific informations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss content on the relevant talk page; if you post about the content there, I will answer there.
Your question about "credentials" is not appropriate in Wikipedia (please read WP:EXPERT). Competence however is required - that means understanding the subject matter, how literature is structured, how Wikipedia works, and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia - see WP:CIR. Your use of the term "censored" is also not appropriate - see WP:NOTCENSORED for that means here.
Please remember to sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Version pro ante

@Jytdog:

That was the version pro ante, and the article should stay that way until consensus. Please don't mistake it for edit warring.Saronsacl (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have edit warred again, against a version clearly supported by 3 other people, and I expect you to get a longer block this time. You need to learn how to discuss instead of forcing things. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTALBALL!

Hi Jytdog! Long time!

Wow... I read that you're not paid for your work?!! Unbelievable. I'm really indebted to you for your expertise and TIME.... You were the one who helped me get a grip here more than anyone else.

I got what you were saying on the CBD page about not posting "promising" medical info. What really caught my eye in the 2017 Campos review was, "...clear indications that CBD induces plastic changes similar to clinical antidepressant or atypical antipsychotic drugs, either acutely or repeatedly administered."[7] I've always wondered: what do pharma meds actually do in the brain? Answer (I think): support brain plasticity.

When my son was on 650mg. CBD a day, he said, "My memory is coming back." THAT was a bullseye for me, and this review clarified that action for me. Was the whole Campos et al. review too CRYSTALBALL, or was it my writing, "While the mechanisms are still not well understood..."?

Thank you again - and thank you for your approach, dedication and tireless expertise donated to this site. Amazing.

User:Listenforgood

References

  1. ^ ICC [1] Page accessed 12 April 2017
  2. ^ Danish government [2] Page accessed 12 April 2017
  3. ^ Danish government [3] Page accessed 12 April 2017
  4. ^ Forbes (April 2016). "Global Game Changers". Forbes. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
  5. ^ Emmi Martin, Tanza Loudenback and Alexa Pipia (13 June 2016). "Meet the top 100 business visionaries creating value for the world". Business Insider. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
  6. ^ The Circulars [4] Page accessed 12 April 2017
  7. ^ "Plastic and Neuroprotective Mechanisms Involved in the Therapeutic Effects of Cannabidiol in Psychiatric Disorders". PMID 28588483.

Your work on Talk:Acupuncture

Thanks for creatively searching for those sources within such a short space of time. I'll help to use parts of them to improve the article. I also read your opinions on your user page at NPOV part 1: secondary sources, and agree with your understanding and definition of what Wikipedia is. Thanks again. Edaham (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking so nicely!! happy. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delafloxacin

Hi Jytdog. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!! I neglected to do that, I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Don Quixote

As Sancho Panza I'd say this would never succeed at AfD. Wiki realpolitik means we're stuck with this shitty article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing. We will see. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at these 2 articles

Ashvini Dwivedi: Dr AK Dwivedi has got his name entered in Golden Book of World Records for preventing 46 year old women from surgery and helping her pass out a 11X66 mm stone in urine through homeopathy medicines.

I assume this literally means he made her drink water.

Narayan Dutt Shrimali: Dr Narayan Dutt shhrimali g has practically proved that the Siddhis (super natural powers) described in old Hindu Scriptures (Vedas) are all true and can be obtained by following the path as guided by a Sadguru (One who also have achieved the same powers already and willing to accept you after testing you to teach the same) ...

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the 2nd for speedy and it is gone; 1st has been prodded so ... Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please doublecheck your latest edit

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Jytdog you have history of edit warring. What is your problem with people adding information. Down's syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadarson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lovely. this too. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental revert

That was a complete mistake. I don't remember clicking on rollback. I am on mobile, so this kind of thing occurs quite often. I am so sorry. It was accidental. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

understood, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Search

Jytdog, in past conversations you expressed an interest in seeing a more advanced interface for search. Are you aware of the work Wikimedia Deutschland is doing in this regard? There's more information in this task and an example of the interface. If you are still interested, I encourage you to provide feedback to the folks working on this. Kind regards, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh YAY!!!! I need to go try to find the Village pump discussion now to add a link there to.. ack. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well that didn't take tooo long.. section. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Dear Jytdog, In reference to your comment >>Please suggest changes on the talk page. thanks)<< I sent my request via the talk page but could still not really meet your approval >>Please stop copy/pasting these huge swaths of content here. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)<<

I'd like to know what you suggest I do. Furthermore, it does not seem as if my requested changes were implemented - it would be helpful if you explained why (I'm in particular referring to the amended Research section).

