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)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. 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 "Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Quinn

They are indeed better quotes from Gene Quinn. But the old ones were OK too and had some substance. No reason to remove them, PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the article Talk page, but it is a question of WEIGHT, right? Should we include the ones I added and the ones you picked, that would give an awful lot of weight to his views, don't you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I will see you at

…the appropriately chosen Adcom, for your failure to engage in this matter as advised by the Admin originally involved, and failing to AGF and engage other editors just as informed and due respect and involvement as you are. Nothing at Wikipedia is irreversible. This was a bad, summarily enacted decision without enough time and editors speaking to it, and with important continuing negative ramifications. Enjoy your day. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response to you at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing found, and no link provided. Matter is going forward, unless you revert, and leave the Foundation article in place until a discussion can be completed. Your heavy-handedness and disrespect for the novice editor involved will be reviewed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I responded on both relevant Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You clearly posted here before the other pages.

The all caps formatting was used to get attention. You may interpret it other than it was intended; it was necessary because I had asked the same thing repeatedly of you before, and yet you steamrolled ahead, regardless. I needed to be sure you were seeing my requests, and ignoring them and acting regardless. You have confirmed seeing them, and so the larger text served its purpose. I will accept any punishment necessary for not knowing there was a rule against such formatting.

I have not misrepresented Sandstein. He made clear that the merger did not need proceed, and that discussion could continue.

You have flexed your editorial muscle, further disrespecting two editors, myself and the novice. If you want this matter to remain civil, and as an editorial matter, with a true aim toward broad consensus, then put the PBC Foundation article back up. It is only you, and at best, a cabal of two, that is insisting it needs come down immediately. (And there are two asking it not.) Put the PBC Fndn article back up, or we deal with this on the basis of your treatment of Jrfw51 and the principles relevant to Wikipedia that are involved, via discussion before administrators. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer post at this page, or at my Talk page regarding this matter. There are too many venues going. If you have anything further to say, say it at the PBC article talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:PBC Foundation. Your opinion and involvement will clearly be key to any restoration of the Foundation as a separate entry. Now what would you propose to do about all the other Health charities Category:Health charities which have separate entries to their disease pages and rely heavily on their own websites? Jrfw51 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I despair at the WP:POINTiness of your remarks about articles about other charities. Wikipedia is wildly imperfect - we all do the best we can, where we can. If you are going to run around WP grinding axes - that every other disease advocacy group articles should be treated just like "yours" was, out of anger or some sense of injustice - you are not going to last long here. On the other hand, if you now have a better grasp of WP:ORG and want to improve the encyclopedia so that more articles on disease advocacy groups meet our policies and guidelines (and there is a remarkable amount of COI/PROMO/ADVOCACY editing when it comes to nonprofits generally), then please, go to work on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your advice. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:. Jrfw51 has been very cordial with you in his/her wind-down of this matter, so let me be blunt and say this one thing, one time. I think you acted monstrously, especially early, in your responses to him/her, as a newer editor, holding religiously to a perfectionist bent—hear this, it is coming from the guy who 99.5% is in your camp, the guy who tags everything and "refimprove section"—a bent that said "this stub does not hold to my citations standards, it has to go." Never mind that you were wrong to apply MEDREF standards to an article about a charitable org, initially, which coloured your interactions with the novice editor, early on. Nvm that you misconstrued that s/he was an advocacy editor, associated with the article, leading to a similar initial negative bias from you. Nvm that she (and later I) tried working with you to show you sufficient org articles were available to stop the merger—asking only that the article be allowed to progress for a few days, to see if, with the citations in, a fair comparison could be done to other char org articles. No, the massive two editor majority in the deletion-becomes-merger discussion had to be adhered to. You had fixed in mind it had to go, so it had to. And so instead of making the charitable, decent decision to let the merger matter ride, you acted on the amazing majority-of-two mandate over our objections—because technically you could. Forget right or wrong, "allowed" was all you needed. Well congrats, you were successful in getting the stub deleted, while at the same time contributing to one of Wikipedia's more shameful personal moments, in my direct experience. The stub is gone, but it is, even so, less diminished from this than you are. It has been hard since seeing you do the merge, unnecessarily, over our request to hold, to see that choice as anything other than a deep character flaw, as true colors showing through. And regardless of it being an instant or a pattern, it will be very hard to muster respect for your ongoing efforts when this "win at all costs" attitude has been shown to be even a possible part of your makeup. I say this, frankly, but also with some insight. Because I wrestle with the same, and the only thing sadder than seeing it outside of me, is seeing it inside. I was once compared to—and now compare your choices in that debate—as acting like a terrier going after prey. The advice I heard that changed me—yes, be so, but do it for the little guy, not for your own ego. Admit you are wrong, unsink the teeth, and let the rat go every once and a while. (If you have ever watched what such a terrier becomes in the midst of his work, perhaps you understand what it is a fearsome comparison.) More importantly, fight for the little guy. Bottom line, the battle was won, but I propose an important war was lost, in your not giving an inch, not extending grace to the the little guy here, which was the novice editor on the other side of the debate. Well, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. If you ever want a tough, pro-sourcing collaborator in a science article, you can count on me. But know, for sure, in the end, it is the people, and the grace that you muster from within you, that counts. Last word from me on this. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Five points in response:

First, thanks for talking. I do hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Le Prof you really came at this in a strange way.

