User talk:Jytdog

Medical Research and Nature

While I appreciate your noting on my talk page how important publication sources are, I will remind you that Nature is a __fully__ qualified publication for clinical and biological research papers of only the highest of standards so there is no point to remove anything that they have publish with regard to medicine.

Removing posts based on publication in Nature and only be construed as vandalism.

Thank You for sharing.

Impella

What is the problem here? Why was it removed? I will try to fix it and re-post it again. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.146.137 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2017‎

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 October 2017(UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

dreamzgroup.info spam lie

Hey

I have nothing in common with this spam dreamzgroup.info. Please delete this lie from my page. I only added summary of Investments, written especially for wiki.

Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well "lie" is strong. I did put the wrong spammed url. i corrected that on your talk page. I apologize for that mistake. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks. Sorry for probably being too rude - but you just compared my 10 years of work to some spammy webpage which only wants users cash... And instead of just sending message that I should add it in curlie, you call it spam, probably without reading&understanding. For me there is a big difference.

Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the addition of Starkey Hearing Technologies

Hello - this company was under Main Manufacturers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_aid

as Starkey Hearing Technologies  is one of the main manufacturers in the industry, the ONLY USA one and all other companies are listed. Not sure how that is blatant spamming?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.100.118.140 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 

Please see your talk page at User talk:167.100.118.140. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Chris! The same to you and yours. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What to do next?

Hello! Have you closed the wake of the problem (H vs MSM), where and when can we find out the final community solution for using the term? Can you make recommendations? Thank you! Путеец (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no support for what you want to do. The right thing to do at this point is drop it and let MSM stand. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not yet experienced in the work. Is this the ultimate decision? Can it be canceled somewhere? I proved by screens that this term is used in modern sources, without quoting. And in my opinion, what we have now done is distorting quotes. Thank you for your advice. Путеец (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the link at "drop it" above. You are not getting any support. There are other dispute resolution methods described at WP:DR but I can assure that you that pursuing any of them will be a waste of your time, and more importantly, other people's time. If you cannot yield to consensus, you will not last long in Wikipedia - you will leave frustrated or get thrown out of here. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Those involved in the discussion were deceived by Alexei. He argued that modern sources do not use the term "homosexual". I added proof of the opposite, but you did not give a voice to the rest of the dialogue, after I added the proof. In addition, I was supported by two participants, if I understand correctly. English at me is bad. Perhaps you will give a voice to the participants of the dialogue, after acquaintance with my evidence and will a consensus be reached? Путеец (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read everything that has been written, as it was written. I am not deceived by anybody. Neither is anyone else who is saying "no" to you. Editing Wikipedia is not some rote exercise where we mechanically reproduce what sources say. The purpose of the contemporary term, MSM, is to describe behavior and to avoid trying to figure out how people identify themselves. Men who have anal sex with other men are at risk of developing anti-sperm antibodies - whether they identify as homosexual is irrelevant. As I said, if you want to pursue this further use one of the methods described in WP:DR. But I recommend you drop it. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for learning! I will continue WP:DR, as it is fundamentally. This distorts the quotes of the source, destroys the ability to search for important information, and I regret your decision to interrupt the dialogue after providing evidence. Perhaps you will change the decision, and save my time, and the time of others, allowing the continuation of the dialogue? Путеец (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Take the time to indent your posts and sign them.

The discussions at the talk pages are going no where. You will not give up and you are not going to get consensus there. It is time to give up or try another way. I recommend you drop this.--Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I will not use it. I will continue. I'm sorry to trouble you. Путеец (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please Help rather then cause Regression

Hi I see that you have removed most of my additions to the condensation reaction page because they were a, "formatting mess." I agree that they were poorly formatted, but there was a lot of good and helpful content there; why not just edit the formatting real quick if you are so familiar rather then removing the content. That seems far too regressive and counter productive in my opinion. Anyway I'll check the links you posted about chem page formatting and re-upload my edits soon. Any suggestions to the page content are welcome!! Mm9656 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks old-new person. Your name is appropriate for this time of year! :) Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Dear Jytdog, Thank you for your hard work on improving the article Antisperm antibodies (and improving the rationality of discussion on the article Talk page)! I would like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. Same to you! Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

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

---

Hi! While I understand the reasoning between WP:PARITY, that is simply a guideline, and has to be trumped by policies. We can;t use self-published sources for controversial statements about living people, so I've been removing scienceblogs where it has been misused. In this case it isn't an issue anyway - the blog is acceptable for the claim about itself, and other sources are provided for the only potentially controversial claims. So removing it in the two controversial locations makes no significant difference to the sourcing, and still leaves us following BLP. I'd add, though, that the Forbes reference you've added is also self published, and has the same problem, and the Slate article doesn't support the claim. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a very, very old and boring issue, where BLP and PSCI intersect. Both of these are policy. Both are. The fact that he says things is true; as is the fact that they are pseudoscience almost always and dangerous in others. Mainstream medical sources don't talk about this, yada yada yada. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I probably wasn't very clear.