Thanks --Princessella123 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you post just the changes you want to see. No volunteer is going to take the time to compare big swaths of content to see what is new and what is not. Please also bear in mind that the WP article is an encyclopedia article. It is not - and is nothing like - a faculty profile page. Please do not try to treat the page like it is a webhost that you should constantly update. See WP:PROMO and the related WP:NOTWEBHOST. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical reverts of my clarifications to the article Charlie Gard treatment controversy

I do not understand why you decided to revert my edits for no apparent reason. use of the term "deoxyribonucleotides" instead of just "nucleoside(s)" is recommended as this disease is caused by impairments in DNA synthesis, and the word nucleoside is a catch-all term for the monomers that make up RNA and DNA respectively. Also the neurological symptoms in this disease are not related to the seizures at all - the neuronal death is simply caused by impaired production of ATP by the mitochondrion.

Please consider refraining from knee jerk reverts.

69.125.160.200 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC) (A.K.A MFernflower)[reply]

Please explain your edits as you make them, and please make sure that the changes are fully supported by the sources provided, or that you provide new reliable sources (per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS as is relevant). Please also be aware that others have edited the article before you and some of the language has been negotiated. I don't much care for the longer word myself, but others strongly preferred it. Wikipedia articles are the results of negotiations. That is one reason why it is important to explain what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lisanby

Nice job on that article. I know we've had our differences, but kudos to you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for revisiting it; happy you are pleased with it. you spurred it!  :) Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

The following diffs - [5] and [6] are a 1RR violation on a page with ARBPIA discretionary sanctions ([7]) - I urge you to self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is one set of diffs. If somebody wants to revert that, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two sets. You remove material [8], WarKosign reverted you, and then you remove again [9] - which is a 1RR violation - I'm providing a friendly headsup in case you didn't notice or were edit-conflicted, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, one continuous set of diffs. this is the change i was making - the diff you call out is inside that. You can file at AE but it will go no where - that is really the worst kind of wikilawyering. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you know what, to super-honor the 1RR I will self-revert. No need for dramah. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever brought a case to AE - and I wouldn't have started on this one. This was really a heads-up.Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism

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.

Your recent edits on the following pages: phys.org, Science_Daily are 1RR violation. Moreover you've included a false statement about EurekAlert, which is a paid PR distribution service and not a churnalism website. While you may be a supporter of journalism, this does not justify the deletion of other information on these pages (ownership, visitors stats etc) . The information was properly referenced and neutral. Your churnalism statement may remain in the Controversies section. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement make these articles biased and non-neutral. Please self-revert.

remove churnalism statement from American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.140.34 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, everything there is well sourced. Please do not restore the promotional, self-sourced content. Happy to pursue dispute resolution with you, but the version you are trying to keep is a hopeless mess. If you continue to edit war we'll need to see about having you blocked or having the page protected. Please stop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not threaten me with a block instead follow the normal protocol: improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. [1]. Your sources include links to personal blogs expressing personal opinions of the authors. Blogs, social media etc are not usually acceptable as refernces [2] unlike the text you've deleted that included links to verifiable data.

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution".
  2. ^ "Help:Referencing_for_beginners".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.140.34 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to discuss specific changes at the relevant talk pages. That is the place for you to propose them. Thanks. Please do sign your posts. (type four tildas at the end of the post). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description wasn't perfect but at least contained fact based information. Now it is pure opinion-based. I suggest reverting to the version I've edited for Science Daily and Phys.org. The current version contains false statement, opinion-based and incomplete. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP[reply]
The place to discuss content is at the relevant article's Talk page. Thanks for signing your post! Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any discussion from your side on the relevant talk pages before deleting all the content. Who gave you the authority to remove others work? please revert and start the discussion. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP[reply]
If you want to propose adding something back or removing something, please do so at the article talk page. As I said earlier, do not restore the badly sourced/unsourced promotional content that was there before. Also if you have any connection with any of those websites, please disclose it per the WP:PAID policy and WP:COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edit is poorly sourced and opinion based. You've removed all the content on these pages without engaging in any talks. You've added a false statement to 3 wiki articles. I'll start a dispute, and I personally believe your editing privileges should be suspended. 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP
You are not going to get anywhere, as you haven't tried to work anything out yet. Again, please propose content at the relevant talk pages. If we fail to reach agreement there, then DR would be appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions were in my versions of Phys.org and Science Daily. I also suggest to remove references to churmalism from Eurekalert. While I've tried to edit the content - you simply reverted back to your own version without any discussions. BTW. I've also kept your edit, while you simply deleted all my work. That is a pure violation to me. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP[reply]
The place to discuss content is at article talk pages. Am closing this since you are ignoring how we operate here. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Spam campaign