Second, I didn't apply MEDRS to that article.

Third, your actions were out of line with WP:CONSENSUS, the bedrock policy of this place, in two ways. The first is that they disrespected the decision of the AFD, the second and more important way is that they were out of line with the process to object to deletions - that process was established by the consensus of the community. It is a good thing for you, that you didn't follow through with your proposed ANI, as it would have led to a boomerang.

Fourth, with regard to Jrfw51's advocacy in Wikipedia on behalf of the patient advocacy groups -- I am sorry that you cannot see that. Advocacy (of which COI is a subset) is in my view the biggest problem Wikipedia has. People often come here because they are passionate about something; that passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute, but it also often (not always) leads to advocacy editing that warps content in all kinds of ways (most often, UNDUE, which makes sense when you think about it - The Very Important Issue ("TVII") is very important so deserves a lot of space and emphasis, in their view) and can lead editors to treat other editors like shit, because whatever TVII is, it is often more important to the advocacy editor, than all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or any other person here. Thank goodness Jrfw51 kept his/her head during the deletion dispute and has always remained civil. But the deleted article was clearly the product of advocacy (it didn't meet NOTABILITY - as an article it was "UNDUE"); some of their editing on that topic since then, has also been advocacy-driven. Many of their edits are great.

Fifth, throughout those events, I was very concerned for Jrfw51 and I wrote to him and with him in mind, and followed up with him to explain. Working with new editors and respecting them as people, doesn't mean blessing every thing they do; it does mean talking with them and explaining why things are happening in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - it does not mean behaving in ways that blow off consensus and shouting.

Summarizing all this - your framing this as me going for a "win" or as about "protecting the little guy" is the wrong framework. The PBCF article was created by someone passionate about that subject; an AfD determined that PBCF doesn't meet the criteria of the NOTABILITY policy at this time and the article should be merged/redirected; I implemented that. He was unhappy with the AfD outcome; you were very unhappy with it and some drama ensued; I dealt with you and him as compassionately as I could. This was all very normal stuff in this huge and strange world of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Message received, same in response vis-a-vis willingness to Talk (prior judgments already softening), but on the core issues we must agree to disagree. While I concede that the WP process aspects have always been formally on your side, I stand by the fact that your strong a priori feelings regarding COI and referencing (both of which I share) set you off in the direction of an outcome (win) that never had more than a two editor excess in your corner, which reduced to one as soon as I arrived (granted, after the merger discussion had ended). So, however much you are correct vis-a-vis the propriety of the process was followed, all this is legalism—I stand by the conclusion that important aspects of the spirit of wikipedia rules (and the more general spirit of principles that should govern peaceable human interactions) were not followed. I would add that I believe that this is one reason—alongside not wanting the hassle of entering into a conflict—that Doc, et al., said they could see both sides, and stayed out. Bottom line, myriads of more poorly sourced articles on less notable subjects persist, and those wanting encyclopedic information (here, on a clearly important UK medical charity), and only focused disease information in disease articles have had a troubling precedent set. Mostly, though, the point of writing was to say, no question, you had Jrfw51 on the letter of the law. But that what was lost was far more than what was won. And no, sorry, a thousand times no—there is no aspect of life, anywhere, anytime, where "'protecting the little guy' is the wrong framework." The adage "whatsoever we do, to the least…" is a benchmark, not just a quaint aphorism or dated sentiment—rather it is a hard-edged standard applicable to all aspects of life: personal, professional, and in public service (last applying here). The late Prof Lewis of Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and one-time Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge, suggested in a children's book that we would ultimately see revisited, "tear for tear, throb for throb, blood for blood" all that we had done to these least (The Horse and His Boy, p. 228, HarperCollins, 2005 [1954]). Odd those this might seem and sound, I am more of that mind than the opposite, which stovepipes what might be considered suitable behaviour in each context, following rule rather than spirit. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this I must comment although I have tried to move on from personal attacks and to comment on the edits rather than a perception of personality. I am not an advocate for the PBC Foundation although of course I felt ownership of an article I had created. My first involvement with the Primary biliary cirrhosis Name change initiative was here [1] to correct over-zealous "advocacy" editing by perhaps a true IP advocate. When I created the PBC Foundation page, I made the mistake in following the format of other patient support groups with lots from their website for references. Now in my off-WP work I was somewhat aware of the forth-coming changes, and I suppose this then became a COI although this has never been a very important issue to me. It is difficult to reconcile an expertise with a COI for neutral editing -- as you recognise. So I will wait until good sources meeting appropriate standards are available. I was inexperienced in WP disputes (not having come across this in my 400 edits -- maybe a week's work for you) but I have learnt a lot about good and bad manners in WP. It is too easy to snap and not assume good faith. I suspect we are all too old to accept we can lose arguments or change our ways but we need to see why other editors see their edits as important. Now I have wasted enough time on this and will move on. Let's hope we can work together in future to add what we see as important to the encyclopedia. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not the subject. Le Prof was telling me that i did badly, and I am telling him that he is wrong, and he actually did badly. You are just part of the substrate of that discussion. But thanks for clarifying your position: I meant it when I praised you for keeping your head through all that! Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened

