User talk:Jytdog

What would you do?

If you had a situation where an old SPI revealed (and parties admitted) meat puppetry, the parties were warned, all but one were blocked, red linked SPAs constantly appear at the article anyway, and eight years later a new editor appeared this year, edited same article with same aims as previous (to promote the work of the biographical subject), and when editing logged out, revealed their IP which geolocates to within half a block of the location of the company of the person in question ... would you submit another SPI, or just bring it to COIN? The reason I am unclear is that there is something about SPI not revealing IP addresses that I don't understand. I've got a duck quacking loudly, who revealed his IP, but don't know where to most effectively take this. Also, if this account is dealt with, others will just appear, so watchful waiting may be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to file at both COIN and SPI - you will get different people thinking about different parts of the problem, and folks at COIN will probably watchlist the page to help over the longer term.

It is OK to post IPs at SPI (there is a parameter to list them) but the CUs/clerks/admins there will not comment in public about them -- they will use that evidence, however. The thing to avoid is making a claim that X editor is Y person unless they have made that statement here in WP. See for example this SPI where the master disclosed their identity, changed their account name, then went on a socking campaign over several years to promote themselves, their ideas, and people they knew. If they haven't self-disclosed, just say "this person clearly has some undisclosed relationship to Y person/company/etc" and you avoid the whole OUTING mess. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the editor logged back in and re-signed over the IP, and indicated it was him, asking me to strike my reply to the IP (smart). The deal is, I am less interested in getting another sock blocked as I am in finding a long-term solution to this issue. It has been going on for at least 8 years. With prolific sockmasters, sometimes when you know who they are, it's better just to keep an eye on them? It appears that this company might put its new interns to work on Wikipedia ... So what would you do to get it addressed long-term? They were shut down 8 years ago, bided their time, came back with same ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You have even more evidence with them signing over the IP. That is helpful, and not a hindrance. I recommend you file at SPI and COIN. There are benefits to both. (one of the benefits of getting them identified as socks as that it becomes easier to revert per BLOCKEVASION and if they build up a serious record of socking (as shown at SPI) we can have them community banned which is even stronger. The benefit of filing at COIN is that people will probably help watchlist and clean. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Jyt-- I will work on this over the week, when we have several long clinic appts, so I can enjoy some of my weekend. Most appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So, what do you do when someone blanks text using a username that appears to be a real name of a connected person and anyone can google the name, which is made even easier by the custom of using both last names in LatinAmerica? We still can't suggest the username is the real person, even if they appear to be the same? So just a general COI notice in this case? And go to COIN if cited text blanking continues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Tharbis

You may be interested in this one, I didn't know we had it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

oh my! I am. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can use this [1] as leadimage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man.  :) Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon

Hi, Following your response on the talk page I have requested a third opinion to help look into this. Hopefully, you will be happy to amicably engage. Hkong22 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you did not however request WP:3O, you filed at WP:DRN. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE

Hello Jytdog,

I read WP:MEDDATE and see no issues with what I've posted. New research is not being represented on this Glioblastoma page (at least not under non-risks). There is certainly some perceivable risk given that long-term studies have not concluded and that recent studies are finding inconclusive evidence (for and against). I'm just asking that the section entitled Non-Risks be edited to remove Cell Phones and Cell Phones should be moved to unclear risks.

Under this section is another sentence that briefly mentions unclear risks. Please consider moving it here.

While this mindset of cell phones being perfectly harmless may have been true several years ago, none of the current studies are claiming this any longer. Please read the Talk page for Glioblastoma for more information.

I'll leave you with one final thought... Consider this logic; smoking a cigarette won't give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 5 to 10 years might not give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 20,30,or more years will likely give you cancer. So, before we knew for certain that long term smoking habits lead to cancer, would it have been a good idea to announce that cigarettes are a "non-risk", simply because the independent, long-term studies hadn't concluded? That would have been very presumptuous indeed.