Could you nuke Special:Contributions/72.201.34.177? It seems to me like a spam campaign. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted all and nominated for blacklist. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typos and such

Hey,

I saw your revert here - I' not here to maintain the article, I simply saw that you were asking for references and figured I'd quickly pitch in. If it's not to your liking fine by me, but at least please be mindful that you (re-)inserted a couple of typos... Cheers, Pplc (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:PAID and please stop editing articles about your clients directly. That article still reads like an advertising brochure or company website in too many places. You are not nearly mindful enough that this community ~tolerates~ paid editors... barely. You need to step way more lightly if you want to keep your editing privileges here. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced message by Soaringbear

PANS page requests pharmacology expert and as PhD in that subject I added something. What is your expertise for reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss content, I would be happy to discuss on the relevant talk page, where I posted two days ago: Talk:Pan-assay_interference_compounds#Note. Your question about my expertise and your claims about your own are not appropriate, as you will learn when you have been around longer. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a page advises need for pharmacology expertise then my question about your expertise is VERY appropriate, and you show how wierd you are to revert me and refuse to show expertise.
For you to be snooping through my past is wrong in so many ways and for you to not realize it shows how corrupt you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Please do read WP:EXPERT with regard to the whole expertise thing. As for the rest, I replied to that at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Don’t shrink me. I gave you NO authority to examine my editing record to psychoanalyze me. You abused your position.

It is obvious now that you were perfectly capable of editing my edit WITHOUT reverting, and the fact that you reverted repeatedly proves that YOU instigated this edit war, not I. YOU are the abuser, and I am disgusted with your abusive manipulative behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Optical coherence tomography

Hello, you removed my writing on Optical coherence tomography about full-field OCT with "need secondary sources that say this)" I don't get your point as I put lot of references. How can I correct this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BP-Aegirsson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. We find "accepted knowledge" in what we call "secondary sources", which are references like review papers or book chapters, that themselves summarize knowledge in the field. Tertiary sources like textbooks are OK too. Please avoid assembling your own review of research papers (what we call "primary sources") in Wikipedia -- that is what you did. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok I added secondary sources, Hope it's goo now BP-Aegirsson (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding churnalism edits. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --83.54.140.34 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Character counter

For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with you on this. If discussion arises elsewhere, feel free to ping me. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I keep writing long posts full of cursing and then deleting them. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that feeling. bd2412 T 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for trying.
A future alternative may be a more generic VPP RFC about software features needing systematic (advanced tab if need be) preferences toggle option...
I recently also thought about proposing an option to disable all JS, because since recently, if it's blocked on my side, the notifications don't work anymore. This was claimed to be "as expected" when I reported this particular issue; it seems that depending on the User-Agent header details it currently enforces JS-requirement or disables it. Despite the fact that JS-less notifications used to work fine before.
On another front, apparently the current edit counters are also being deprecated for new ones. I today tried one of the future alternatives and it only partly worked, but since it's beta, who knows if that'll ever work properly eventually; WikiEd and the Visual Editor options never worked for me even with JS enabled, possibly again because it expects certain strings in User-Agent; all other sections only show dynamic-loading gif animations.
I could file official reports and track them, but having dealt with tickets, coding and release engineering for a living in the last twenty+ years, I'm sick of it for now... Oh well. This reminds me that I dropped my Google account years ago because of similar BS. —PaleoNeonate - 20:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your note. yeah this is all hard. i don't know how to improve this situation; everybody is unhappy. i am glad there are as few fuckups as there are. one has to be grateful for that anyway. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ewing

Hi Jydog. Since you have quite a bit of experience dealing with COI related stuff, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Anne Ewing. I stumbled across File:Headshot of Anne Ewing.jpg via another editor's user talk page, and the file's uploader claims that she is Ewing's daughter. The uploader has been contributing to the Ewing article for quite some time, but the mother-daughter connection may not have been clearly stated before. Anyway, I've added a {{uw-coi}} to the editor's user talk (mainly for informational purposes) and a {{COI edit notice}} to the article's talk page (again for informational purposes), but haven't yet gone as far as {{COI}} or {{Connected contributor}}. I skimmed the article and some of it seems a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL and some of the text is a bit puffy, but she does seem to be notable enough for an article. Do you think, based upon your experience, the article has a serious COI issue which needs to be more concretely addressed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a compliment

here

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen...