You 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/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

PBC and advocacy

Starting a new section to move on from previous discussions.

As you know I have tried again to describe in Primary biliary cirrhosis the Name change initiative and its result. You reverted several of my changes on the grounds of WP:NOTADVOCACY and also WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. I am trying to document the process behind this change in name (now accepted) as we had in the PBC article before merging. I thought the change you reverted here [2] was not advocacy as it was a summary of the process described by the AASLD in ref 7.[3] Before I revert/revise this again, I would be grateful if you could read that source again and discuss or preferably edit the entry to what are considered WP standards. I would not consider the professional AASLD society an advocacy organization. I am also aware of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PRIMARY. Jrfw51 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ask you some other questions first. Why is the detail about the process important for the encyclopedia? Why will this detail matter in 10 years? Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Readers will find references to "primary biliary cirrhosis" in the old literature and not understand why it is now called "primary biliary cholangitis". How did the that name change come about? Compare (as I know is irrelevant to much of WP) "Campylobacter pyloridis" becoming "Helicobacter pylori", or "Serum hepatitis" being dropped in favor of "Hepatitis B". The effect of "patient advocacy" is possibly notable too, now the name change has professional acceptance. I cannot immediately think of any other disorder where patients have advocated and achieved this. (Careful here not to do original research!) I consider the history of disease and scientific changes to be important to WP as well as a description of current thinking (hence my previous edit here of AMA discovery). Next question? Jrfw51 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The existing content already makes it clear that the proposed name change is coming from patient advocacy. The sentence you asked about adding back is "A global survey was conducted of PBC patients and healthcare providers, with the results overwhelmingly in favor of "primary biliary cholangitis" (as this preserved the PBC initials). ". (for which you provided no source) (and the source you provided above describes much more ....homely than the grand process you described - they used email chains and Facebook for pete's sake). In any case, the question I asked you is why the sausage-making described in that sentence matters. The existing content already makes it clear that the patients advocated for the name change, so your answer doesn't really speak to the question about why the details of the sausagemaking matters. Why does it matter? Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The point needs to be made why patients wanted the change (most do not have cirrhosis and want to avoid the negative connotations) and that surveys of patients and healthcare providers were conducted. The PBC Foundation press release gives a patient perspective on this but we probably should not use. The AASLD reference should have covered that. There was much more in my July 8 edit. Patients see this as important -- see the April 8 change [4], the June 9 change with my subsequent edits. [5] I am trying to balance these views. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not answering why the sausage-making matters from a WP perspective - you don't seem to even see the question. So...it is clear by now that you are here to get content into Wikipedia that promotes the agenda of these advocacy groups. That is not OK. I am sorry you are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian. If you figure out what I even mean by that, I will be happy to work with you. But I have given you a bunch of my time already and I am not one to keep banging my head against the wall. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth remembering that wikipedia isn't written for patients but for the general public. What patient/advocacy groups say isn't going to decide what wikipedia says, though their interests may be taken into account. Our policies generally encourage an entirely mainstream view which advocacy groups sometimes cannot understand. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error

I was a bit sloppy when I added the zeros and did 3 too few. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it and fixing it up! Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tropinone

You have deleted valid content nothing to do with a sock puppet, please fix V8rik (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

this reverted content by an IP that is definitely a sock of Nuklear. this removed content added by Nuklear as Nuklear and serves as a magnet for him to come back and fuss with. If you want to revert either you are free to, but then you own it. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored content. This content can be attributed to credible users. V8rik (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Richmond Pharmacology

Let me know if you think it needs protection. Deb (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb, since they have come back a second time, that would be great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it! Deb (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes things got a bit hairy today. thanks for being willing! Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Please discuss the proposed edits per WP:BRD.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glyphosate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Obstetrics and Midwifery