• I wish to remove the self-published scienceblog source in two out of the three places it is used, but this will not change the content, as that content is already reliably sourced.
• I will need to remove the statement that he claims that cancer treatment is a fraud, as that is not reliably sourced and thus is a BLP issue.

Otherwise I don't think I need to make any other changes to the content. I'll fully explain the second change on talk. - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI which is also policy and that you will be violating by removing this and its source. Please do not cherrypick policy.

Also, have you reviewed the many discussions that have been held about using refs like those written by Gorski in just these kinds of situations? See for example Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_2#Request_for_comments_on_SBM_source. Jytdog (talk)

You really don't seem to be getting the point. There is no hassle with content, as I'm not removing any content that is sourced by Gorski. My issue is that using a self-published source for factual statements is not the best option, and where there are alternative sources - as here - the self-published source should be replaced with a better one. The views remain. I'm just removing the sources which are insufficient for a BLP, not the content that they support. - Bilby (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bilby, you just made a serious misrepresentation which I suggest you correct. Above you wrote The views remain but at the article you did remove content describing the views. Would you please fix one or other? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what I wrote was accurate. The content removed was not sourced to Gorski. - Bilby (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Closing this now. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors proposed decision

Hello Jytdog. I would like to inform you that the proposed decision of Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case has been posted. Feel free to comment in your own section at the corresponding talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:paysafecard

Hi Jytdog, sorry to bother you; how was your new year's? Would you take a look at this draft when you have time; the main contributor is very well-meaning and has been cooperative. They have asked me for feedback, my first thought was still half of the content could be trimmed; but as I am relatively weak in this field, I was wondering perhaps it would be easier for you to summarize helpful thoughts. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

it was fun, thanks! i hope yours was the same. will look.. Jytdog (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Shack décor

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For starting the "admin CoI reform" ball rolling in earnest, with sufficient research to give it momentum here; looks like the later RfC [1], based on your draft proposal, is going to pass, and this is long overdue (even if maybe not entirely sufficient – baby steps!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

+1. That was really helpful, what you started. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring 'votes' at talk:Alternative for Germany

Just a heads-up - saw you commented. An anon removed two 'votes' here. The 'votes' were both 'remove'. Say, you voted 'keep'... That wasn't you logged out, now? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

nice catch, thx Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Good deeds rarely go unpunished—and, sure enough, here is a request for help

Fellow Wikipedian (I don't know a more personal name to use and hesitate to use the familiar Dog. I've followed your thoughts on conflicts of interest and paid editing—and approve to the point I am asking your help.

Edits popped at pending changes at an article on my watchlist. I checked the edits and found enough to impel me to consider the other eight or so edits made by the account. I then reverted these four pending edits (previously, four other pending edits made by the same account to the article had been reverted. I'd like to know what you think about my reaction. The account left a polite message on my talk page (the message and my reply are here on my talk page). My reply, containing diffs, should present the necessary information. The account has likely been used by at least two persons, one of whom presents as a published college professor. Thanks. - Neonorange (Phil) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will look! Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You reaction was entirely appropriate. Thank you for that! I wonder why you think more than one person is using the account. do tell... Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning

• The account, Profrich, is so new as to be non-autoconfirmed
• from the message posted on my tp, reads, in part

I wrote a current AI book and referenced it in appropriate places., a claim to be Richard Neapolitan

• the sig to this message is just profrich in plain text and otherwise unsigned; the ip address appears
• yet the references added to the AI article were properly formatted (though the URLs pointed to sales pages rather than citable content)
• the sentence from the nessage that reads

I would imagine they or their students put most of the references in. (speaking, I think, about cites added by other editors to the AI article.)

Q.E.P.

I may very well be wrong—but now it seems a copyvio has been added by the Profrich account (and quickly removed by another editor). I think the dual use is probable, but not actionable. I am confident no paid editing is involved in this rapidly developing train wreck. Just coi promotionalism by possibly more than one person. I am interested in A.I., but not enough to help out here because of all the preconceptions Profrich evidently holds about Wikipedia.

Thanks for listening and responding. Keep up the good work. If you have anything I could help work on, please ask.

