User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Blocked: new section
Line 142: Line 142:


:::In any case, please stay off my page. After arbcom is over please steer clear of me. I will avoid you for sure, when I have time to come back [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:::In any case, please stay off my page. After arbcom is over please steer clear of me. I will avoid you for sure, when I have time to come back [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

== Blocked ==

I have blocked your account. This is in relation to materials which has been oversighted, and thus the block is not subject to public review. Please contact the Arbitration Committee. You may also email me ([[Special:EmailUser/HJ Mithcell]], hjmitchell at ymail dot com) if you desire clarification of anything. Due to the nature of the block and its unsuitability to public discussion, your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 03:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:09, 17 November 2015

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:

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)[reply]



I hope everything is OK

Ray of sunshine
Ray of sunshine

It looks like you haven't been around for several days. I hope everything is OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as do I...many times things happen that are beyond ones control, so therefore you have to go with logic (and objectivity), you've always followed logic so just keep going (keep editing)...your colleague and friend (BTW this [1] came out today, it might make a good article section we could work on)...also this is coming up [2] Philadelphia area--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hope you're ok, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. You do important but arduous work here. I hope things haven't worn you down, though I'd understand if you needed a rest. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 07:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth. Illegitimi non carborundum and all that. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're starting to worry us. It's not like you to go AWOL - I checked! You haven't made diffs since September 30th and before then I don't think you missed a single day this year. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, hope you're O.K. Corinne (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we might not always agree, I further all the above comments. Your work here is critical. Hope all is well. Ping me if you need anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the window for ArbCom evidence...hopefully you've just decided to take a hiatus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Asking for your intervention

Hi, User:Jytdog. I would like for your professional advice concerning an editor whom I feel is being very disruptive in an article which we have both taken great pains to write. We are both the chief contributors to the article Bayt Nattif, but, we have had our differences as to what is appropriate to add in this WP article. It concerns the history of the depopulated Arab-village, Bayt Nattif. Please review the history of that article, and, especially, the article's Talk page, under the sub-section: "..and yet again..." My disputant in this case is a Palestinian Arab woman by the name of Huldra. Any advice as to what is or is not appropriate will be greatly welcomed by me. Davidbena (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth: I am female (it is up on my user-page) -that much is true......, but I don´t have a single Palestinian or Arab ancestor .....or relative, nor have I ever claimed that I do. Preconcieved ideas, much? (Btw, I would also like very much "outsiders" to take a look at the dispute), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Huldra. I apologize. I just assumed that you may be of Palestinian Arab origin, since our lines of communication have been solely on Palestinian-Arab issues with which you are mostly involved. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry I have been away, all. Thanks to those who left notes here or emailed me.

On Sept 30 I left a job where I have worked for the past 15 years and started a new job with a startup company. Very hard to leave so much I have been invested in for so long; so exciting and such an honor to be part of a great team working to bring new medicines to patients, not to mention value to investors.... not to mention being responsible to those investors, and ultimately to patients, to use the money we have raised efficiently, which means not wasting any time.

Everything is needed yesterday. I didn't know it would be like this; it has been all-consuming on many levels, and I have had no time for Wikipedia. I had a pile of evidence I was going to submit at Arbcom, but that time has past and I am just letting the case carry on without me.

Anyway, thanks again for the notes, and sorry to have worried folks. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear all is well. Hope to see you back with use some day soon :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seconded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Priorities. I understand and admire your attitude to all this. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Glad to hear it was for a good reason. It can be a bit frightening to make such a sudden change - I know; I've been trying to make the leap from the job I have for the past 10 years into graduate school. Problem is, every day I think I know what I want to do with myself, I can talk myself out of it. Glad you found an inspiring direction. Oh, and BTW, you still have a few hours left on the Workshop if you desire. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your work here is critical to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.37.216 (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Jytdog, I am so glad that you are back (and yes, I was worried). I think that you should e-mail ArbCom, if you have not already done so. Disappearing abruptly just as evidence started and reappearing just as the workshop closed is likely to be misconstrued, because people tend to see patterns even if it is a coincidence. Frankly, I think the ArbCom case could go pretty badly for you, and I certainly do not want to see that happen. But, nonetheless, welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, remember me, we knew each other when times were simpler. An unrelated issue brought me back temporarily and I have just spent a quiet evening reading the saga that is surrounding GMOs. Just wanted to say before I head back to the real world that no matter what happens now, I think you have done an amazing job on those articles. All the best. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you. OK, Trypto I will email Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LasVegas' comment

I tried to post this in response to LasVegas' workshop comment, but the page is locked:

This is a dangerous way to evaluate this situation. If someone wrote a program to highlight every single usage of a dirty word by an editor, should that give him a way to win advantage in an arbitration dispute? If you set that precedent, the reputation management companies and companies that pay editors will have a permanent advantage over ordinary volunteers who can't download their own copy of the database and create dossiers on people. Therefore, I say you must show an ordinary incident of incivility against one or more particular editors that you feel is actionable; indeed, it should be something people would perceive as actionable at the time they first encounter it. This list of links may be a useful way to hunt for such an incident, but it is not itself a rationale for punitive action. (Even if you find a handful of incivil incidents, that still may not justify any sanction; it is necessary to look at the overall effect of the editor's involvement) Wnt (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paronychia

I was just skimming the article on Paronychia (gotten to by way of Edema, linked in Trajan, which I am editing), and I noticed that something was not right in the notes at the end of the article. If you have time, can you look at it? Corinne (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I advocate you continue to avoid the paronychia and the paranoid drama. Enjoy your new role. Jrfw51 (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jrfw51 Thank you for making the correction. (I often spot errors but don't know how to fix reference errors.) However, I don't know what you mean by the rest of your comment. Corinne (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne The rest of my comment was a poor attempt at a pun addressed to Jytdog and not you. Thanks for all you do. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, need your assistance, vandalism