Hey Jytdog, I just wanted to thank you for doing all that work splitting Obstetrics and Midwifery, and for doing it so quickly. That was one of the messiest RMs I've ever closed, and I go back a while. I think the 'pedia's in a much better place thanks to your efforts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for closing that messy RM! Sorry for the big gap from when I started to when I finished.. got called into a meeting. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Si mi amigos pero (that is a hint and most likely not spelled right or perhaps not even the right words...) is not something missing from the OB article? :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear

Am looking at more mechanisms to address [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Your additional comments are very useful. They can take them into account. Some but perhaps not all of the things you mention Atsme has owned up to elsewhere on the page. I'm just stopping by to let you know that there's nothing personal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

K, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

About changes to "major depressive diorder" page

Hello Jytdog

I have made an addition to the "major depressive disorder" page which was not accepted. I wonder why. Not mentioning sleep deprivation and phase advance as treatment options for depression is an unfortuate omission which betrays a serious lack of knowledge. There is an increasing awareness among researchers that sleep abnormalities play a central, some say causative, role in the emergence of depression and that knowledge should be mirrored in the page in question (which otherwise seems good). Sleep deprivation is the only known method that can lead to immediate remission of depression with a single treatment! Not even intravenous ketamine/amphetamine or ECT can do that. True enough, the method has some drawbacks, like its difficulty of administration and relative obscurity, but it should still be mentioned. Further, the references I have added to the text are all respectable and upp to date.

It is true that I am not well versed in the advanced editing functions of Wikipedia. If I have done some procedural error (which I am sure I have) please let me know how I can correct it. I am already learning how to "talk" with other contributors on Wiki! The text I tried to enter in the page comes mostly from another wikipedia page with some additions of mine to make it fit in in the new context (is that allowable? I dont now). In any case, I attact the text below again. If you don't find it to much of a burden you may uppload it yourself according to all the rules of the book. The science in it is hard as a rock!

Best regards

Sleep deprivation and phase advance

Studies show that sleep restriction has some potential in the treatment of depression. Those who suffer from depression tend to have a differing sleep architecture than healthy subjects. For example, they have earlier occurrences of REM sleep (with an increased number of rapid eye movements) and a circadian shift of their sleeping cycle. Therefore, monitoring patients' EEG and awakening them during specific periods of their sleep cycle – usually during REM occurrence or during the second half of the night - appears to have a therapeutic effect, alleviating depressive symptoms (see cited references for protocols). As many as 60% of patients, when sleep-deprived, show immediate recovery, although most relapse the following night. The effect has been shown to be linked to increases in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). It has been shown that chronotype is related to the effect of sleep deprivation on mood in normal people: those with morningness preference become more depressed following sleep deprivation while those with eveningness preference show an improvement in mood. A comprehensive evaluation of the human metabolome in sleep deprivation in 2014 found that 27 metabolites are increased after 24 waking hours and suggested serotonin, tryptophan, and taurine may contribute to the antidepressive effect.

The incidence of relapse can be decreased by combining sleep deprivation with medication and/or "phase advance". Many tricyclic antidepressants suppress REM sleep, providing additional evidence for a link between mood and sleep. Similarly, tranylcypromine has been shown to completely suppress REM sleep at adequate doses. Phase advance is the procedure whereby a person goes to bed and wakes up substantially earlier than he usually does, for example at 20:000/04:00 instead of at 24:00/08:00. This procedure has a well-documented antidepressive effect.

References

Thanks for talking! But this content is being discussed on the talk page of that article - see Talk:Major depressive disorder - and that is where this belongs. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme's page

Jytdog, I agree with Serialjoepsycho above that you've made some useful comments on Atsme's page, but please stop posting now. You realize that a blocked user is confined to their talkpage, and therefore you have to be extra careful of poking or the appearance thereof. If you want to have a flame war an argument with GregJackP, do it somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

I did a last response to atsme - my first time addressing her, and now i am done. understood, thanks. i have zero desire to have a flame war with anybody. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

and just removed it. better to follow your advice. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template: POV

Jytdog, Template:POV lists three reasons for removal of a tag and none of those have been met. While lack of discussion for a lengthy period of time is a valid reason for removal, it has been just a matter of a few days since the last post on the talk page. To that end, would you consider contributing something to those discussions on the talk page? I think it's a good a good idea to get as many editors to help come up with solutions as possible, and I welcome you to join in. LesVegas (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

you are all alone in wanting to keep that tag. not a good place to be. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. If you participated on the talk page you would've noticed the tag is supported by five editors, including myself. LesVegas (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I did read, and while I do see other folks discussing sources who share your concerns, I saw no support for the tag. Now that I posted, I see that another pro-acu editor has come out in clear support. I certainly won't continue the edit war. I don't mind the tag being on the article, actually. It is going to a mess as long as editors like you insist on pushing for content beyond what is accepted in the mainstream. Part of why the reality-based editors hold such a strong line is that there is no assurance from editors like you, that you would restrain yourselves if they relaxed. You all need to define a DMZ around what is truly mainstream use and agree to keep people on all sides from expanding or contracting it without very strong consensus. I'll try proposing that on the talk page (again) but I doubt it will go very far. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great joke JD, but seriously, do you really expect Les and other editors of that ilk to behave that way? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

you never know until you try. nixon went to china. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...and Mao said, "I spy a sucker" and undermined the world with communist alt med </end sarcastic rant> -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

i left the door wide open for you to stick that in, didn't i. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

indeed. I rubbed my paws together and licked my chops before typing that. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My content was removed for being "lawyer spam"