Neonorange (Phil) 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see about the dual use. Well hopefully we will get that cleared up. If you are interested in working on COI issues more clueful help is always needed at WP:COIN. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. COIN added to my watchlist. Neonorange (Phil) 15:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoaaa! I just read the message from a profich [sic?] sigged Profrich that you moved from your tp. I worked as a documentary film maker and later for a television broadcast network news organization. Judging credibility on the fly is a necessary skill for that work—and, evidently, in this work also. Glad (or sad) to see my instincts are useful here. Neonorange (Phil) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it is still unclear to me...people say all kinds of things. Part of the difficulty of this work is working in that ambiguity. It always has to start and end with content; dealing with user behavior always has to be aimed at getting good content in and keeping bad content out. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And that's exactly point for journalism—is the content supported by reliable and verifiable statements? (a difference being the verifiability in journalism depends on there being multiple, independent, sources—that's how good journalism produces WP:RS) The starting point is helping editors express their best, but conflicts of interest, when unrecognized, compromise journalism and Wikipedia articles. In my experience, onflicts of interest are treated much more rigorously in WP:RS journalistic enterprises than in Wikipedia (so far). If you'd like, I can provide you links to multiple codes of ethics for news organizations, and to a lengthy discussion at Victoriaearle archived talk page of WP:RS. Neonorange (Phil) 17:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes COI is handled much better in RW publishing. We have limits that they don't. If you haven't read it, I suggest you look at the stuff on my userpage at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_2:_COI_and_advocacy_in_Wikipedia if you haven't already -- especially the part about "the big tension in WP". Those limits mean we have to be very cognizant of what we cannot know and work within that ambiguity. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversions

You provided no explanation for your last reversion and never addressed my comments, never seeking to use any talk page. All three are pretty improper as well. I'd appreciate if you did that before blindly reverting. Read my edit summaries and please provide a valid rationale. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit notes are clear; I did not blindly revert and for writing bullshit on my talk page that I did, you are now formally disinvited from posting here. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution link re: Myofascial Release

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Myofascial_release".The discussion is about the topic Myofascial release. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I notice you didn't give a warning to Doc James for revert-warring and you also don't appear to be an admin, which makes your warning empty and apparently an attempt at intimidation. Like other feminists who have attempted to edit, I've been warned that trying to add information to Wikipedia about women's issues will result in bullying from male editors, and thus it goes. Women's issues are not adequately addressed in WP, likely because of male bias from WP's patriarchal editing population, so your efforts to fight that would be appreciated. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea you are a woman and have no way to know. I do know that your edits ignored MEDRS and that you were edit warring across several articles to add badly sourced content. Which you should not do regardless of what gender you claim. fwiw i find your brusque assertions rather typically "manly" and i mean that in the negative way. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying to withdraw?

Doe this comment indicate a desire to withdraw your AN3 complaint? I imagine that could be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. The issue is well over from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest Edit to the Page of Daniel Tomasulo

Hello,

You made an edit on a page I put up. You took off a reference to the subject of the page as being named one of the top 10 influencers on depression by Sharecare. Dr Tomasulo is not affiliated with Sharecare.

You'd said, if I'm understanding this correctly, that it needs an independent reference. I respect your change, but would like to ask you to please elaborate for me on what you mean by an independent reference? The link should lead to the page on the Sharecare website where they list the top 10 influencers for depression that they chose.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank you so much! Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbsie (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a good ref. Very commercial. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Sharecare. Please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For the work on Victoria Jackson. I continue to be thankful and impressed by your work against conflict of interest editing. Alex Shih (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

well i would rather say "helping people with a COI learn how we manage it", but thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

This arbitration case, for which you were named as a party, has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

sanction notice???

Hey, what's going on? The 1997 paper on coffee enemas might talk about its safety, but not the goop connection. The safety stuff is covered in the Ars Technica article, without turing Goop into a WP:COATRACK of 'the safety warnings for everything that has featured on goop'. I added a relevant point from the 1997 paper to the article on coffee enemas. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition - adding the critical commentary that Goop uses feminism to draw her customers closer to her isn't promotional. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are removing critical content and adding promotional content. Not ambiguous. Please make sure that you read and follow WP:PSCI which is policy; see also WP:FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You have mistaken me for the IP hopping person who edits this article. I have added information about how Goop runs as a company to balance out the criticism, which has included some primary sources. I have added criticisms of Goop where they are needed too. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If I were trying to suppress sourcing, why would I have added it to the coffee enema page??? I readded the template so that more people could see it. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have listed the discussion on the third party opinions page to try to get more eyeballs. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot explain your behavior. Thanks for seeking dispute resolution. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to, then, because I do not appreciate your accusations. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can describe it. I cannot explain it. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson

