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)

NNDB

Regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Template:NNDB, I don't know if you have seen that this was discussed previously. See 1) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name, 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name, and 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29#Template:Nndb name. Cheers! - Location (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oy, I didn't. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Jytdog, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for your edit to AIG, so please accept this belated gratitude. After some time away from Wikipedia, I actually just started working with Memorial Sloan Kettering to improve their page, and saw you'd made some positive changes, especially regarding the whole COI debacle. My first priority with them is to clean that up (as I think only two of the COI editors actually still work at MSK), but following that, I think further improvements can be made in terms of content and structure. If you've got the time, would you be interested in collaborating to polish up the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. My apologies for the delay.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about abandoned drug category

I noticed you re-added the "abandoned drug" category to the page on the ill-fated weight loss drug 2,4-DNP - From my current understanding 2,4-DNP was sold as a RX only medication (just like another ill-fated medication of yesteryear, LSD) and was than withdrawn due to side effects - Thus it wasn't really "abandoned" so so speak, it was sold and then pulled due to the high fevers and overdosing and whatnot. A similar sort of thing happened with LSD, People were prescribed it and it got out of control. If this is correct - Why is DNP the only ill-fated drug of yesteryear listed in this category? - Mfernflower

hmm OK the "withdrawn drugs" category would be better. I just made that change. OK? Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

I wish to record that I regard your behaviour towards me as bullying. You flagrantly disregard Wikipedia policies and procedures and abuse your position by making threats. You make no attempt to enter into discussion about concerns you may have about articles, but resort immediately to a combination of deletion and intimidation. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you keep making articles that get deleted for being promotional and that contain COPYVIO, you are going to get blocked. Me telling you that, is not bullying you - it is telling you how things work here. Feel free to ignore me; I am trying to help you. What you are "recording" here is WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just realized I never posted a proper thank you for your help on the Cerner Wikipedia article. So, thank you! JNorman704 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. did we finish/ Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

33R Edit warring

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.prokaryotes (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this template cites WP:BRD. You made the first change; when I reverted you should have gone to discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boxer Wachler

With all due respect, he is certainly an academic as is evident from his long record of peer-reviewed papers. [1] Note that his middle initial is "S". Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

academics have academic appointments. as far as i can see he has none. he is obviously a relentless self-promoter. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think that this is about to go to ArbCom. In fact, I am thinking of making the request myself. I am very sure that they will accept it. Please let me suggest that you pull together as many diffs as you can of your own edits, in which you can reasonably be considered to be presenting GMOs in a non-positive light or presenting critics of GMOs in a non-negative light. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove my name and the accusation.

You have mentioned me in a section on AN/I. I am asking you to remove or strike it as it is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I am not the subject of your dispute. While we may disagree on a lot of things, that disagreement is not up to what your comment suggests. In fact I support all PAG. That I see them violated where you dont, or that I believe a punishment should be less is not the same as being anti. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, the pattern of your commenting at drama board actions is very clear. And indeed you have been true to form on this one here and here where you are not considering the merits at all, but throwing up smoke. If you choose to make an issue of this, the diffs I will bring will show beyond any doubt that the behavior I describe is accurate. It will be a big waste of the community's time. Review your own contribs if you don't believe me - the pattern is very, very clear. Nearly always opposed to WP:MED editors/editing, and throwing up distractions to protect editors who are doing bad stuff when it comes to FRINGEy topics or health content (the pattern of DrChrissy seeking to expand conflict with me is so, so clear) Literally, never once have I seen you even acknowledge the merits of a case related to FRINGEY/altmed/opposed-to-mainstream health editing. You have learned the gamesmanship of dramaboards here pretty well. Everybody is free to bring their POV to drama boards, but after a while it becomes clear where you are coming from, especially when someone is as consistent as you are. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your choice, I asked nicely. Your diffs show me addressing PAG, though not in the way you would like. Thats a disagreement, not being anti anything. You have not proved anything, and WP:ASPERSIONS comes from an Arbcom decision. I would suggest following it and removing your comment or striking it. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a day for gathering diffs, and it appears I am going to need them eventually anyway, since you continue to plow ahead with this at ANI.

