User talk:Jytdog

Welcome!

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

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

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

December 2014

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [1] Your position is not supported by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated WP:VERIFY and also didn't follow WP:LEAD, as described here. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog. Apologies this got a little overheated. While we may disagree some I think we agree on most things and hope that we can find a compromise on the bits where we disagree. The work you do here is exceedingly important. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Doc James: I'm glad to see that. I've been watching with concern, especially since I have high respect for you both. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

oh so happy! thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psychedelic therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and putative clinical roles. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014 Aug;4(4):156-69. Review. PMID 25083275 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104707/ PMC 4104707/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits, and 3 revert rule notification

Please review the 3 revert rule. You could be blocked for violating the policy. Kindly do not wiki-stalk other editors and do not edit war. Please do not remove footnoted and sourced material. Go about your own contributions to the Wiki encyclopedia but do not disrupt and antagonize others who edit in good faith and have well sourced material. Cheers! MickeyDonald (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on the Talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Soy Juice

Common use of that juice is Milk. But we aren't here for Marketing. Remember the 2 of the 5 pillars : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view & Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Milk by definition comes from mammal. Words were created avoid any confusions. Truth and science >> Marketing. Let's stop lying to the population with invented meaning to sell more stuff.

please discuss on the Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Domestic violence article

Hey, Jytdog. I hope you've enjoyed this year's holiday season. I'm stopping by your talk page because I've been meaning to ask if, similar to how you've helped out with the Reproductive coercion article, you wouldn't mind helping out with the Domestic violence article when you can. It has sourcing issues, WP:SIZE issues (including WP:Class assignments expanding the article), and, like the Reproductive coercion article, it can be controversial because of the domestic violence against men/gender symmetry aspect, which I recently commented on at the article talk page. If you feel that you have too much on your plate to help out with that article, I understand.

On a side note: I currently have your talk page WP:Watchlisted; so there's no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo to see your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from further spurious warnings

One change does not make an edit war. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you revert a deletion of copyvio, who knows what you will do next. Don't add it back, and don't edit war over it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not do what you say I did. You are quick on accusations and short on facts. I put it in as a paraphrase. I intend to do that again (without the typos). Take it to the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I searched for phrases and found direct copy-pasting. If you re-instate the copyvio I will take you to ANI and you will get blocked. it is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If I do that, you go ahead. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put in a paraphrase. WP:3RR. Please discuss at the article talk page if you feel the need. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks, that paraphrase is free of copyvio. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good God, you have a whole history of this

One edit and one revert is an edit war? OK, YOU don't make any more edits then. Good God, you have a whole history of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

you are a new user and barely understand what you are doing. please don't edit war, but instead ask questions about how things work. thanks for adding refs. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for mending the refs, really I am surprised and this is nice of you. I never meant to be rude, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

George Billman

First, I am curious what attracted your attention to "my" article on George Billman. Regardless, I am thankful for the help. In one of your recent edits you removed Schwartz and Stone's names in favor of "Billman's lab". This is inaccurate - he was a post-doc at the time, so it definitely wasn't his lab. The idea was his, which is why his name is first on the paper, but it was Stone's lab. The secondary sources cited attribute the finding to Billman w/o mention of the others, so using just "Billman" would probably be OK. Alternatively, "Billman and colleagues" or similar would work. I'll leave the decision up to you since I have a COI.

As a side note, I will likely add some additional material to add at some point, as I plan to take the article to GA at some point. Would you be interested/willing to review new contributions for neutrality? Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I watch the COIN page - that is how my attention was called to it. I am watching the article so will see any future contributions you make. nice tribute to your dad. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

COIN would have been my first guess. Thanks for your help. On a random note, I was reading your user page and your comments on GMOs. Strange timing because I was discussing it with my mom and said something to the effect that it wasn't much different than selective breeding and my sister got super mad about it and compared it to putting Round Up in the food. Good times. ;) If you haven't seen Farmland yet, you should check it out. It's a pretty interesting look at farming in general, and touches on the GMO issue. The argument that really convinced me was a farmer says something like "before GMOs we had to use way more pesticide" which, you know, actually are harmful if ingested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert. I do not see how it is a primary source for Billman's work. The author (Michael O'Leary) doesn't appear to have any connection to Billman and is citing the work as background for his own paper. This would seem to be exactly the same kind of source the vast majority of the article is based on, but perhaps I missed something... Rechecking, I do see the electrical disturbance wasn't attributed to Billman (my bad on that), but the rest of the findings are. I see another editor has reverted now, so I'll adjust the text accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

i already discussed this on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I asked how you found the source that mentioned Billman by name as I thought you might have better search methods than my randomly looking through many sources. You didn't reply, so I thought you may have missed it. If you don't have any better methods, that's fine - you just seemed to find something easily (I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't spend much time on my pet topic). I very much want to do this "the right way" with the best possible sources, so obviously any tips for finding stuff is welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unwatching. What is happening in that article is very ugly to me. I am unwatching the article. Please do not write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tea