Slow down, cowboy. You're making more mistakes than improvements in your rush to return wording and content you put in the article. If you want to copyedit and correct typos, great, but make sure you do it so you're not just reverting back to your preferred version and personal wording choices. Collaborative is the call of the day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Winkelvi, would you be more specific about the "mistakes" and raise them on the article talk page instead? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Some really bad grammar, poor and redundant wording choices, sloppy syntax. Some good typo fixes from what I was in the midst of doing, but mostly editing that is not better than what I fixed. And removal of names of husbands in a BLP? I can understand it for children, but husbands? That's the first time I've seen it in a BLP for the reasons Jytdog stated in the edit summary, especially for a celebrity marriage. As far as how it's all going down, you can look at the recent diffs yourself, Alex Shih. I was just about to retire for the night and won't be visiting the talk page tonight to expand on my commentary here. Maybe sometime tomorrow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gibmul again

Hi Jytdog. Gibmul just made another major addition to Silent Siren. I reverted him/her, but please undo if my revert was a bit excessive. It does appear that Gimbul requested the change on the article's talk page, but it looks like it was not formatted correctly so it just sat there. The content still seems a bit promotional to me, but I'm not a J-POP expert so to speak. It also seems that Gimbul might be getting a bit antsy that his/her proposals are not being reviewed/approved fast enough; perhaps there's some employer set deadline involved here. So, maybe you could take a look again to see if the content is OK? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacin

Hi, I see you have just deleted that Ciprofloxacin side effects can be disabling. I am trying to raise awareness about new information from the FDA that Ciprofloxacin can have disabling effects. Can you agree this is important information? Link to the FDA safety announcement below. Many thanks

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm511530.htm Wiki woms (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I would love to discuss this on the article talk page. Could you please reply to the last couple of messages I have directed towards you on there. Many thanks Wiki woms (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

EBM jihadists

You removed my text from the FM page. Trying to hide something?Oleondre (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit violated the OUTING policy and it has been oversighted (permanently deleted from Wikipedia). If you do that again you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing block?

Hey again, more about the CIA - I see more and more from the paid staffer Jnormy in the CIA's article. He admits he's paid for that, and I found his real name/position which verifies that. Could he be blocked from directly editing those articles? I would see that as appropriate, given many bad-faith/promo direct edits. His most recent edit today diff is simple censorship, covering up that some notable graduates are involved in wrongdoings revealed as part of the Weinstein effect. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you mean like here where they wrote in Wikipedia, Updated information related to the acquisition by the CIA. I am an administrator of the college.). Yes they should not be editing directly. Hopefully we can teach them the correct things to do -- if not then yes we will end up having to block them. I just left them a message at their talk page to get their attention and will see if they are willing to learn what they should do. Thanks for calling my attention to this. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I regard false accusation as personal attacks. Be warned. The Banner talk 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking your input for The Signpost

Jytdog: I have been doing The Signpost's arbitration reports for a few issues now. For this issue we are preparing a writeup on the Mister Wiki case that just closed. I followed your input keenly, particularly what you wrote in the workshop phase. I'd like to invite you to prepare an up to 250 word response to the report I've drafted, or really whatever you think the readers should know about the case. I'll be asking another key contributor for input as well.

Right now we are really close to our proposed publication deadline, so if you would like to contribute please tell me if you could do it by the end of day Friday (Pacific Time). If the publication deadlines don't line up with your availability, then of course you can post your reader comments after publication as usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bri, I can't wait to see the image caption! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the Judges of Hell a fitting image. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

When I first saw it, it was the dinosaur! I was thinking of starting a betting pool as to who it was really depicting. (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Joke's on both of us then. The dino is just the standard placeholder image for Signpost drafts. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Uer:Bri i have posted a draft at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report#proposed_content. happy to receive any feedback from anybody. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've not heard back from the other workshop participant, nor the editor-in-chief, so this is on hold for a bit ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

Hey Jytdog, I was wondering if it is permitted-or good editing practice-to use an image from original(personal) research that replicates results from a meta analysis. Specifically, in the Biology of bipolar disorder, the uncited image is personal work. Thanks for any help in advanced.Petergstrom (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. WT:MED would be a better forum to ask... Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

warring

Hi, the same editors going bezerk on Ethereum are also borderline edit warring over on the Bitcoin page. Hasn't gone to ANB, but I did create a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist to try to deal with it. Seems they want to use blogs and other crap sources to push a POV. Feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a barnstar

Overstepping to collapse this conversation. This need not to continue. Alex Shih (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fuck barnstars, here is a plastic cup you can spit in. I need your DNA in order to clone you. Dealing with COI editors is depressing. Keep up the good work. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC) :) that is actually 23andme's secret mission you know. cloning all of us after they mix in some alien dna. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I think I may have met some of their, ehm, early prototypes. Not enough human DNA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I find this very insulting and childishly inappropriate. This isn't a chat forum, it's a professional-level encyclopedia. Show at least an ounce of courtesy or respect for other editors. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC) That comment (dated today 04:33) wasn't about you. I haven't met you... Heck, statistically it is extremely unlikely that a comment I made is about you. This is a talk page. I have no idea what "a professional-level encyclopedia" means. You are talking to someone who literally pretends to be a potato while editing what you call "a professional-level encyclopedia". Perhaps you should apologize to Jytdog for your insults and empty threat before you use words like "respect". Dealing with COI editors is seriously depressing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC) You posted that comment in the midst of our conflict about Interactive Brokers, which is involving Jytdog as well. So it's far more likely than not. And maybe you should change your username or otherwise go to 4chan or Reddit. Us editors are serious about our work, and your comment above, as well as the "facepalm" emoji you put on my talk, makes you seem far too immature for a project like this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Not everything is about you. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. In real life you would be very polite to me (and vice versa) so you are basically a keyboard warrior. (Redacted). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Authority Nutrition