Thank you for your time,

--Wbeaton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have. Can you please respond? You're the one rejecting my edit. --Wbeaton (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I replied there and made a few edits. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeshua

Do you have any comments on Yeshua being put in a Bracket as Colliric suggested?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hey there. Thanks for your great work on 23&Me. I was wondering if you may look at Ancestry.com as that page has a similar problem with using almost entirely primary sources. I have removed a ton of them but there are still many more and I just got really tired of working on that on both articles. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure i will look at it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Venom in Medicine

And others- appreciation of good edits. Very good work.PRehse (talk)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pillars of BLP articles

Just notifying you manually of a newer discussion at Talk:Joshua Waitzkin That discussion, which is discussed in detail at the article's talk page, involves an issue which comes up again and again, and I wasn't entirely sure of how they are handled. (I'm asking here because it's a question which is broader in nature than just the one topic.) That question is how to proceed when the subject of an article, notable for one particular instance of something, then wishes to expand their article with other items that they are interested in, but are not necessarily notable for. I understand the pillars of blp article creation - (NPOV, NOR, V) - but the guidance is vague with regards to how information is handled after article creation. Do those fundamental pillars extend beyond the creation point, to include interests of the subject which came after the initial notability? (Again, the particular details of the Josh Waitzkin request are at that article's talk page, per your request at the top of your talk page to leave discussions there.) You may answer the question I am asking here there, if you prefer. Thank you for any help you can offer, I appreciate it.  Spintendo          17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a great question and one that is endlessly debated. (so no easy answers, I am sorry to say).

Some people pretty much look only at WP:V, and not at any other policies, and generally say "If is it in a reliable source, include it!"

Others look at one or more other policies as well, as well as looking harder at V

One can look harder at the source, and ask if it independent or the subject and if it is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. (generally WP articles should be built from independent secondary sources, and if one is going to use a source that is not independent or secondary, there should be some good reason for that)

Bringing in WP:NPOV, one can ask "Is including it WP:DUE or should we leave it out as being WP:UNDUE? " (WP:RECENTISM is important to keep in mind as well, and something that we as an editing community generally suck at avoiding - "current events" tend to get enormously UNDUE weight)

Bringing in WP:NOT, one can ask broadly if the content/sourcing aims at WP's mission of providing readers with accepted knowledge, or if it not, but is instead just WP:TRIVIA or WP:GOSSIP or news or fails in some other regard. One can also ask if this is really just WP:PROMO.

Finally one should always think about BLP which calls us to apply all the policies rigorously and in addition ask if this is really aimed at providing accepted knowledge about the person; lots of false flags get flown under BLP (BLP is not a reason to exclude negative information but it is a reason to ensure that negative information is very well sourced and summarizes the source accurately; BLP is not a reason to do whatever the subject wants).

Like I said, it is a great question. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok so to recap, it sounds like the different layers which are applied at an article's creation all come back to play their own individual parts in allowing, or disallowing, items during an article's life after creation, and that knowing which ones to use, and when, is a process informed by experience. I hope I got that right... Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it!  Spintendo          09:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh they definitely come into play after the article is created. Conflicts/controversy over what to include and what not to include happen every day. It is especially acute in articles about celebrities and people in politics where fans/haters often try to track all kinds of ... very detailed, day-to-day to stuff. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - NCORP report

Until we figure out exactly where this will go, could you start a userspace draft following the WP:Signpost/Quick Start guide? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri. Not sure I did that right. It seemed opinion-y so I made it an opinion since I had to choose. I am fine with making it more newsy. It is now at Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost_Opinion2. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm not supposed to be providing editorial content this time but I think you could push the op-ed on this harder. I should be able to read the first paragraph and see where you stand on the outcome. Good, bad, or neutral? I don't really get a sense of where you stand from the text right now, or feel like a lot of our readers who aren't super involved in the topic would have a reason to feel excited. What do you think about moving this sentence to the front and expanding it a bit?

That mission [open collaboration] remains as ludicrous as it ever was, yet the editing community has been surprisingly successful at realizing it.

I think you have a good sense of these conflicting tensions and they are inherently dramatic, yet somehow the drama/tension/Sturm und Drang or whatever journalistic buzzword is appropriate, is buried in the piece. In other words, it doesn't have to be dry and wonky if you want to make the column more full of Jytdog flavor. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. OK then. I will play with it some more today. Thanks for your time! Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer trash clean up

If you want to include an image, search "tire dump" on Commons might be inspiring. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I envision long-needed mass AFDs for Category:Autism-related organizations in the United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is so much work to do, always. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

Seriously, what kind of "reliable" references do you want? There are links to Amazon and the books in question, which describe the books' contents. The citations for the books are in proper academic format.