--Patzivota22 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC){

Hello Jytdog. I would like some clarification as to why a paragraph I added to the Glyphosate page was removed for being "lawyer spam" (your revision is here). I added it about two months ago. The content, yes, does involve a legal situation, but it is neutral and sourced. So, I ask: what is the issue here?

Anyways, I do appreciate your time and you seem to be a very active editor on Wikipedia, which I highly respect! Keep up the hard work! Thanks.

Patzivota22 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Patzivota22:If the lawsuit is notable, then there will be independent, reliable, uninvolved parties talking about it. The removed stuff was sourced only to the class-action lawyers' website (aka lawyerspam). Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. My apologies. This stuff is still new to me. I will try to locate some independent, reliable parties for the lawsuit. Thanks for the information, Brianhe. Patzivota22 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Patzivota22 Some additional notes. You should also know that the lawyers who filed the suit have themselves been trying to get publicity for it by adding spammy content about it, to Wikipedia, which was noted at our COI board here. Please also note that we generally do not discuss lawsuits that were just filed or even the blow-by-blow - just the outcome. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. While you are on that page, which is policy, by the way, please also see WP:SOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, you're quite right about that. There is altogether too much law firm spam being injected. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm! Interesting. If you find cases of clear COI editing by attorneys please let me know and I would be happy to address it with them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytog Thanks for the info. I feel like a complete idiot for adding that content. I thought it was acceptable, but I was wrong. I'll work on improving! Patzivota22 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being so gracious! There is a learning curve here - please feel free to ping if you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

difficult prose in judith butler

hi, you reverted my edit on the judith butler website. i don't agree with you. writing on wikipedia is always a matter of interpreting the sources at hand. one source is a random 'bad writing contest'. i don't know how this singular instance translates to 'she is well known for ...'. in the second source, however, the interviewer exactly wants to demonstrate the accessabiltiy of her writing. here, even more, i don't know how this translates to 'she is well known for ...' i'm going to raise this issue on the jb discussion page. --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with NOTME NEVERME, and have removed the phrase again. Jytdog, you wouldn't revert a new contributor just because they don't know the policies, the guidelines, the alphabet soup to point to, would you? Bishonen | talk 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

No, I wouldn't. Please see the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A new essay

Hi I have tried my hand at writing an essay. While we dont always agree on subjects, you do have a good knowledge of WP and base what you post on logic. If you have a spare moment take a look and let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlbinoFerret/The_rules_apply_to_everyone .AlbinoFerret 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it!!! nice job. (i have quibbles of course - "rules" is a bit unwikipedian but I get the rheotorical point you are making) btw WP:NOTABOVE is available as a shortcut if you want it (as in "no one is above is the law") Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, It took a little bit, and I am not through polishing it quite yet. But I think its ready for more then my eyes. I like the redirect. I just created it. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good addition!

This! --ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

that is a good source! Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The TM in Roxy the dog

You did that quite coldly and deliberately, and I am now wracking my brains trying to remember. Jarlsberg cheese comes to mind, from july last year, but my usual edsum doesn't give pag. I'll sleep on it. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

roxy what are you upset about? i love the TM in your name. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

not really upset, but saw JD started discussion about subject. Made me think when I was about to sleep. Hmmmmph. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry sleepy dog. may you catch many rabbits in your sleep. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Phantom Limb Research

The material I added is based on recent research done by Tamar Makin (Oxford). She one of the leading experts on Phantom Limb phenomenon. I cited the complete research article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24220510

Perhaps you would be so kind as to restore the material you deleted so that we can avoid an editing contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorel (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

just because something has published in biomedical journal doesn't make it a WP:MEDRS source - but we should discuss on the article Talk page - happy to respond there at more length. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