Hello Jytdog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Authority Nutrition, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Seems a bit too balanced to be G11 for me (contains criticisms). Probably a better candidate for AfD. . Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni. If that seems "too balanced" to you you didn't take the time to really look. Please look at the history where I went through it ref by ref and commented on the shitty quality of the "article" and of your "review". Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

G11 is about the wording of the article, not the sources. The article when I read it contained fluff but also criticisms as a substantial part of the text. It was so short that honestly it read more like a critique of the company than an advertisement to me. The fact that you were able to go through and put it into the state it is in now shows that it was not G11. It probably should be deleted, but when there is any question as to if it meets the CSD criteria, it should go to AfD or PROD. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable sources. There were zero independent sources with substantial discussion from which to generate content. I guess in your WP we can make up shit and throw bullshit refs behind them and have something reasonably sustainable. Your WP is my nightmare. You fucking nominate it for deletion since you won't delete that piece of shit. I am not wasting more time on it. The shit is on your hands now. Yours. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I’d be glad to, but you’re likely more familiar with the sourcing than I am. Overuse of the CSD criteria beyond what they authorize is one of the reasons why it is so hard to delete spam at AfD: people falsely think that our only avenue to delete it is through G11, which is not the case. A strict interpretation of G11, along with a liberal use of AfD in my opinion the best way to deal with the problem of promotion within the current policy confines. Unfortunately, as much as I would like that article to meet G11, I don’t think it does under the current wording. I am certainly not advocating for the article to remain in Wikipedia, but I’m also not going to delete a page under the CSD policy that I don’t think qualifies for that specific deletion process. I’d likely support a more liberal CSD policy (in fact I almost always support any attempt to expand it), but until that happens, we are left with the narrow structures of the current policy, and AfD and PROD when those criteria are not met. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated lots of pieces of shit like that for speedy and they have been speedied. Your interpretation of PROMO is way too narrow. The purpose of the words and fake refs is to get exposure for the website. An advertisement does not have to say "Buy a ginzu knife and get one free!" That page is pure toxic waste dumped here for promotional purposes. Obviously. Done by someone half skilled at fakery. But it so obviously is fake. There is nothing there about presenting "accepted knowledge" to the public and everything about getting exposure by exploiting WP's eyeballs. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I will be deleting this article and blocking the creator. It is sneaky move vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, please do not. I am sending it to AfD currently. Doing so would be an out of process deletion, and is part of the reason why it is so difficult to deal with this problem at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Did you not read what I wrote? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Rothberg's biography page

Hi Jytdog: I’m writing to you about Jonathan Rothberg’s living biography, which you edited on Oct. 27th. Since 2007 some people have noted that in places the biography lacks a neutral point of view and has un-sourced assertions. I would add that it simply doesn’t tell a very complete or up-to-date story about Dr. Rothberg’s work.

I would like to change that. I’ve made extensive edits, added numerous citations and updated the biography with his most recent work. I think this edit will address the issues that editors have raised in the past as well as provide a more informative biography for Wikipedia readers. Given the extent of the changes I’m not sure what the best way is to put this in front of Wikipedia editors for review. I've put this new version here for now: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u8E1pVIhl0fvd4ZHtuEl0LX3R-jhCodyIlA5zg10jgA/edit?usp=sharing I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any advice you have on how to best approach this situation.

Finally, I have worked for Dr. Rothberg for two years and worked with him previously as well, so I clearly have a COI. However, I was also a reporter for 10 years and understand how to write unbiased copy that sticks to the facts and I believe I’ve succeeded in that. My hope is that despite the COI the copy can be judged on its merits and through the review process with editors we can address any shortcomings and create better quality biography for Wikipedia readers.