There's a message by Lois McMaster Bujold describing her intentions in the novel _Komarr_. The fact that that message was distributed via a mailing list is not relevant to its reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunsenH (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. A discussion was opened there already. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that your use of "original research" is consistent with how Wikipedia uses the term in this context. I also don't believe that information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable; it's just the medium. The *source* is the author. I have requested dispute resolution in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder . BunsenH (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - next issue

I think your op-ed Signpost - NCORP report needs to be included. There is already a very brief mention of the new policy in News and Notes. However, we have a deadline in 48 hours for the next issue. After that, accepted submissions will be copy edited, and placed in their order of appearance. Please note that Copy Editing in the strictest sense, may alter some of the prose of articles, but not the content or the message it imparts. Please let us know if you can complete by the deadline, or if you prefer it to be deferred to the next issue at the end of May. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung. i have worked it over and am happy with it. not sure what i am supposed to do now... Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Leave the rest to me and Bri - we'll sort it out. In the coming weeks we're going to try and find a way of making it less complicated for users to submit articles. Even I found it a challenge!Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say sorry for the very generous editing I did on your Signpost submission. We're under 24 hours away from deadline, and I wasn't quite sure whether you'd be online before then - otherwise I would have talked to you before changing so much. The error with ACTRIAL adoption is also obviously my fault, thanks for catching that! --Zarasophos (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your help!! It was generous. I hope my subsequent edits were OK. This is very different from editing in mainspace; this has my username on it so I pushed back on some things more than i usually would. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure I meant "generous" as in "a lot" and not "generous" as in "I'm so great". That came out a little weird. And yeah, your article is pretty good, I really liked the illustrations and how you managed to make the drafting of a guideline interesting! As you might know, we're currently facing a very severe manpower shortage at the Signpost - would you maybe consider signing up for the next issue as well? --Zarasophos (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant it as in "kind and helpful" :) Hey if you understand how Wikilinks in the signpost work, could you please add a WL to Kudpung's piece where it says "as discussed elsewhere in this issue".? that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words on the piece. sure i will think about it. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually did that already, just put it in the wrong spot :D --Zarasophos (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Byline info

Could you write a bit for your Signpost byline per this guideline? "Suggestion: one to three sentences, that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader". Thanks and looking forward to seeing your column in "print". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your shepherding, Bri. do you mean like this? Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome

Hi Jytdog. I don't know if you've seen this article's entry at FT/N, but it's a hoax by a WikiEd student -- Morse explicitly coined the phrase as a joke to describe one side of a debate. Seems like a pretty clear candidate for AFD to me, but I figured it would be best to run it by a more experienced editor, especially because of the WikiEd angle. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I redirected to Neurolaw#Cautions_and_concerns and untwisted it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Looks good to me, thank you for writing it. I do appreciate the pun in the knight pic caption :)

I am curious how the criteria is doing "in the trenches"... Renata (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with it. I am curious too! Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An FYI

I see that you have had some earlier involvement in a topic which I today raised at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 18#A heads-up. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the work in putting it out! :) Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello editor, I just saw that you deleted my contribution of the cancer section of Gut Flora page . I undid it because you didn’t leave any cogent explanation. I had basically summarized a peer reviewed study that was published in the prestigious journal Gastroenterology (impact factor ~18) by a cancer group. IMHO, this study along with some corroborating reports from other groups ( See Pushulkar et al, 2018 in Cancer Disovery) clearly establish that at least in lab mice, the gut microbiota may have cancer promoting effects. The effects of the microbiota are mediated through immune systems as shown by the authors through immunodeficient mice and by flow cytometry and blocking immunity experiments. I think this is a conclusive albeit short study that increases our corpus of knowledge regarding cancer and gut microbiota axis in mice. The authors didn’t identify the culprit bug (s).

Credentials : i am an MD and I have been studying the microbiota and cancer interactions as a part of basic research lab in an American university since the last 2.5 years. I would like to contribute edits highlighting important peer-reviewed articles to various microbiota articles here on Wikipedia. I strongly think that the gut bacteria are doing something very fascinating in the numerous niches they inhabit in our body, The microbiota articles on web are full of bizarre and incredulous pieces. I want to make Wikipedia a more reliable source highlighting scientific studies regarding the gut bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoseDoc (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It is really great that you want to help with our mission. Thanks for that! I left you a welcome message on your talk page, User talk:PoseDoc. Please, please do read it, and the message below that too. There is learning curve in Wikipedia - please slow down and learn how things work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

COI Closure

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.