So jytog just want to say no hard feelings i thought you were getting overly personal but if you can get two editors to agree with you then maybe it's me the page is yours. if you know you're trade you can find info to update the irom sharmila chanu page i don't think i can contribute to it in a way that anyone here finds helpful and I have things to do. Take care now 78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

it is not personal - you are welcome to contribute to the Talk page, please just don't write stuff there that is your opinion about the situation or bringing sources that we cannot use. The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. That is its only purpose. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Then can I say that you are mistaken about verifiability. E-pao you claim does not have it. But my understanding is according to Wiki it's not about truth. E-pao is unreliable often untruthful but it fulfills wiki's verifiiability conditions. Also when you complained to have the page locked the response was that it did contribute to discussion. I don't like discussing things here because you can be oversensitive and keep threatening to block me. But if you are serious. What criteria make you think that E-pao lacks verifiability. I agree it's not truthful that's because of intimidation and bribery. The other thing which was odd even though the chappie disagrees with your opinion on my contribution because he accepts I did use references they are still deleted and he said he would back you even though he didn't think you were right. This is a gentlemen's club and you have blackballing privileges because you put the time in and i am never going to put the time in. But in terms of Sharmila nothing is coming out now looks like the place is getting set for PR. But it's my opinion origional reasearch and I am just saying is all. So ignore that last. But about verifiability what are your criteria you don't state them. You just point to a wiki page which has loads of different criteria but you don't cite which ones you feel epao lacks in this case that is. If you are still reading just because a blog page exists for a few years does that give it whatever wiki claims is brownie points. Anyone can set up a blog. How do you choose external links. I would have put Sharmila's actual physical address up. Giving a blog address merely aids the cover up. But what are the criteria for picking blog links. Bearing in mind very few people read these pages. But it's important to you and she aint dead yet. If she dies no I don't care what you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.55.197 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I am assuming you aren't incompetent this is the first report I have seen for one of the two trials in Imphal at the Uripok Cheirap Court day four of prosecution evidence http://imphaltimes.com/news/item/3443-sharmila-produced-before-court again the report is not accurate but it is verifiably published. And you claimed you wanted verifiable references. If this irritates you here please politely say so stop threatening to block me. I know it irritates you on the irom sharmila talk page but you have never made it clear why other than quoting a page of wiki jargon and not specficying what your objection is. If you want to play nice then explain what the problem is rather than just going on about how busy you are. I was quite excited it's the first paper to publish her name in Imphal for months. I know you're not interested in that bit. So ignore that bit.78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is very clear that you are passionate about Sharmilla. That is great but it just has no place here - this is not a place for advocacy for anything per WP:NOTADVOCACY which you haven't read or taken on board. Please actually read that. Thanks.

The link you cite has no encyclopedic information in it. It is just a brief news piece. WP is not a newspaper - it is not a blog. We don't "report" the latest and blow-by-blow events of things. Please stop abusing Wikipedia. I am sorry for what you and she are going through. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You get I am passionate about Sharmila and you are passoinate about this wiki page. She isn't here and there's no point in getting between a man and the object of his passion. You never answered teh question on verifiability by the way. You just brought in a different objection. My assumption is if resolve one problem you just make up another. Passion is like that enjoy78.17.55.197 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What you have been doing is wrong in WIkipedia in many ways. That source could have been OK (sorry for not saying that), but what it says is nothing to add to the encyclopedia (which is what I did say) Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion in which you are involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is being subject to a formal editing restriction logged on the list of community imposed sanctions with the usual administrative repercussions for any violations what you meant when you said that you would not interact with them going forward? That seems to me a rather large step beyond what you were offering, and certainly not supported by any reasonable level of uninvolved/impartial consensus in that discussion. --92.25.5.76 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm. maybe. i am not a drama monger so don't really care. i don't intend to interact with corporateM anymore. but please tell me, is there some reason why I should care? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Serotonin

The part that we are in disagreement about being in the edit is extremely important to innate immunity. The types of cells that you get the most serotonin production from are nasty and create very nasty biotoxins. The serotonin causes mobility and so your body rids them as fast as possible. There are serious implication to absorbing the biotoxins instead of eliminating them, as when one has low serotonin production and has constipation issues instead of getting diarrhea. It is the microbial metabolites that are signaling the EC cells to produce the serotonin.

I started researching serotonin because of an article, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013346, Platelet Serotonin Level Predicts Survival in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

I was trying to figure out the best microbials for probiotics to increase serotonin production and when I found the microbes that produced the most serotonin are responsible for making biotoxins like botulism, and other very nasty poisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I'd be happy to discuss this, but we can do it on the article talk page? If you just copy what you wrote there, i'll reply there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to get it onto the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia has a Talk page that you get to, by clicking the "Talk" tab in the upper left hand corner. The direct link is Talk:Serotonin. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Intestinal epithelium certainly needs some work which I will get to. Thanks for alerting me. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

glad it is of interest! thanks for digging into that. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mobile phone edits

Jytdog,

For the last day or two I have been away from a real computer and have made a few edits from a mobile phone, at least one of them while accidentally not logged in. When I last switched on my mobile, about eight hours before writing this, I immediately read a message signed by you, containing words like "are you editing from a mobile phone, or something?" But before I could check what page I was reading and whether it was addressed to me, I clicked on something and lost the page.