• Your topic ban started on March 16th.
• here are all your contribs at ANI since then; about 325 contribs

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic dramah
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What the heck do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so clueless about the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 4 contribs atsme's ANI against me related to her essay, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

That brings me from March 16 to May 19th, and is 114 contibs. (I am stopping now because I am sick of this)

Now breaking that down to related and unrelated:

unrelated

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

related

• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic drama
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so unable to see the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 4 contribs on atsme's ANI against me related to complications with moving her essay to mainspace, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)

OK, so there are 33 contibs on 6 matters. Do you see how you consistently behave differently on the related things? Every time supporting FRINGEy actors - you don't get into all the sniping, distracting behavior in unrelated threads, and really importantly, you consistently end up on the side opposed to mainstream editors on related things. If you don't find this compelling I will go and finish, but the pattern stays true. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And note that the above is only about ANI. The pattern remains true at other boards and Talk pages. When it comes to health or WP:MED you demonstrate a single stance, which seems to me, to be more about your grudge than any objective analysis of the issues under consideration - if it were, how could you so consistently take a stance opposite WP:MED? Again I know the experience that led up to your topic ban was very frustrating for you, but carrying that kind of grudge around is just...blech. If you believe you have actually supported mainstream health positions and WP:MED efforts to keep Wikipedia NPOV and well-sourced on any drama board, I am very open to seeing diffs (several of them) Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What you have is your own bias speaking out loud and reading between the lines looking for something that isnt there. I still suggest you strike the accusations and stop the ABF posts. If they continue I will move forward seeking sanctions against you. This seems to be a pattern, one where proof shouldnt be hard to find. AlbinoFerret 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I again invite you to provide diffs where you have supported WP:MED in noticeboard discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont have any desire to look, I dont have to convince you or anyone else, and it doesnt make a difference if I supported one policy or the other. But one of your examples is an instance. Doors22. I recommended a 6 months topic ban. Just because its not what you wanted to happen doesnt make it what you think it could possibly, might be, if looked at through your own shaded glasses and cocked at an angle. The other problem with what your doing is your reading between the lines and looking for things that meet your pre conceived "problem". Your attributing non medrs discussions like AVDucks to Medrs. Again out of your own perception of what the problem was. As Adjwilley poined out, do this on yourself as an outsider looking in, if you can. See where it leads you. Im done, as you have said before to others, you will do as you will do. But if you post more ABF posts, its likely to come back and bite you. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

New York Times

I was looking at the New York Times homepage today and I saw this story. I was wondering what your opinion was on it. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)An interesting twist on the usual "big bad industry vs the people" trope, when it is actually two different industries playing the same game for opposite results....Yobol (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature reported on the story about Folta a while ago. I didn't know that Benbrook accepted money from organic food companies; that was news to me. All these guys should be much better about making disclosures.

I think the thing to keep in mind from all that is the following quote "“What industry does is when they find people saying things they like, they make it possible for your voice to be heard in more places and more loudly." It isn't reasonable to me, to call Benbrook an organics zombie or Folta a Monsanto zombie - both of those people came to their own conclusions based on who they are, their values, and the science they look at, and industry came to them, and gave them money and support to amplify their voices, and things get tangled from there. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I created Kevin Folta earlier today, in case you want to edit it given your interest in GM stuff. Everymorning (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw it already, but thanks for the heads up. So what do you think about the stuff reported in the NYT piece? Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was surprised when I read the part that says "the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants." That seems like something very suspicious, and although I don't know much about the subject, I suspect that this may be unacceptable medical ghostwriting. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I agree that there is a consensus that GMOs are no more dangerous than non-GMO food, so I don't really have a problem with most of the biotech industry's activities described in the story. In contrast, if the tobacco industry was doing it (and they did for years), that would be another matter because the consensus is against the tobacco industry in much the same way it is in favor of the biotech industry. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that was surprising to me. I wish they had said more about that. I would like to know which ones! Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Relaying a concern

Jytdog, DrC is concerned that you're commenting about him above, and he can't respond because you've banned him from your talk page. Please stop talking about him and posting on his page. This whole issue between you and him, and you and several others, is going to blow up if it continues. I think taking it to ArbCom would not be in your interests (or in anyone else's), so you'd be doing everyone a favour if you could find a way to tone things down significantly. Sarah ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for relaying the message and for your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you were to stop the personal attacks (removing them later doesn't undo them), and stop posting about the same issue in multiple venues, including by email.