---

I appreciate your patience and for giving me the benefit of the doubt. However, I still have no idea what policies and guidelines my actions have violated that would qualify my behavior as advocacy. It's going to be difficult for me to avoid making future mistakes if nobody can point me to anything specific. I spent a lot of time reading the policies and guidelines both with respect to content prior to and after the DRV proceedings and have read the articles you linked to. At this point, I plan to give myself and everyone else time to cool off and then attempt to rewrite the article in draft space in a distinctly non-hagiographical way. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware that everyone can see your contribution history? Your history is here. (Everyone can see everyone's - there is a link over in the left side margin that says "user contributions")

The longer pattern that I have seen in your editing, is that you edit on hot-button social issues in a way that reflects your feelings. That is what you did way back on Irreducible complexity when you first started editing back in 2010.

You came back more recently, and your edits at Blaire White were absolutely against WP:MOS and WP:BLP and you are very lucky that you were not indefinitely blocked already, just over that. That was pure advocacy, with zero - and I mean zero - effort to understand the context of this place.

You went directly from that, to deletion reviews over the Bechley page, and have been just ignoring what everyone else has said to you in those discussions.

You are using your editing privileges in WP to wage the culture wars. Editing WP is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege that we make available to everyone (which is insane, but that is how this place works). In return, we ask people to aim for the mission, and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. We take editing privileges away from people who abuse them.

I don't see that you have made any contributions to WP, that were about our mission, which is to work collaboratively, in order to present the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, so that people can learn. That is what we do here.

Coming here to wage culture wars, is not building the encyclopedia. We call this not here to build an encyclopedia.

Please do read User:Jytdog/How, and for something shorter, have a look at my userpage, at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Maybe that will help you understand what your editing privileges are for. I hope you try to learn. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that people can see my contributions. You will also notice that I stopped editing the article in question because I learned about WP:MOS. The edits to the Intelligent Design article back in 2010 took place back before I even realized that Wikipedia had any kind of formal rules. I was a complete and utter neophyte.

Saying that I was "ignoring what everyone else has said" in the DRV discussion is so obviously false that you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously. I provided policy-based refutations of their arguments and they failed to respond in kind. That's the opposite of ignoring. The proponents of deletion were the ones doing the ignoring.

Improving WP by going after obvious cases of bias and other violations of its content rules IS A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA. Not everyone involved in publishing a paper dictionary directly writes the articles. So far, from what I've seen, most editors only care about the policies and guidelines when it suits them.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Tell me, what has been the response to you at DRV, and at COIN, and at the talk pages of experienced users, with respect to your most recent campaign? it is very simple. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely uninformed opinions and a total unwillingness to examine facts.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "not listening". People have given you very good advice, which you have ignored. This project lives in the tension between a sort of libertarian ethos (people are encouraged to be bold and make things happen - this is how we grow) and a communitarian ethos (the basis of this whole place is WP:CONSENSUS- this is how we are regulated, so we don't have a) chaos that squanders volunteer time (the lifeblood of this place) and b) uncontrolled growth which is just cancer). Lose either, and this project dies.

Persistently ignoring very good advice and consensus-driven decisions is another sign of being not here to build an encyclopedia.

You are definitely driving directly over the cliff. Unless you change, it is only a matter of time until you lose your editing privileges. Like I said at COIN, it is your path to make.

I suggest you go back and read the discussions you have been a part of about the Bechley page and listen. People have advised you what you should do next. If you figure it out and want to tell me, let me know. I am completely uninterested in arguing with you, and I won't. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated a willingness to change based on specific and applicable advice in the case of MOS:GENDER. I can't do anything with aspersions and vague suggestions.Snoopydaniels (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2018 (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.

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

suspicious user

you did an RfC about the supporters section on Bitcoin Cash. two pretty lonely keep votes are:

• keep These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People in the cryptoverse talking about a specific coin can therefore hardly be seen as "celebrity promotion". REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• keep Promotionalism is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --RGbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)— RGbobwaysf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the second vote's account was likely created just to vote. however, note the suspicious name of the second vote RGbobwaysf, seems quite similar to my name jtbobwaysf (for the record no relation to me). Vote time stamp just 6 minutes later than REDGOLPE's (RG?) first vote. I wonder if the two user's IP address also the same? Thought you might have the tools to lookup the user...

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

yes that is a ridiculously POINTY username. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

I am starting a new discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog Quinn2425 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that will be one way to finally wrap this up. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have some kind of special powers -- you can magically make things appear and disappear on Wikipedia. You win. The public loses. Some big man you are. Arcata168 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way Quinn2425/Arcata168. Mark Worth works against corruption in the real world. Conflict of interest and advocacy editing corrupts Wikipedia; I work carefully on that kind of stuff here, within WP's policies and guidelines. It is unfortunate that you cannot see how Worth and I are kind of aligned in terms of what we do (not so much in how we do it, nor in the arenas where we do it). I am not any kind of "big man".Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Any idea...