Hello Jytg, I believe you are one of the editors who was present when there was a host of confusion on the Andre Marin article, a living person. It's easier to navigate noe thankfully, but given your knowledge and experience I'm asking that you please go back to the page and give it a look over. Believe it or not the article wound up being balanced, well sourced and reasonably concise. Unfortunately what apppears to be a very angry advocate with something very important to say has vandalized the page and started an edit war (yep, I know) even went on my page and implied I am COI (lol, no, there were two individuals who were, I was not one of them, this was established a long time ago). It appears another admin got roped in now unfortunately and they do not knowing the edit history. You've obviously seen this type of problem before I was wondering if you'd take a risk and come back and see the page? The previous edit was better, neutral, etc., the person the article is about met notability requirements, all things were good. Now it's been vandalized. I believe a revert is needed and a stub; the last editor took off the COI tag. The timing couldn't have been worse. Thank-you for your patience and if you have no interest in returning I understand. CheckersBoard (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of the editing history and your disruptive role in it, CheckersBoard. --NeilN talk to me 01:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the intrusion Jytg, I was speaking to you, not speaking to the individual who is helping the situation escalate to an editing war. If it persists I will have to look for someone who will try to avoid this. And Neil, if you do read this, next time if you want to attack me, at least leave it on my page, not Jytg's. Thank-you. I'm now wondering if you have some type of COI too seeing as you aren't helping, only making personal attacks. If you don't like that insinuation then perhaps you could address the same one which was issued towards me by the editor who started this pointless edit war.

CheckersBoard, no personal attacks, just observations based on your edits (making a mess of the article, disruptively tagging it for speedy delete multiple times, consistently calling edits vandalism when they aren't). You explained on my talk page about the problems you've been having mobile editing but Jytdog told you months ago to "work at a desktop or laptop, if this is really important to you." Incidentally, I became involved because I handled a report at WP:AIV asking that you be blocked but I declined to do so and warned you instead. However edits like this show a distinct lack of understanding about how biographies are written on Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Kbruksch0213/sandbox

Hello, Jytdog. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. --  Kethrus |talk to me  11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita

Hello, Jytdog - I just wondered if you agreed with this edit to Cucurbita, today's featured article: [3]. Corinne (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That looks like a sensible edit to me. WP:PATENTS discusses how they are not RS and I've searched for other possible sources for cucurbitin inhibiting histidine decarboxylase and not been able to find any. SmartSE (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thanks! I had no opinion about it either way, but was surprised because so many editors had worked on this article for so many months. Corinne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See [4]. Corinne (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Jytdog. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on the GMO case talk page

A section of your statement has been suppressed and I have commented out another large part of it. Using your statement to present personal information (which looks a lot like opposition research) about other editors is wholly and completely unacceptable behaviour anywhere on Wikipedia I caution you very strongly not to do anything like it again. Regarding the section of your statement I removed, the evidence phase of the case has well and truly closed so it is inappropriate to present evidence against other editors. If you continue to make comments such as these you risk being banned from further participation in the case or blocked from editing. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Thanks for your note. I understand that "opposition research" as described in WP:OUTING, is bringing things into Wikipedia from off-Wikipedia. What I wrote about Minor4th was based 100% on in-Wikipedia diffs - statements by her. Yes I went looking in-Wikipedia for a connection between GregJackP and Minor4th when it became so clear behavior-wise that they were acting together and yes I did find a clear statement of that in Wikipedia. I do understand that the evidence phase is over and understand that basis for suppressing what i wrote. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You included one thing about her that was not disclosed on-Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, that is not true. The part that was suppressed was not found on wiki, as Callenecc is aware, I'm sure. And Tryptofish, you included the same claim that also had to be suppressed. Minor4th 23:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying i think. The dif says: "Note -- GregJackP and I know each other in real life and sometimes work on articles together. Since we are being called co-authors of this article, we would both be expected to vote keep irrespective of any off-wiki connection. " Nothing there saying you are actual (Redacted) real life. There are however piles and piles of diffs showing your coordination with him on content (native american law, family law, other stuff), as well as helping each other out in spats and admin actions. You are both lawyers, your expertise is in similar areas, you know each other in real life, and you even know how each other thinks (or so you have written on several occasions). Your coordination is very very clear (Redacted). I did say it and should not have. My apologies to all for that).
Big picture, within WIkipedia you are a meatpuppet with GregJackP and while he is gone you continue using Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND. It is blatant, it is ugly, and not what we are about here. It will catch up with you eventually.
Minor4TH your ardent participation in the Arbcom case makes no sense without that piece. Think about that. It is really crazy, when I think about all the time you have put in to weave a story and bring evidence. Why? Why really? That is a question to you, for you. I am not looking for an answer from you. Ask yourself if the way you work with and for GregJackP without disclosing your off-Wikipedia connection fully, is really within the spirit of Wikipedia. You'll do whatever you will of course.
In any case, please stay off my page. After arbcom is over please steer clear of me. I will avoid you for sure, when I have time to come back Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account. This is in relation to materials which has been oversighted, and thus the block is not subject to public review. Please contact the Arbitration Committee. You may also email me (Special:EmailUser/HJ Mithcell, hjmitchell at ymail dot com) if you desire clarification of anything. Due to the nature of the block and its unsuitability to public discussion, your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]