If the words were in fact addressed to me, I hope you will tell me where they are or what they were about, so that I can apologise or make good the damage. If they weren't, I guess it just demonstrates my incompetence with mobiles anyway, and you should ignore this message. Maproom (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall! - I just looked through our interactions and didn't find that. hm! Thanks for writing here in any case - our interactions have all been interesting and good from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

edit warring?

Your amateurish attempt to scare me is actually a violation of WP guidelines. You can't just drop a severe threat of edit warring like that with thenecessary precautions. Sakimonk ^talk 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you see talk page warnings as a threat - a severe one, even. They are there to be used as a warning - it is what they are for. Time to start talking! I already opened a discussion at the article Talk page and look forward to seeing you there. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with your points but you don't need to bloody say you're threatening to block me after I reverted one time. You should open a discussion and leave a polite notice on my talk page then if I start reverting you call it edit warring. Sakimonk ^talk 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

again I am sorry you found it scary. generally if an editor re-reverts instead of opening a discussion per WP:BRD, i provide that warning about the importance of talking. i don't have to go to the edit warring board very often, which is happy. but again, sorry you found it scary. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lying and cheating

I think this thread says it all. This arrogant cheater was caught lying a long time ago. This guy has no place on Wikipedia. The Dissident Aggressor 13:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

as I wrote there i would not oppose a move to indef him and think that move would have a good chance of succeeding. Thanks for your efforts to preserve the integrity of WP. I do think that you have been too harsh - I only say that for two reasons. first, issues of paid editing are controversial. There is a significant minority in WP that thinks it is OK. Treating suspected paid editors harshly undermines the overall effort to create consensus around the issue and could one day getting you in trouble. (especially with your username!) The second reason, is that I am sensitive to hounding, because I am and have been hounded by people who are convinced I am a shill and it is... ugly. They really believe that about me; like you really believed that Wintertanager was a paid editor. You happened to be right.... but in my view that doesn't make treating people badly OK. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Anyway, thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a very thoughtful and nuanced approach to editing here. You'd make a hell of an admin. The Dissident Aggressor 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that is nice of you to say, thanks! and really, thanks for staying after WT - follow up is so important on this COI stuff. so thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

[7] Explanation please? P.S. Please see WP:SORTKEY bullet point #7. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that appeared to be a test edit. My apologies, will unrevert. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thank you very much for implementing the archiving bot to my talkpage! Sakimonk talk 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you're welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ENSSER

I've been thinking about the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, a group which I believe you are familiar with (they defended Seralini after his FCT paper was retracted). Do you think this organization is notable enough for its own article? Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

yes i am familiar with them. it's a FRINGE advocacy group; it will be hard to make a decent article.Jytdog (talk)

Honor Society

Why do you keep removing critical information from the NSLS wiki page? There is not nearly enough info on this company right now and you should be adding stuff to the page right? What do you think the page needs then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die death1 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. That is what it is for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I saw your mea culpa at ANEW. Just be careful here. Brianhe (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Removal

Sorry about that-- yes, it was an accident! Will that stay on the page forever, or is there a time when it gets removed? I have edited things and made the page a bit more concise since the comment, though I'm afraid to submit it for review again while that comment is still there, no? Thanks again for your guidance! WriterFly (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

once the article is accepted, all that cruft about the AfC process goes away. But as long as it is a draft, it stays. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Archana Gupta Updating the name of the profile. wrong spelled

why the heck now the name is changed again?? already provided a valid verified reference for it Archana Gupta there was no spelling mistake in the name. And why you still considering all the references which doesn't even exist now. the refrence provided is the recent from a verified source from 2015. please visit all the refrences in the page most of them don't exist and are very old. Hence asking you to consider this update to the name rather than considering it as wrong spelled Rajeevsao (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

use the article talk page - if you read it you will see there is already a discussion there waiting for your response. and i fixed all the references the last time you came around. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I hope you are doing fine. I have one question: How can I get access to HighBeam Research? There are a lot of coverage I could use from there, but it is restricted for me since I need login information. Thanks you and cheers! --BiH (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - see Wikipedia:HighBeam. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page about your COI disclosure, and please reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

3d printing

Hi Jytdog, I like the no nonsense clean up but I wonder if the 16um minimum thickness could or should stay here by being re-worded without the promotional element given that it is cited and also relevant in that particular context. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that - feel free. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious / disruptive editing