...what this might be about? I presume I can just ignore? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

hey User:Bastun. Don't know why they reached out to you but a) they violated their tban (imposed here in a thread i opened; b) they have been reading Wikipediocracy or some other fan site i guess Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hedvig Hricak

Hey Jytdog, I know you keep pretty busy on here, so I just wanted to reach out to you on your talk page in case you hadn't seen my reply on Hricak's talk page. I started working from the November version of the article, and included some of your removals from the infobox, but also found sources for some of the other content that you had initially removed. I think another thing had been overlooked was the removal of her photo from the infobox for no apparent reason, so I added a placeholder for it in my draft. Here's a link to the diff for easy access. Thanks again for all your help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating Research with Current Research

It appears that three sections that I added today were removed despite citing peer-reviewed sources. I am guessing that this occurred because I am the primary author of many of those sources. However, the sections that I added were important clarifications of the literature, and no other authors have conducted this empirical work. Many of the notions that I was seeing on Wikipedia were outdated notions based on prior evidence, and I was adding the most recent evidence. I don't understand how I'm supposed to add a caveat to an outdated notion without citing relevant research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njacobson88 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:MEDRS and please read the notices on your talk page, at User talk:Njacobson88. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand

Why did you restore the original article after removing all the crazy? Natureium (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Some people consider it bad form to do during an AfD and call it "gutting" or "blanking". If I do it to see what is actually left, i self-revert and link to whatever was left in the AfD so people in the discussion can see it. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I did ''''NOT'''' revert your edit, and have started a discussion on the talk page. You're welcome.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About SOP: not all his edits are bad, but not all his edits are good, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

SOP, yep. I knew that. Odd note. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 May 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Augur (software) page vandalism

Hey jytdog, I've seen you've intervened in some of the previous crypto pages like IOTA. I am requesting you to intervene in the page Augur. I've updated the article to reflect that one of the founders has since left the project to join a hedge fund. I've provide a source for it too (https://www.coindesk.com/100-million-pantera-capital-ico-hedge-fund/) and is generally a well known industry event. Some user keeps deleting this update without merit (you can see the history and their reason). I am very sure the founder hasn't come back to work on Augur, although they still contribute occasionally. In my opinion, this is fairly important information, especially since the network isn't even live yet. Do you think I am wrong here? I am also happy to discuss this in the Talk page.

On a related note, the entire article needs to be cleaned up and I've put it on my list of articles to clean up in the future with better flow, information, and references. I'd be glad if I could run that by you in the future. Btcgeek (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I will check over the weekend. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. It seems impossible to update the article with the information (quoted directly from the reference, also verified via another Bloomberg reference in case there was any doubt). I've already warned the user on the user's talk page and on the main article's talk page but to no avail. Would appreciate you taking a more neutral look. Btcgeek (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Vandalism on CROs

Stop your vandalism on CRO articles. This is not spam. These are notable 25 yr old companies. I will report your agenda driven vandalism to administrators.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

see also section is not spam. Are you new to wikipedia.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just leaving a note at your talk page. Would you please respond at User_talk:Ssgajimouli#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

will respond here

I HAVE RESPONDED ENOUGH. PLEASE stop your dictatorship on CROs.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

stop your dictatorship

I am done with you Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No connection

No Connection. I have knowledge on this, I work for TPG capital.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ssgajimouli, working for TPG Capital means you have a conflict of interest, here in Wikipedia, with respect to that company and companies in which it invests. Good grief. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

vandalism and POV

Do you think people will edit articles, only if they have connection. Pls stop writing to me, and pls kindly stop your dictator ship and pov on these articles.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

deliberate act

you are deliberately creating a conflict of interest, when there exist none. I think you have connection with these articles, and you are obstructing creating articles on competitor companies.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

''''''I HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT COMPANY. you tell me what kind of promotional content I HAVE USED IN MY ARTICLE. YOU ARE HERE TO TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON EDITORS POV OR CONTENT OF ARTICLE. I WILL RECREATE THE NOVOTECH-CRO ARTICLE. WHICH IS A 20 YR OLD COMPANY'''''Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

oh my. Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The "thanks" was for providing my amusement this morning. Natureium (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