Also, I think it would help if you were to re-open the COIN about yourself, or take some of the affected pages off your watchlist. Much of the tension stems from people believing that you're editing with a COI, and it's the perception (regardless of the facts) that is causing the problem. If you were willing to reduce those concerns (per WP:APPARENTCOI), I think it would be much appreciated. I'm sorry, I know you dislike this topic, but it's unlikely to go away unless you help it on its way. Sarah ^(talk) 19:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already gone way over and beyond what is required in Wikipedia to deal with WP:APPARENTCOI. If people persist in assuming bad faith about me after all that, they are the ones violating WP policy. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No one can require you to do this, so it's entirely up to you. But I don't think the last discussion clarified anything. If you were willing to disclose to someone who is very familiar with the COI guideline and familiar with opposing COI editing (someone you trust – Doc James comes to mind), it would leave less room for doubt.

The alternative is to take some of the pages off your watchlist, not necessarily forever, but for a few months to place some distance between you and those topics and companies. I know this is uncomfortable for you, so I'll leave it there. Please feel free to archive/remove this discussion. Sarah ^(talk) 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have written to you before, instead of telling the people who hound me to back off (which you have never done even when they wrote nasty things on your own Talk page and I called your attention to it) you keep asking more of me. This is disappointing for someone who used to defend people from hounding, and in my view is blaming the victim as I have said to you before. I have disclosed my real life identity to at least three admins here, all of whom are opposed to COI editing. If you had even once told any of my hounders to back off, or even had responded to me when I had asked you about that in the past, I would have been willing to reveal it to you. As it is, I would not trust you with that information. Your distrust of me has earned my distrust of you. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict before the last two edits) Sarah, please see the ongoing discussion "Faith" on my talk page. IMO the ability of an editor to repeatedly proclaim that they have been Wikipedia-vetted for COI as a result of a conversation with another editor in which the question of COI did not even come up is a big problem here. As the top editor of all or at least most of the Monsanto related articles, even including related articles such as Precautionary principle, I have to wonder what would happen if an outside journalist/investigator would look into possible Monsanto/Wikipedia bias. I think we'd all end up looking very bad. This problem needs some discussion, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, again you rankly distort the discussion I had with the oversighter, as I described it. Please stay off my talk page. As I wrote, I am steering clear of you and I ask the same. And I would be happy to walk any journalist through all my edits on the GMO articles and my experience here. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you might find it interesting to read the oldest archive of my user talk; if you look between some lines, you will get a feel for some context about how to think about some of this. It's not worth feeling too concerned about refuting what other editors are telling you here. Please don't let it get you down. But please do use it as a gauge of what is likely to come at you from other editors in the (inevitable) event of a full ArbCom case. It's how some users, certainly not all, see you and will say that they see you. It's not something to refute now, but it is something to prepare to refute later.

Some incredibly sage advice I've seen from editors who have been here even longer than I have is to comment, not for the benefit of the editor who is disagreeing with you (because you probably won't convince them anyway), but for other, uninvolved editors, who will later judge the exchange.

I know that you have said a couple of times recently that you would rather not have to deal with a full ArbCom case. I want to tell you that I think that you are very likely to get a full case whether you want it or not. I tentatively plan to file the request for clarification or amendment tomorrow. But I think that it's very possible that the response will be, instead, to insist on a full case. I said earlier in your talk that you need to gather diffs to show that you are NPOV, not POV. Like it or not, you need to get ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

i hear you. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fredric Alan Maxwell

Hi Jytdog, I'm here because Fred hails from the Vietnam era and needs someone (me) with slightly better proficiency at learning and using this interface to correct/update/verify/cite the content removed from his page. I see you reverted. I'm reverting back, I think you'll like the edits I've otherwise made, and have for the time being removed the third paragraph that might need better citations. There should be no need to remove any of the links, they are all verified as of 15 minutes ago. Blevenberg (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You left a duplicate message on your talk page. I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just getting silly now. Deletion? Really? You'll hate the comment I left there. Also, what's up really with the policy being for "notable" authors? I think that's kind of against the whole idea of the free encyclopedia, no? Also - I still don't see what was wrong at all with my edits? I fixed the links and I removed the paragraph without a citation. ??" Blevenberg (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Coming to Wikipedia to mock it, makes no sense. If you want to be here, respect this place enough to figure out the rules and play by them. Otherwise, stay off my page. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For being extremely active in the COI area and related discussion. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles 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 in 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, Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Governance