Yep! I am thinking of trying to do this in that WikiProject instead of starting a new one. I was hesitant to try to graft one thing onto another, but several people have expressed support for that at VPP so am considering. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Lecithin editing

Good day, Jytdog! Unfortunately, your editing is not correct. You equate glycerin and fatty acids. But these are different substances: glycerol is alcohol and phosphoric acid, choline and 2 fatty acids are attached to it. This is one of the molecules of phospholipids that occur in a mixture of lecithin. Glycolipids and triglycerides are other complex molecules existing in the mixture. Best regards Liliya Yu (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yay! Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

) Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild or WikiProject of paid editors

I don't want you think I belittle your idea. Quite to the contrary. It's the initiative that counts. Just keep the ideas coming - we need them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now this absolutely hits the nail on the head. I like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think that is worth proposing at NCORP? Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Wikipedia guidelines

Hi Jytdog, do you know if there is any Wikipedia guideline that encourages consistency in article format, particularly in introductions? I have made several edits to make the format of articles more consistent with one another, and it seems intuitively better that way, but I have never encountered a policy that encourages or discourages that. Do you know if that exists? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking, exactly. WP:MOS covers style generally, and WP:LEAD covers what you are calling the "introduction" (which should only summarize the body of the article). The sectioning of the body is different for different topics. The various WikiProjects all have subject-specific style guides:
If you look on the relevant article Talk page, there should be WikiProject banners and you can go from them to the project and hunt around for their style guideline.
But broadly speaking, the general rule is that you follow the style established on the page.
But If the article was set up incorrectly based on the WikiProject guideline, changing it is often pretty easy to get consensus for.
Does that answer it? Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is sufficient. Thank you. Michipedian (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting change in "Veganism" article

Hi Jytdog, This is about the addition of Valluvar as the earliest of vegans. Although researcher are uncertain about his exact year, they consider him to have lived between 4th and 1st centuries BCE (the latest of the proposed dates being c. 31 BCE). I just happened to learn from his famous work, the Tirukkural (see <http://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/pdf/pm0153.pdf> for an English translation), that there is a separate chapter on vegetarianism/veganism (there wasn't any difference between the two in ancient India for Indian saints and sages were known for their strict vegetarian diet habits). See the chapter on "The Renunciation of Flesh" in page 31 of the PDF (couplets 251 to 260). Should we not consider this since Valluvar lived more than a millennium before Al-Maʿarri? Thanks for reviewing. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking! But please post at the article talk page; as that is where discussions about content should go, for several reasons. I will reply there, right afterwards. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd revert

Can you explain this and this? The source clearly says 42. There was an error made by myself two months ago. Another editor corrected it but only halfway. I try to correct once and twice and you revert. What exactly are you doing? The edit summary here is especially odd. Please look at the source "Retrieved 13 June 2017." Does this look like 2016? The article is from 5 June 2017, how can it even be accessed in 2016? --Muhandes (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't even an error by myself two months ago, it was the 2016 rating. Look at this edit. 48 was the 2016 rating. The rating was updated by the template, this is simply updating the article to agree with the template. --Muhandes (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way the infobox is built is invalid. The source says what it says and has the access date it has. The content says it says. These are not in sync. You also didn't change the thing you could have (the year). These ranking sections are a pain in the butt and WP would be way better off without them. The implementation at the Template:Infobox_India_university_ranking is especially problematic, since the refs are in the infobox template, not at the article, so the citation and the content totally fall apart. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see, I forgot to change the 2016 to 2017. But this template is the consensus at WP:INEI since 2011. If you don't like it, start discussion there. It's used in hundreds of articles. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the infobox and added the refs, so now the content (rank AND date given in the text) can be updated, AND the date parameters in the refs can be updated, so the content can actually be supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These rankings are crap content. We should not have them at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may agree. But there is something called consensus and it doesn't agree with you (or with me). I try to change it in WP:INEI for some time, removing some of the worst ranking, one by one. That template you removed is also part of the consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get a response at the template talk page, I will nominate the template for deletion, and I am confident that the en-WP community will delete it. We cannot have a template that forces policy violations. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned there, named references on templates aren't uncommon, and they all may cause the same problem if used incorrectly. What we need is not to remove the template, but find a way in which it can be used without invalidating sources. --Muhandes (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructive surgery page

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for sending me tips on how to edit medical articles. I also wanted to clarify the reasoning for deleting my edits, as well as which specific tips were directed to my edits.