We have too much forbearance IMO. Just look at the stuff above. I've indeffed Ssgajimouli as a gigantic waste of time and patience. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

I checked the block log hoping you put that as the reason. Natureium (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was more boring, I know, but that's often what WP:NOTHERE means. It's seductively easy to use Twinkle's readymade rationales. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks bish. this person made themselves a tasty little morsel for a hungry dinosaur. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Kush Bottles

I responded to your requests on my talk page. We can keep the thread there on that page if you don’t mind. I just wanted to notify you that there is a response. Thanks! --420CapeTown (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable source Question

Hi Jytdog,

Since you've edited out a lot of my sources in the Lithium (medication) article, to save us both the trouble, I wanted to run a question by you about a potential source that I'm thinking of using. The source is this published article: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017238. The article "summarize[s] some of the assets of lithium beyond its well-known antimanic properties. Some of these are well documented, and several are new, preliminary, but nonetheless highly intriguing and of great potential clinical value. The current status of lithium-related side effects is briefly summarized."

1. This article is a summary of other research so is it acceptable to cite this article for the results that, from context, are clearly "well documented" and are NOT new and/or preliminary? Or would such inclusions just be deleted if this reference is used?
2. Do you know what the current policy is about including a section in Lithium (medication) (or possibly creating a new article) describing ongoing research on Lithium (medication), similar to this Wikipedia article: Research in lithium-ion batteries?

Best wishes.selfworm^Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. So that ref is PMID 28976944. (the quickest way to see if something is a review, or a research paper, or an editorial, is to look in pubmed) Unfortunately, pubmed doesn't classify this - it doesn't have a "publication type" bar at the bottom. (Compare to PMID 24132760 which does).

So, one has to look at it. The author says here what he is up to. So.. the paper is kind of essay, kind of reviewish... but also self-statedly skimming, and also aiming to make an argument.

This is not a source I would use. There are lots of hardcore reviews on lithium.

About your other question -- per WP:MEDMOS it is fine to have a research section, and it should lay out trends in research, not "highlight" specific studies. Please see here for the exact discussion of that.

Research in lithium-ion batteries is awful and is pretty the bottom of the barrel of how Wikipedia presents science. Please don't use that as a model for anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!selfworm^Talk) 20:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

sure - i fixed the link above, sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

note r.e. medical articles

Thank you user:Jytdog. I have posted a longer reply regarding the Monomelic amyotrophy edits on my talk page. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please review my recent MMA changes at your convenience. More notes at MMA gb talk (but at this point NOT on MMA talk). GeeBee60 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox RFC?

You closed a recent RSN discussion saying that an RfC was launched.[2] Where can I find that? I don't see it at WP:RFC/A or Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Archive#February_2018.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It was closed within a day? That's almost as disheartening as discovering that there are editors (verily, admins!) who think Fox passes RS in the first place. Unprintable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn, not closed. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, what do you think about a new RfC with the statement "Fox News is not RS on matters of American politics"? It's a straightforward enough question. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think another RfC will fail unless there is a good package of sources that anybody on any side of the issue would view as reliable, that say show how Fox News fails the RS criteria. If you look at the discussion you will see that. I pulled the RfC because the sources were not standing up.

The place to discuss this is RSN, tho. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe one can be put in place. RSN instead of an RfC, with this question? François Robere (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC at RSN... but, i think, first a discussion focused on sources about Fox News, seeing if there are better ones than were brought at the prior RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

All these acronyms are confusing! I'll see what I can find. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that this isn't the ultimate place for a discussion, but after looking at the archived stuff, it occurred to me that an idea that might be worth developing is whether it fails RS for current events only when it is at odds with other sources covering the same events. It might be easier to get consensus for saying that other sources should be considered more reliable when sources disagree, as opposed to outright calling it an unreliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Seem a good approach. How information sources handle conflicts of interest could be a good entry point. However, evidence should accumulate over the next six months, and December might bring cooler weather and cooler heads (though both are in doubt). Meanwhile, some preliminary discussion of source quality spectrum migh help build consensus. — Neonorange (Phil) — 21:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved here from user page

Hi Jytdog: Wes Conard here from Butterfly Network writing you on the jonathan rothberg update. Apologies for writing to your Talk page, but when I write and publish on my talk page it does not seem to stick. I don't know what the problem is, but I did not see another alternative but contacting you through your help page. I was writing to ask if there's anything I can start revising on the Rothberg draft - would welcome any direction that would be helpful.