Jytdog, i would like to get along and work with you in a creative tension, yet by my reckoning, i see you engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing practices. The most recent example is your revert of my addition of Monsanto legal cases in the article about Monsanto legal cases, in which you allege that i am edit warring. I don't see how that can even be an accusation there. I find you to have shown a pattern of accusations against me, as well as often unwillingness to engage in very real and genuine dialogue when it really comes down to it in disputes, and it's become a serious hindrance to my ability to do good work on Wikipedia. You've also accused me of bad character and motivations in editing, often, as in this most recent example. I am your colleague and co-editor on Wikipedia, and i wish we could work out differences in dialogue, and to compromise when we must. You think a case should not be mentioned on a page about Monsanto legal cases, and i think it should be mentioned. We have different reckonings. Let's try to express our reasons in calm and direct dialogue. Let's not try to block things using excuses or lawyering bureacratic types of moves. Let's be direct and confront our differences of opinion as adults. We can agree to disagree, but i would like to be feel that i am participating in dialogue with you as an equal, unlike how i often to feel, which is that you are swinging weight as if you're my superior here, as if you're the expert and your word goes, and as if your interpretation of guidelines and policies is the final word. A bit too heavy-handed. It's a reckoning, but i now have months of experience interacting with you, and i find it quite disruptive. I realize that i see the world through my perspective, but even after long consideration of my interactions with you, i still find your behavior too often intractable and not collaborative. I write this message in hopes of still finding a better way to work with you, though at some point i'll need to request dispute resolution or some other remedy to the atmosphere of difficulty of collaboration that i feel as a result of your behaviors. I'd like to get on with doing good work here, but if every edit i make on any page you watch is going to be reverted and then subject of a long and winding discussion that never really focuses or discerns and acknowledges issues clearly, and in good faith, then it's not going to work out. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and I respect them. I will see you on the article Talk page. I advised you here what you should do to make your edits stick. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

edits

hi Jytdog, I do appreciate your concern, but what you wrote on my talk page was not really necessary, as Jeffro77 and I DID actually come to collaboration, and I came to agree with his last edits on this. The "edit warring" DID stop. I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits. It's ok. Also, your removing the wording in the lede was unwarranted as it was the "stable version". That was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. So I'm restoring. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) But you should not be saying the things you said on my page. I did not break "3RR" and frankly, you're a bit out of line and over-reacting. Jeffor77 and I did come to working and final collaboration on this, if you carefully analyze all of the edit history and comments etc. Regards. `Gabby Merger (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Work it out on the article talk page. please. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the wording that you removed from the lede was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. Even Jeffro77 accepted and had no problem with the lede and wording there. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

don't do that. discuss on the article talk page. You are about an inch from getting blocked for edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What's this "inch away from getting blocked" that you keep saying, as if I violated 3RR or have been horribly "edit-warring"?? I don't appreciate that. Your removing the wording from the lede was unwarranted, and the wording in the lede was NOT even a matter of dispute by Jeffro77 or anyone. That WAS the "stable" lede for a long time. Stop threatening me. YOU are violating Wikipedia policy in assuming BAD faith. And your lack of civility. WP:Civil you're not keeping and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for. Jeffro and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to butt in and chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? Gabby Merger (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring harms Wikipedia. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For now, and for a while, seeing how things go on here, and what is said and discussed, etc, I won't be dealing with that transliteration matter on this article. Just maybe with general edits, that were never in disagreement, and other things, etc. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Do you think this journal is a reliable source, given that it has been criticized for having "apparent bias in favor of industries that are subject to governmental health and environmental regulations"? [8] Everymorning (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That letter is dated 2002 - 13 years ago. I really struggle with the kinds of arguments that are made in that letter about "ties" to industry. Surely you have heard all the fuss about Michael Taylor's roles at the FDA and his "ties" to Monsanto? Well here is what the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who organized and sent that 2002 letter) had to say about Taylor in this open letter that they published in 2012.

In any case, we can't address reliability of a source without the content it is meant to support, and the specific article with its authors. But no, I wouldn't chuck an article just because it is published in that journal on account of that 13-year old letter. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific reason I am asking you is because I noticed a paper in this journal cited more than a dozen times on the aspartame article, where I believe you and I interacted once years ago. The reason I know about this journal is that in editing lots of tobacco-related pages here, I found that it has published a number of industry-funded papers arguing that secondhand smoke isn't harmful. Also, the journal's editor is tobacco industry consultant Gio Batta Gori. There is also some more criticism of the journal here.Everymorning (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The strongest argument to not use this journal is that per this it is not indexed by pubmed or medline. Its impact factor and rank are not great either. And the advocacy for big tobacco by the editor is also not a good thing - that is more than just a "tie". We always want to use the highest quality sources we can. I'll have a look at sourcing in the aspartame article. But really, I decry the sloppy "ties" thing, especially with regard to toxicology, on a bunch of levels. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The journal is MEDLINE indexed, btw. Sounds like it probably is not reliable for surprising text (i.e. passive smoking is not harmful), though probably is OK for uncontroversial material. Yobol (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Yobol! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)