I understand that using medical journals as sources is appropriate, however it is rather challenging to find historical information in these types of sources. And so I used http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/surgery/reconstructive to find historical information about reconstructive surgery. In your opinion, is there a more credible source that can be used?

A big chunk of my edits were just rearranging the article and adding sections since the original page was poorly organized and seemed like a bunch of word vomit with somewhat unrelated content.

Thanks! Jasska1019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasska1019 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found that bit of introduction to Wikipedia helpful! So that site is pretty... crappy. Not awful, but not great. That site, cites sources. Some of those look good.
We strive to aim high and provide really solidly grounded information to the public, so we ourselves need to reach high for the sources we use. I understand you are a student at CoD, which has a decent library, and reference librarians. I suggest you go talk to the reference librarians there and ask them to help you find good, scholarly works on the history of reconstructive surgery - they can also help you get access to anything the library doesn't have via interlibrary loan. They will be so happy! Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in 2.

Hi Jytdog, thanks for replying and continuing the discussion regarding independent sourcing on the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) page. Definitely far better to be discussing than edit warring. But to be honest I still don't fully understand why some sources are seen as independent and others not, or why references to the IACA website are not OK when Wikipedia pages about the UN and other international organizations contain many. I've filed a DR/N request in the hope of better understanding, with the help of you and other Wikipedians, what constitutes independent sourcing. I'm certainly not seeking further conflict - quite the opposite. I think we both share the goal of building a useful page about IACA. Best wishes,Richard.eames (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in on Wikipedia. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue the civil discussion and improve the page. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion?

If you're going to accuse me of WP:PROMO, then please supply the evidence, otherwise I'd like an apology for that slur. You're now edit-warring against two editors without engaging on the article talk page. Please don't push this further. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not what i am saying. we are discussing this at WT:MED, as noted in my edit note. Please do continue discussing. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I realise that I probably had not properly presented what I find so appealing about the initiative, so I've now tried to explain what I was hoping we could do. I don't know how we can find a consensus, but I do hope we can look for a way forward in the same amicable way that we have in the past. Sorry for my irritability. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to upset you. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Wanna Get This, or Should I?

Over at Samuel I count five revert diffs today at David. Are you going to report this one as before, or should I get it? I want to make sure we don't duplicate efforts by both writing something up. Alephb (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looks like I was forgetting a rule about how series of edits work. Alephb (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough — participate in the conversation

Talk:David - you're messing w/ conventions that are widely accepted across the board. I don't mean the idea the biblical narrative is fact, I mean the idea these dates are reliable. Time and time again on other pages people have lost arguments about dating because of the sources used to cite them. These sources you removed w/o consensus, and if they work everywhere else, there's no reason they wouldn't work here. You don't get to break convention just because you find the evidence "murky". People think the world is flat, but that doesn't stop it from being round. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following mainstream ANE history. That is a problem indeed. And you already have responded to the thread I opened on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Charlie Gard's bad gene?

Hi there Jytdog!

Thank you for your edits on the Charlie Gard article, but I must strongly disagree with you about one thing: I really think the article needs to mention that the RRM2B gene is located in the nucleus of the cell, not in mitos. I have encountered several non-bio-trained readers and in-person people who think that the bad mutation is part of the mito DNA, and are therefore confused about the recessive nature of the disease. Someone actually tried to tell me that the disease must be inherited only from the mother, because the mitochondrial DNA comes from her! Dead wrong. So I am adding back the sentence pointing out that the gene is located in the nucleus, in (parentheses), with a reference. I am also adding a new section to the TALK page of the article, in case you want to discuss the question further and/or seek consensus from other editors.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reply on the article talk page? I have left 2 notes for you there already where you had already agreed to leave it out. You are free to change your mind of course, but please talk at the article talk page -- in the existing section -- instead of trying to force this back in. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I have replied there. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I missed your 1st note there. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I am eagerly waiting to see what you think of my reason for wanting to include the info that the gene is located in the nucleus--failing to include that info makes some readers jump to erroneous conclusions about the disease. But I'll look for your response on the TALK page of the article itself. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeogenetics of the Near East and DNA history of EddieDrood sock, editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references Egypt