Cheers, WesWconard1965 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - Wes I left comments at the draft talk page at User_talk:Wconard1965/sandbox and made a couple of edits to the draft itself; you don't seem to have seen them? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed the Brachytherapy edit request

I went ahead and declined the latest edit request at the Brachytherapy article. All four of the references provided originated from a single doctor's work, meaning no secondary or tertiary sources were to be provided, per MEDRS, so it seemed like a simple open and shut case. I hope this was alright — you needn't reply here if you're okay with my decision. Thanks! .spintendo⋅⋅) 01:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming

Hi to all,

I did edits on a Wikipedia page and my edits/links were removed. I got a message about potentially spamming.

Just wanted to say that I had no intentions of spamming or anything similar. I'll refrain from doing any more edits and/or linking. Not sure if the website I linked to was already blacklisted or marked spam or anything similar, but if it was, I would kindly ask you to remove it from any blacklist or unmark it as spam.

If this is not the appropriate place for me to put this comment (sorry I'm kind of new in editing) please forward it or pass the message to the right person. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.219.153 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please feel free to edit! Please just use high quality sources - our mission is to provide people with knowledge, not so they can buy stuff, but so that they can learn. The way we do that, is by summarizing high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your patience and help on the meditation page, and for all you do on wiki JCJC777 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious note. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming - Continuation

Thanks for the response @Jytdog Not sure how I can post a reply to the 'Message about Spamming' post above, so posting a new one. For sure I intended to post a quality source. The site I posted is a quality source (check it out) but was flagged as spam. I can also see it listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist The site is coinlib.io

Could you please remove it from the spam/blacklist and whitelist it? I'd rather not post again if that results into the site being marked spam/promo etc.

PS: The site I posted is 100% free, I never intended to promote something for people to buy or to shill. But rather to provide another resource for checking crypto prices apart from Coinmarketcap. Just for future reference, Coinlib may be much younger than CMC, but it has more than double the coins (4000+ whereas CMC has 1604 as of today). It's also much more beautiful, cleaner and I believe useful for wikipedia visitors to visit. I guess people are just used to using CMC no matter if much better alternatives exist out there.

Anyways... Just please whitelist/unspam it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.110.162 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please clarify your relationship with CoinLib. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Passing the buck

Could you take a look if this [3] is a good change or not? I don't even know what NCCIH is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NCCIH = National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk

Hi, I got an email for the discussion. Please let me know when we can chat. Perhaps I need your help to add some info to misophonia page.

We can talk any time you like. If you email me back, we can set that up. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Global Media Journal

Hi, this is a predatory journal that is cited by a number of WP articles. It should be added to the edit filters, except that I have no clue on how to do that. Can you do this or would you know who I can contact about this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to fix

Hello Jytdog. Regarding this edit, there really was nothing to fix. I had chosen to sign with 5 tildes as authorized at WP:RFCST. I've left things as they are but did want you to know. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Winner of caption competition on shonen's page

Here modest little crown!

By power vested in 'zilla, crown young Jytdog undisputed victor of caption competition! Here nice crown! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Oh, I can now outdazzle Rihanna in her pope hat!! Thank you fearsome monster who can also be so kind. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Would be pleased to take this attractive piece off your hands, Jytdog, for a attractive investment opportunity that has just arisen. David "Mahogany" Dickinson (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish wanna see! Fish wants linky-link! Fish gives congrats to dogfish! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I played a little, yes. here. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish says good doggie! Enlightening reading indeed. Do keep an eye on that Martinevans trouble-maker! And hat looks very good on you! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable changes

Hi again Jytdog,

I'm a french wikipedian, so I'm not the best person to know your practices on enwiki. There were some strange changes on Idriss Aberkane last month, several changes of three new accounts (one of the accounts is old, but had only made one change on enwiki, almost the same on frwiki) that retyped the article, trying to get rid of negative reviews ([4]). Another french-speaking contributor has already noticed the problem and added criticism again. This attempt at deletion has also been observed on our side.

Can you look at the history of the article and tell me what you think? The french article is in long semi-protection.

Surely nothing very worrying, but I would like english contributors to keep an eye on this article... Thank you in advance, Lofhi (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow that was one bad page. I worked it over. Limited sources in English.. too bad. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

I wasn't trying to get a blanket application of WP:WikiVoice to all medical articles if the consensus had been to attribute those statements; since I realize that is what would probably result from the discussion at WT:NPOV, I've decided to close both discussions at WT:MED and WT:NPOV. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, sorry if I gave you a headache; that wasn't my intent. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being crabby. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Graoully

There is a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graoully, give your evidence of copyvio at the talk page. 2Joules (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Banned?