Thank you for your time and I would appreciate any advice you have on how to best proceed with this. Cheers, Wes Conard

wconard1965 on Wikipedia wconard@4catalyzer.com Wconard1965Wconard1965 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your note. I am going to copy the message above to your talk page User talk:Wconard1965 and will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit

Hi. I'm aware you frequently work in MEDRS and FRINGE areas. I don't. If you could take a look at the above article for issues in that regard, I'd appreciate it. I came across the article on NPP, and the talk page alerted me to the issues mentioned. I've nominated the article for deletion on notability grounds. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes i agree that afD is appropriate. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

10 years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, Jytdog, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

wow! Thanks. guess i should have attended the summit above or something... Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Jytdog,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

If you wanted to propose completely new wording, wouldn't it have been better to just propose that? There's no need to jump to an RfC for a proposal that hasn't even been discussed. Why go straight to an RfC? - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't tasking about content - this is about your choice to go to an RfC with text that had never been discussed. I was wondering why you made this choice, rather than just proposing the text. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

you to me: I point you to the discussion above.

you to me: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.

you to me: I don't see that we can use this..

you, when with other people present in the rfc: So how about "He advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes" cancer treatments." To be honest, I'm not sure of the value of Senapathy's opinion, but this would be acceptable. (the Kavin Senapathy" piece is that Forbes piece)

Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (fix preposition Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

You proposed text that was BLP compliant, so I'm willing to go with that in spite of reservations about Senapathy's value. Prior to that you proposed text that was inaccurate and not BLP compliant. Perhaps you should have proposed the compliant wording earlier? - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Same sources and base concepts. The difference is that in the last one you were willing to propose something yourself using the same sources and work toward consensus.

You are disinvited from my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Prior review"

There is no requirement that paid editing on WP be submitted to "prior review." Please stop misrepresenting policy by pretending that it does, as you did on THIS User Talk page. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

While you are right that i made it look too black and white in that diff (I departed from what I usually say in that exact diff and I shouldn't have) the COI guideline is very clear that direct editing is very strongly discouraged . That is about as close to "must not" as WP gets without going there (and there are very, very few places where policy/guidelines say "must")

It is widely expected that people don't directly edit for pay (with a few exceptions).

For several years now, I have been looking for a test case of a paid editor who discloses and edits directly (refuses to put things through prior review) -- especially new articles. I haven't found one yet. I believe that if I find one, and the person is a typical paid editor (content mostly low quality and promotional) that the community will take action against them. At that time I will have the diff of the case to show you. Or maybe we will succeed at some point in getting the "prior review" thing added to the PAID policy, formally. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Carrite is a paid Upwork editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is an exaggeration, Kudpung, but thanks for making me look! So Tim is doing an experiment - 3 paid jobs, per User:Carrite#Paid_editing_notice.

Tim, you should read something about the design of experiments. All experiments are artificial and results need to be interpreted carefully; with such a small N, no randomization or blinding, etc, and with you being a) so experienced, and b) carrying such a big ax into it, the resulting data is going to be of limited use and interpretation is going to be very subject to things like confirmation bias. But I look forward to hearing your description of what happens.

I have no doubt that it is possible to edit for pay, commercially, and to do it in a way that is a clear net benefit to WP and the community. The path to do so is very narrow and few people have the self-awareness, self-control, and cluefulness to do it. But it is possible. Sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking for a good story to tell about my experiences in a piece for Signpost. I learned a little bit doing one piece, good enough. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung's character assassination above says it all, really. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep there are people who hate paid editing and are mean to paid editors. I don't find the mean behavior appropriate. The community blocks/bans people who take that too far. User:Inlinetext was the last one that i recall.

One of the most common ways that paid editors screw up is that they get overly defensive and self-righteous when their work is reviewed and then really lose it in reaction to jibes from the haters, and given that they generally edit and behave in a way that is suboptimal anyway, they end up hanging themselves. That is why the "self control" thing is so important.

Did you ever write it up? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't that good of a story. I learned about how paid editing is done and what it feels like to do paid editing. (You might try it and see...) But maybe three years later Kudpung and his friends will turn it into a good story after all. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I honestly don't remember exactly how ODesk (the name of the company that I signed up with, which I learned about from Jimbotalk, incidentally) transfers money. It is either by PayPal or something similar to PayPal — there are no checks signed by anyone. They collect a spiff off every transaction: they made $5 and Heartland Humane Society made $50 off my work. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. On the last thing, i asked, because i am trying to understand that better. I keep finding freelancers disclosing some name (or a partial name, or even a "handle" instead of a name) for who paid them, which is basically useless for understanding what the "external interest" is, that is driving the COI. For example the disclosures at Pozytyv where the employer is listed as "ilovescience" or "hiringking99", are just useless. (The hiringking99 one is especially a head scratcher. the ilovescience one is obvious based on the articles.) Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Long-time Upworker chiming in (I even did a Wikipedia-related job recently, data processing stuff). It's plausible that some freelancers using platforms such as Upwork don't know who is hiring them. Any payments are made by Upwork Inc and the entire communication may be conducted through the Upwork website. I can imagine a situation where the freelancer never learns the client's name. They probably cannot make a valid disclosure and shouldn't edit if that's the case. On a related note, you might find this thread on Upwork's community forum interesting. Rentier (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rentier! Good to see some clueful discussion there among the writers. Very good. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME and Danielle Fong's parents