Please stop being impolite. It's really unnecessary and just makes you look bad. I also see nothing from the pages you linked stating that we need to write in "Wikipedia's voice" and that there's something stylistically incorrect about saying where the information comes from (e.g., from the 2014 meta-analysis). Last point-you have changed what the authors (and study) said (and we're not supposed to do that, we are supposed to reflect what the source says). Here's a direct quote of their conclusion: "Tea consumption might not be associated with the risk of fractures. The following large-sample and well-designed studies are required to confirm the existing conclusions." Notice it says "might not". This is not a definitive conclusion yet as the paper stated there were some data suggesting a protective trend that did not reach statistical significance from the studies they examined. If we're going to refer one another to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'll refer you here WP:Etiquette and here WP:Five pillars. Thanks, I hope to see more collaborative efforts from you in the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please do see MEDMOS and MEDRS - we shouldn't litter WP with stuff like "A 2014 review of 15 clinical trials". There are many articles littered with stuff like that. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jytdog!

Happy New Year!

Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

No POVFORK

Is it possible the question is fake? It appears the entire RFC is fake. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I've been going through Category:Conspiracy theorists bios. So far, from the A's, J's, N's & P's, only Michael Collins Piper has a CT as a descriptive in the first line. A fairly representative sample, but I think I will check the others too. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

i replied on the Talk page, with a new subsection. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New English refs on Organic Food

Hello. Thanks for replacing the Danish languaged refs with English languaged sources on the Organic Food page.

However could you please write up the refs in proper coding?

RhinoMind (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

no, i will not. feel free to do that if you feel it is important. the main thing is that readers of english WP can verify the content. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there. I was not expressing my personal views, but pointing out that your work and contribution is only haf-done.

If you care enough for supplying some refs, then why do you not care for presenting them properly? It does not make much sense. If you don't care much for anything, then why engage in the first place? You leave litter for someone else to pick up and that is just old school bad manners.

I am not here out of anger, it might as well be some Bot telling you exactly the same thing. RhinoMind (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

it is not true what you say. reference formatting is not required under policy. some people obsess on it. all that actually matters is that the reference is high quality and usable. i care a LOT about the quality of content and refs - formatting is way at the bottom of my list, and like i said, is not a policy thing. we have freedom to format as we like. again, if it is important to you, you are free to reformat it to fit whatever format pleases you Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You deleted my restoration of an abbreviated synthesis of ibuprofen

I'm curious as to why. I see the reasons you gave, but they don't make sense to me.

1. It is indeed based on a variety of primary sources. That's good, not bad.
2. It's not in violation of WP:HOWTO because it doesn't talk about temperatures, pressures, vessels, reaction times, yields, or other practical specifics of the synthesis. It's very much like the synthesis discussions for asprin and paracetamol and most other drugs in Wikipedia
3. It was probably deleted by mistake (see my change to Doc James' talk page)

I'd like you to consider rolling back your own rollback. Let me know what you think.

Riventree (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Most synthesis are not notable. All chemicals can be synthesis in many different ways. One could say "X can be synthesized by a host of different methods" in all med articles. Patents are not good sources. The rest I have no strong feelings about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not use rollback, I simply reverted and provided an edit note. and this discussion belongs on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Management of depression

this is michaeltai95, I'm curious as to why you deleted my edit in the management of depression on the topic of ECT. The current section does not attempt to evaluate the efficacy of ECT at all, and as a summary text the absence of this is quite a serious flaw. I'm willing to shorten my edit to make it more in line with the "summary" style of wikipedia but the addition of an evaluation on ECT's effectiveness is vital in a section about ECT. Most of the other sections have evaluations of effectiveness but this does not. Michaeltai95 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

that section is taken from the lead of the ECT article, per WP:SUMMARY. I agree that the lead of the ECT article needs to be updated with efficacy information, and then that content needs to be brought to the management of depression of article. We need to work on the ECT article first - you will see that the review you cited is already in the body of the ECT article, along with others. The picture is complicated and the efficacy section in the body needs work, and only after that, the lead can be updated. I intend to do that this evening. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

which I did. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

User:Jytdog, would you please be so kind as to comment on the "Jews" Talk Page, section "Marx". There is currently a debate there whether or not we should include the photo of Karl Marx in the montage there.-Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Maize

Hi Jytdog. Done. I never know when it is too much, lest we end up with sentences with refs on every word. But thanks for the wake-up call. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Have started a SPI here about these users Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josabeth. I am sure there are more we can add to the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up! Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edit

I don't understand why you reverted [my citation to a book here.] Respect for other editors contributions suggests you should tag or communicate with them rather than delete a reliable source. In this case, you query was for a page number. Please point to the policy page which justifies deleting a citation because no page number is provided. I am unaware of such a policy, and note that in my reading of articles, page numbers are rarely given. I would understand a request on the article talk page or mine for a page number, but deleting my contribution is just rude.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you deleted the above comment on your talk page[2]. It's my understanding that is improper behavior, as it may be interpreted as an attempt to hide a growing list of complaints about your editing style. I see from your talk page that many similar complaints have been made. While you are of course free to respond to such complaints, deleting them is not okay, as described in policy regarding ownership (really, non-ownership) of user talk pages.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO:"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. . . . . Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note" in the body of your talk page.— GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:"