At [5], you listed a Centaurus Capital IP as banned; was this intentional? I'm not aware of that. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

accident, fixed. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Teicholz recently appeared on Reason TV. Fruits of a PR campaign? Or coincidence? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

She pops up in the media from time to time, doing her thing. One reason i listed the 2017 op-ed by her was to show that she is still at it. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That bibblewarroir you reported on ANI...

...looked a little like Til Eulenspiegel, no? Worth tagging as a sock, do you think? @SpacemanSpiff: @Bishonen: @Favonian: Sorry if I'm missing some telltale sign that this is not Til, or if I'm forgetting to ping someone else who might have a say in the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about that account, I think Doug Weller is the one who has kept track of it. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Most of my experience with Til is with the IPs he's been intermittently using to evade his blocks (although I should clarify that at least some of them were probably random trolls doing joe-jobs on him), and Bish is usually the one who deals with them (and their ranges), from what I understand. I got Favonian's name just now from the SPI archives, and pinged you as well, basically because you were the one who blocked this account. I wasn't sure if you had some particular reason for believing it was not Til; now that I know that wasn't the case ... well, I guess I should apologize for annoying you with a second ping. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not Til. That's not the way he normally behaves or the sort of username he would use. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Makes sense. Sorry for the false alarm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

welcoming new editors

Hi Jytdog, I hope that you are well. I know you do a large amount of work trying to balance welcoming new users with maintaining the quality and non-biased nature of the articles. I am teaching a small course in June for Cochrane interns, and also running a few editathons in the next little while, mostly for medical professionals/researchers and students. I started to create a document that would summarize WP:MEDRS, COI, and intro to editing to help me with this. It is not finished yet (more of a collection of my ideas and taking bits and pieces from MEDHOW, MEDRS, etc., at this point).

I am wondering if you have a few minutes to read what I wrote about COI. I would appreciate your feedback and to see what you think of my wording and approach. I am hoping to have this finished by the end of May. I am also going to re-read your why MEDRS essay, which is excellent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JenOttawa/Introduction_to_Medical_Editing:_Cheat_Sheet#Introduction%3A_Transiting_from_academic_writing_to_Wikipedia

Thank you,

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I tweaked it a bit. You might find WP:EXPERT helpful to read and to incorporate; I also wrote User:Jytdog/How to help new editors get oriented. I find that many people who go awry do so because they don't understand the mission of Wikipedia, or they don't understand the fundamental ways that the community realizes the mission, nor why Wikipedia works that way. A lot of what we do here and how we do it, is not intuitive, especially to experts, and their assumptions (often never examined by them) can cause them and other editors a lot of grief. Both "expert" and "how" try to articulate the mission and how we work here. I spent some time in "how" explaining why Wikipedia works like it does; people are often more persuaded to adapt to policies and guidelines when reasons are given.

So you might find some bits of those helpful. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful! Thank you for taking the time to look over my draft and for filling in a few of my blanks that I had not yet taken the time to finish (MEDRS, etc.). I like your suggestions. I have looked at your "how" doc. It is great. There are quite a few resources floating around for new editors, but I find that most tutorials are not 100% geared to medical editing and/or many people do not learn effectively from click-through modules. Thank you again for all you do around here to keep the medical content reliable! JenOttawa (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you too! Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming - Continuation 2

Hi again Jytdog,

I'm one of the team members if that makes any difference. We did discuss internally about the spam-marking and all agreed that it was not of our intention to spam/hard-promote our site. Also, we agreed to do no more posts of any kind that include our link, to avoid being considered spam.

So if you may, kindly remove our site from the banned/black list. That will allow our users to organically mention our site in the future, if ever.

If you wish, you can contact us at info at coinlib dot io

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.253.130 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. These two edits, here and here were blatant spamming. I looked and found some others. So i nominated the site for the spam blacklist and people there made the decision to blacklist it. I agree with that decision and have no intention of helping spammers. Please do not write here again. Jytdog (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Fink (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bill Fink and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bill Fink, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If anybody is curious, see Draft_talk:Bill_Fink#Note_to_reviewers. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer reviewed Journal

This was not from a press release but from a peered review journal. Look at the cited source. The other claims are completely unfounded.