The names of Fong's parents can be put in the bio part of the article or personal life as with Scooter Braun. I've removed them from the infobox as they are not notable to be listed there as you commented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog can you make sure the DS editnotice gets placed properly on the article? It's not right to be warned of DS when that editnotice is not in place. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is correct to be given notification of the DS. That is what the notification is for. All that is, is notification that it is a topic with DS. Nothing more nothing less. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

SPA placing scholarly, but problematic external links

The SPA (so far, @37 edits),, is adding external links to pages on this website (1914-1918-online) at various World War I related Wikipedia articles. Ernest Hemingway is on my watchlist—I checked and reverted dif a recent edit by this editor that added the external link

* Vernon, Alex: Hemingway, Ernest , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

The content at this link is not really suitable for an external link for the Hemingway article, and I imagine this could be true for all the external links added by this editor. It could be seen as a campaign to promte the website. The Wikipedia article about the website is 1914-1918-online. The articles might be consider RS, but useful then as a source, not an external link.

I reverted the addition at the Hemingway article with this edit summary:

(revision 821252318 by Manimony (talk) revert—see WP:External links#What to link; if WP:RS, could possibly be used as source).

I could check the other additions by this editor for suitablility and post a gentle note explaining external links usage. Should I ask about a COI? — Neonorange (Phil) — 10:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Yep that is the behavior of someone who has some connection with that site. These are difficult cases. Yes, asking about COI would be very appropriate and hopefully they will be forthright. They probably believe that their site adds a lot of value. The key next step will be to discuss with them the notion that it is general practice here in Wikipedia to get prior consensus before making some kind of systematic change, like introducing a single source to a lot of articles. This ~looks like~ spamming. The person should pause on continuing to add it, and should get consensus that this is a valuable source in Wikipedia before continuing to add it. The place to do would probably be WT:MILHIST. If people there buy in, great, and if they don't, then the person should stop...

Does that make sense?

Let me know if you want to me to help or do anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful points. It fits together—I will check the other edits—and—I just did: twenty more edits today, some adding as many as five links to separate articles within the website, all led by the names of the contributing authors. It's promotional... and the editor probably doesn't realize it. I'll try to start a conversation today at Manimony's talk page, and will trade information with the editor, bringing up, in context the norms for an all volunteer project that has become such a huge promo magnet. I'll get back to you. Neonorange (Phil) 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

False claims

Claims you made in this edit are false. I suggest you remove them ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What is false there? You disclosed that you edited the article for pay; the other person actually edited it. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Was it the thing I changed here? Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Palm sugar

An article that you have been involved in editing—Palm sugar—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

No bells, whistles, glitter... Just to say glad you are here to continue to fight the good fight.

In a science journal peer review class, a long, long time ago, the teacher advised us to not be handicapped by an excess of tact. I feel same holds true here. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

laughing.  :) Thanks, and may this year be a great one for you as well. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Alternative for Germany

Hi there. We are currently having an RfC on whether the AfD is considered right-wing to far-right or simply far-right. Your opinion would be valued greatly. You can see the discussion here. Thank you! -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?!

I 1000% understand the perception of paid editors on Wikipedia - I really do. But what's up with this? I guess all I'm getting at is I just want to make sure the draft is given a fair chance and is not just immediately shot down because it's been submitted by a paid editing firm. JacobPace (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty clear failure for notability, just for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jacob. Translating what Andy wrote into English -- generally to have an article on a topic, we want to have two or three independent sources with substantial discussion of the subject. (interviews don't count; a paragraph doesn't count). There are no such sources cited in the draft. So it "fails notability" as we say here. To give you an example of what we do mean, this is a source with substantial discussion about a business person.

Does that answer? Has nothing to do with you being a paid editor. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Andy Dingley: thank you both. I totally agree regarding notability. Appreciate it. JacobPace (talk)

Quick request

Hi Jytdog. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly#Cliff Padgett reply to make sure I didn't provide any wrong information to the other editor or didn't leave anything important out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you did great there, i think. people writing about their family can get really .. difficult. For sone I tried to help navigate see this user talk discussion which stemmed from this ANI where other editors had just gotten sick of the person... Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. The other editor's last response had me a little concerned, but hopefully my response to that will help clear things up for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In Regards to my Update to Institute for Creation Research

Dear My. Jytdog,

I modified the page to be more accurate and unbiased. I gave more information and better sources. I do not understand what was the issue with my edits, or what the point of editing wikipedia at all is if all editors do is revert your changes that increase accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.96 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia is based mostly on what independent, reliable sources say. We don't just edit based on what we think about things. This place would be a nightmare if it were set up that way, and there would be no point indeed. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A side note to my side note

(this is a somewhat separate discussion from the one of my PE talk page)

Amazingly enough to both of us, I would like to thank you for what you did on the Martin Saidler article: barring a few minor errors, I do appreciate that you took the time to help genuinely improve it - as opposite to just sitting there, throwing threats and stalking me or Andy (which you also did).