Hi, you have reverted my edits of Governance [see here] , there is neither any article nor any section regarding Bad governance, So I have inserted it . so Kindly do revert back to my edits or create a article for Bad Governance.--Jogi 007 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You used a source that is not reliable. Please find better sources. I don't object to content on bad governance at all. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Jytdog. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235 - I trimmed this down to about 625 words. In the past you have granted some slack on the 500 word limit. Is that possible here? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's not, your current count is 626 words, or 562 (if you exclude "a", "an", and "the" which is traditionally allowed). I know it's tough to get down to 500 words when each of numerous detractors is also allowed 500 words, but I wouldn't give anyone any slack at all in criticizing you for your response. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have a lot more involvement than most people, have a lot of comments directed at you and have made an effort to trim, I'm happy to give you up to 650 words for the GMO case request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Maxwell affair

Thanks for stepping up with the COI work on this matter; it's very helpful in a situation like this where they were convinced I was out to get them. Vrac (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

it is hard when content and COI stuff get entangled. I was happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)r

Deleting disclosures

For future reference re: this, we shouldn't delete pages where disclosures have been made, or drafts by paid editors in user space, etc. These may be added as links to {{connected contributor (paid)}}, so it's best to leave them blue. Sarah ^(talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand why I nominated that page for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw your rationale, but the point remains that deleting the page would delete the disclosure. Sarah ^(talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't agree and you have no idea of what I was trying to accomplish in working with that particular editor. Instead of asking you come here and just assert things that are banal - I don't even know how to respond, really. If you have no interest in actually understanding me or working with me, please just steer clear of me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on Glyphosate talk page

Re: [2], can you please explain your statement that moving content from the sandbox to article space is COPYVIO? I don't think that's correct. The appearance is you're displaying unreasonable OWNership over the article by making outlandish policy arguments - but maybe I missed something? Thanks. Minor4th 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

hey

[3] ...in other words don't let people get to you, ..oz..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember, the absolute worst case scenario is a full, permanent ban from Wikipedia, and that's VERY unlikely. And even if that does happen, it's just Wikipedia. In the grand scheme of life, it's really not that important. I can understand the frustration, though, given the escalating animosity on all sides and that, in your and your supporters' views, you're being punished for enforcing WP policies against a tidal wave of unscientific dogma. There have been mistakes on ALL sides here, and I have confidence the ArbCom will bring that to light. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

PBC name change

Here you go again with your views on what is and isn't advocacy. Is this your OR?

Are you an expert in this field of hepatology? Have you read the articles?[4] The same article is published in Hepatology, Gut, J Hepatol (and others to come) representing the editors' acceptance of the change. The article in Can J Gastro Hep is a separate editorial. The cited J Hepatol article is another view separate to the consensus editorial by the leaders in this field to give a NPOV.

This may have started with advocacy but they have achieved what they wanted and this is now accepted by the professional experts [5] and the leading hepatology journals. "Thus, we sincerely call on all medical professionals and all patients and their families and friends worldwide to use from this moment on the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ for the disease known by its abbreviation PBC!"

I think your failure to consider views of others is causing major issues -- perhaps you should revert this. At least this change should have been discussed on the Talk page rather than just reverted. Jrfw51 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I saw your edit. Funny, that! Two questions: Why will you not wait until the name is actually adopted? And really importantly - why are you quoting an advocacy group to me? Please do answer both. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