These pages have been edited 81.100.25.101 by[]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.100.25.101#Edit_war_warning an EddieDrood sock, an editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. See also this talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits were strange; sophisticated yet wrong and take time to sort. good to know they have been banned Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voriconazole

Hi Jytdog,

I have edited Voriconazole page, which has certain peacock terms. Can you please look into the details? You seem to be an expert and can help in a better and unbiased Voriconazole page. I am waiting for your contributions on the page. Sundartripathi (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally fine, but see my changes here; please do review WP:MEDMOS. Thanks for checking in! Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, Medical uses section is too much detailed and doesn't match with the Journal references. I am not experience on how to edit or what appropriate terms to use. Can you take a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, just saw your edit on the Medical uses, it seemed perfect and un-biased to me now. Thank you responding immediately. If I see issues on the other pages, can I report it to you (when I am not 100% sure)?Sundartripathi (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sure. fixing that article has been on my to-do list for a while. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Warburg Effect

Hi, Jytdog I am surprised that you consider the theory ‘fringey’. I am forwarding the messages I sent to Roger Haworth and also to Narutolovehinata5 with links to articles which show the reaction of scientists and scientific journalists. “The theory has generated attention in the scientific community; reports of this work have appeared in scientific publications and the news media. Pertinent news media references are: - Harvard Gazette, 25th Feb. 2015: “A new understanding of Alzheimer’s”, by Peter Reuell (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/a-new-understanding-of-alzheimers/) - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 2nd Aug. 2015 : “Alzheimer: Heilung – wie nah ist man wirklich dran?“, by Joachim Müller-Jung (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/streitgespraech-alzheimer-heilung-wie-nah-ist-man-wirklich-dran-13722068.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2) - Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ), 21st Feb. 2015: „Alzheimer – Sind die Forscher auf dem Irrweg?“, by Theres Lüthi (https://www.nzz.ch/nzzas/nzz-am-sonntag/gegen-alzheimer-gibt-es-noch-immer-kein-medikament--weil-die-forscher-auf-dem-irrweg-sind-1.18483526)"

“P.S. Regarding the fringe nature of the theory, here is an article in English, by Prof. Walter Bortz of Stanford Medical school, which you may find relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-m-bortz-ii-md/dare-to-be-100-gold-medal_b_7270616.html “

Moreover, a careful and professional evaluation of the Wikipedia entry should make it clear that the article is encyclopaedic in intent; it is not exclusively concerned with the Inverse Warburg Hypothesis, but is intimately linked with Warburg’s theory of cancer and recent work on autoimmune diseases.

Best wishes Hasperasperagus Hasperasperagus (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow there is a full court press to publicize this, huffpo and everything. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posaconazole

Hi User:Jytdog,

Started editing another page, Posaconazole. I have toned down the intro paragraph and also Medical uses & Pharmacology requires an expert editing. Can you give a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later. You can do this! Just follow MEDRS and MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding page move

Hi, Jytdog. A while ago, I moved Cannabis edibles to Cannabis edible, but I think I did this incorrectly because the talk page did not move with it. Could you please help me by explaining to me the proper method of moving such a page in a method that would also move the talk page or point me to a policy that explains it? Also, if appropriate, could you move the talk page?

I also hope it is OK for me to ask you questions like this. If it is not, could you direct me to an editor to whom it would be appropriate for me to ask these types of questions? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is OK. Oy you did what we call a "copy/paste move" which is a bad thing for a bunch of reasons but mostly because it leaves the history of the former page location behind. There is a function called "page move"' that does the rename, and brings over the Talk page, and all the history of both pages. There is a thing that admins can do where they merge the histories. I will request that. I have done a copy/paste move of the Talk page so they will have parallel situations on each page.
This whole shebang is explained - including how to actually do the "page move" - at WP:Page move. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin v. Parke-Davis

I don't understand your deletions in the Franklin v Parke Davis article. You removed relevant, pertinent additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieEdel (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your note! I replied at the article talk page, Talk:Franklin_v._Parke-Davis#Celgene_content - please see there, and you can reply there. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Therapy

Hello! Yes, I came across a post on some Japanese acupuncturist and wanted to update the section here on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I referenced it right or if the source was the best one. If you can fix it, please do so, and or show me a better way to reference it. Thank you!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&oldid=793395693"