I have no expectation whatsoever of the two of us getting along, but I think we can both live with it. C'est la vie. Cheers, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you are happy; what your client got there was classic BOGOF driven by Andy's horrible behavior -- an afternoon out of my life -- and I hope you enjoy the paycheck i earned for you by cleaning up the article. You are unwelcome on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Morgellons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So the way things work, if I give you this notice, as I did in this diff, that means that I am aware of the policy. What you have done here is silly. Please do read the notice - when you are reverted the correct thing to do is open a talk page discussion. I did that in this diff already for you -- please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, it seems you are not clear on how appropriate edit reversion works. Please be careful when engaging in mass-rollbacks. You deleted all the content I added within less than a minute of me adding it, clearly you did not take even a moment to check whether the more than a dozen sources I added meet MEDRS guidelines or whether there is merit to any of my edits. You have an obligation to use a discerning and light-handed approach when reverting edits you feel are not useful contributions.Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss the content on the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Favour

I may have even asked you this before.

---- please insert here the exact markup used to sign an unsigned post on a talk page thank you ----

Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I imagine there is some automated way to do this; I do it by hand. I type the beginning, then go look at the diff and copy the username and date and paste it, then flip the order of the user name and date, and add those vertical bar things.

{{subst:unsigned | <<put user name-here>> | <<put date here + (UTC)>> }} -- Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this section into my sandbox. Thanks again. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's also possible to use {{xsign}} which doesn't require inverting what is copy-pasted from the history line. —PaleoNeonate – 18:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but my issue is as follows. I'm sixty mumble years old, and I just clicked on the link above in the (vain) hope that an explanation of how to do it would be there. It is there, but is written in scriptkiddy, a language I dont speak, despite my time here. All template explanations are written that way throughout the project, and they are all equally obscure to me. I can remember the first portable calculator, and digital watch. My first TV memories are in Black and White; I was born closer to WWII than we are today to 9/11 if you see what I mean. I'm a grumpy old fossil. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate I never knew about that. Roxy: does this help: {{subst:xsign|18:17, 25 January 2018 Roxy the dog}}? That's what someone could add if you'd forgotten to sign your last post. I just copied the time etc. from the history. Strange that the time is different though to what ended up in your sig! SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

testing on your diff, smartse... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

oh that saves a second or two, i like it. (and yeah sometimes the time stamp in a signature and the dif record are different... i have noticed that and passing-wondered at it several times before.

in any case, Thanks Paleoneonate! Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are feeling lazy you could just type {{subst:unsigned|Username}}, which creates an undated signature for Username. The lack of a date/time stamp won't interfere with bot archiving of a thread provided at least one other post in the thread is dated. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm cooking atm, but will return to study. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! Hmm about the datetime, it's possible that it may be due to user timezone preferences but I did not change mine to confirm (I use UTC). —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ed and PN. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I like to use Template:unsigned2. That way, you look at the edit history, just copy/paste the line for the edit you are signing, and plug it into {{subst:unsigned2|timestamp|username}}. It's as easy as a copy/paste. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

testing..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryptofish (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

and we have a winner. You still have to put those vertical sticks in but yes the quickest yet. Thx! Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The test showed up as a notification to me, and I thought for a moment that I had forgotten to sign my post and you fixed it for me. LOL! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Shakshouka. Bloody good it was. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I find it amusing that there are almost simultaneous posts by Popo le Chien and by Roxy the dog on the talk page of Jytdog. --Trypto the fish (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

yummy looking dish, Roxy! i would not have thought of poaching eggs in tomato sauce. talking about poached eggs, have you heard of the new way to new way to scramble eggs? I have still not tried it. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good luck cleaning that sieve. If you haven't tried shakshuka you really need to! SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hi! I needed a second opinion on the following statement that a COI editor wishes to add to the Sinclair Community College article. The statement:

"Less than a third of those who had enrolled in 1999 earned degrees or certificates, transferred or continued to be enrolled with progress toward a credential by 2003. By the 2009-13 period, the number rose to 56 percent, a 75 percent increase, Inside Higher Ed reported."

I wasn't too sure if it sounded peacockyish enough. What is your take on a statement like this, and what kinds of evidence should we require for these "I've Changed My Tune" type assertions, which can be very tricky if the org. doing the study applies their methadology incorrectly. Thank you for your help! Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)