When is the name "actually adopted"? Maybe when it is in ICD10? -- or ICD11, now but that will be years. When it is is a respected textbook (again not for many years). However there are many medical terms not in ICD10, which are recognised by those in the field, and are in WP. I can quote those if you like. I realise now I am at home that unlike me at work you may not have had access to the actual literature that has been cited: let me know if that is the case and we may be able to work together on this so you can see this more easily. We know the patient "advocacy" groups want this name change, but the important professional groups have approved it "The proposal for a name change of primary biliary cirrhosis to ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ was approved by the EASL Governing Board in November 2014, by the AASLD Governing Board in April 2015 and by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Governing Board in July 2015." quoted form the Gut Leading Article. The Editors/Editorial Boards of major high impact journals publishing in the field of hepatology (Hepatology, J Hepatol, Gut and more to come) collaborated to all publish the same or similar article from leading researchers in PBC indicating that they (researchers and journals) had accepted the name change. The quotation above is from this Gut article. So I am not quoting an "advocacy group" at you. Yes this began as advocacy but is now mainstream. This issue in WP does not affect people's health, does not involve big business and if it becomes a sidenote in history when the disease is renamed again if and when a causative agent is found, so what. WP is full of old nomenclature and alternatives. Let's try and have this article be up to date. Can I have your POV rather than just questions. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You write, "The Editors/Editorial Boards of major high impact journals publishing in the field of hepatology (Hepatology, J Hepatol, Gut and more to come) collaborated to all publish the same or similar article from leading researchers in PBC indicating that they (researchers and journals) had accepted the name change." But the citations you have given don't seem to show that. How can we verify it? Wouldn't a journal use an editorial for this purpose rather than a letter to the editor? Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if you don't have full access, you see on the Hepatology login page [6] "Editor's note: This article is being published jointly in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Digestive and Liver disease, Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology and Journal of Hepatology." Jrfw51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The letter is clear on what constitutes the actual name change, right? It says "What are the next steps? The World Health Organization (WHO) is asking medical professionals for the first time to help in the revision process of the diagnosis and symptom codes (International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision, ICD-11). The medical representatives of the ‘‘Name Change Initiative for PBC’’—with support of the international primary biliary cirrhosis patient groups—will take responsibility to submit the joint proposal of international experts around the world for the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis.’" Right after that, the authors of the letter make the argument as to why the new name should be adopted. It has not been adopted yet. The proposal may fail. What is your big hurry? There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Leading Article in Gut (not letter) is clear. ICD11 is one step to complete the process -- although it may be that WP will be later! After discussing ICD11, the authors reviewed some of the difficulty of using this new name -- the case for it was made before. They conclude, as I quoted in my first post, "Thus, we sincerely call on all medical professionals and all patients and their families and friends worldwide to use from this moment on the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ for the disease known by its abbreviation PBC." There is no hurry but why not document what is going on? This is Society and Culture. The lead paragraph is now incorrect as the term is in the scientific literature. And explaining the name change in the main text as I tried today is not controversial medical information; it needs it's own section rather than sitting in the support groups as it is wider than that. Please consider reverting where you see fit if you can. You will undoubtedly need to be convinced to the highest standard. But I'm sure it can wait a couple of years for ICD11. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what advocates since time immemorial have done - they work for change, and make speeches and write things that urge everyone to get on board and make the change happen, from this moment on. Yes. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Too many people mistake it for one which is why SOAPBOX has its own section in What Wikipedia is Not. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

These are the leaders of the hepatology profession in America and Europe (and importantly the patients.) But you see this as ADVOCACY (and why NOTNEWS?) -- you will have your own POV and we know how that gets perceived. Please change the lead as this term has now appeared in the scientific literature. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Casein

I noticed some medref-related problems at casein and saw in the history of the article that you have addressed some of these types of concerns in the article before. An anonymous editor has challenged my addition of the {{medref}} tag (and, apparently, accuses me of being part of the "dairy farm lobby" that controls Wikipedia). Would you mind taking a look again and seeing what you think about the current state of the article? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was a bad idea

I still have the arb requests page on my watchlist, waiting for something to actually happen in the GMO case. I just noticed GregJackP posted there, linking to this which you posted on his talk page. Now, I stuck my nose in at ANI about the article business because I agree that it is really important that BLPs not become places to carry on disputes with their subjects. And I don't think we've really interacted very much, but I appreciate your efforts in GMOs and alt-med and various other niches where POV-pushing and cluelessness are common; I just don't have the patience for it. But I'm here because that post is really unnecessary and comes across as mean-spirited gravedancing. Disappointing to see from someone who talks a lot about not commenting on other contributors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, GregJackP asked you to not post on his talk page. Not only did you disregard that, but the message that you left was just totally below par. So I strongly urge you to not do that again, or I or someone else will probably block you, though I am loath to do so. If you've given this some thought, and you have something to say to GregJackP, you can do it here and ping him. But please do not go back to that talk page again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you both see my comment as gravedancing. I don't see it that way and I think you missed the part about acknowledging mistakes (and staying, as opposed to leaving). But I didn't see this til now; I commented once more but will not comment again. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought about this more and I hear you both; it was bad taste for me to post there at all. I should have exercised self restraint and didn't. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)