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)

Thalidomide use in tuberculosis

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit which added a subsection titled "Tuberculosis" to the Thalidomide article. Thanks for the advice that Wikipedia policy is to not use primary sources for medical research articles, which I wasn't aware of. (counter-intuitive to how one would cite a lot of primary sources when writing a research paper). I have re-written the section with citations of 3 review papers from separate groups of authors which are in agreement that it may be useful in cases of tuberculous meningitis. I've also left in the citation to a newspaper article for the interest of non-scientific readers because the study described was conducted at a reputable research university in South Africa, which has a strong TB research community. If you don't agree go ahead and delete the newspaper article link but I think the rest should be allowed to stand. Xenobiologista (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2015 (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!

Requested edits on Cerner talk page

Hi Jytdog, I have added some suggested updates to make the Cerner Wikipedia article current and more reflective of the company as it is today.

Would you mind reviewing my suggested edits and adding them to the article or giving me feedback on what could improve my suggested edits? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm following up to see if you'd take a look at my suggested edits on the Cerner Wikipedia article talk page. I'm trying to update the article for factual accuracy and to give readers a more current understanding of the company. Please let me know if you're willing to either make my suggested edits or give me feedback on them. Please advise either way. Thank you so much for your consideration. JNorman704 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your patience and for following up! I will get to that tonight. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I know you're busy so I appreciate any help. JNorman704 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Please stop the edit warring tactics on Joseph Mercola. You're attempting to have the article one-sided and that is very un-Wikipedia like. To the untrained eye it could appear that you may have some motivation in stopping info about mobile phones and the link to cancer. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you'll allow the Joseph Mercola page to evolve into a balanced article that it should be. Thankyou Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of this page, where it belongs. If you continue to use Wikipedia as you have been, you are going to get thrown out of here. You have been given warning of the discretionary sanctions we have in place for pseudoscience - be mindful of them. If you have not read WP:NPOV carefully (and I do not believe you have) please do so. Please especially pay attention to the section on pseudoscience. NPOV =/= "fair and balanced". And if you are not aware of it, please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia has a very deep commitment to science. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to your edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Mercola. 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points Bill. Firstly, you forgot to sign, and secondly, do you know what edit warring is? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of what I forgot to do Roxy the dog. forgot to do :I have now fixed my sign off with the — Preceding unsigned comment template as you can see here. So that's the first point. Now, in reply to the second, well ..... edit-warring is what Jytdog and a few others engage in. Quite often the articles concerned are ones that involve GM crops, activists dealing pharmaceutical companies. Nothing new! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

But wait, Bill. Because you issued an edit war warning to Jytdog, I went to see where he'd been edit warring. Turns out he wasn't, hence my question above. See? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

COIN

Jytdog we need your work at the COIN notice board. Please be slightly more careful. Do not step back for more than a day or two if at all :-) I at least realize how nasty it can get. You are dealing with people who are trying to make money off of Wikipedia through PR work and in violation of our terms of use. I have already been threatened with a lawsuit by someone involved with PR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. The thrust of the arb's caution was to pause to listen to what folks are saying about my work there - folks who have concerns - and take that into consideration before I restart. I have gotten some feedback and am looking forward to a chat with Risker later this week. I'll be back into gear soon, with some rethinking. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes one needs clear evidence of COI before making a case. Off wiki evidence; however, can only be hinted at on wiki. It makes the work difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes it a minefield. Jytdog, I echo what Doc James says above, you are a pillar of that difficult noticeboard and an example to others there. Perhaps sometimes when frustration or tension build up you could think about stepping away rather than stepping closer to the (personally drawn) lines of good behaviour here? But please don't step away for too long. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo the above. Please don't stop working at the COIN. I think the issues arise (e.g., the Atsme Arbcom, which though a few of her points have merit is blown way out of proportion) when you unilaterally play judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users. I think when legitimate policy-based questions are raised (e.g. non-retroactivity of new policies) about the executioner part, you should probably step back and let someone else, or a consensus, help decide what to do and help in those actions. Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The stepping away for a bit is to get feedback and check my assumptions and strategies. That will take as long as it takes. I did push the Atsme thing too far. While nothing I wrote has been oversighted, it was bad taste. I know. And I can think of a couple others (literally - a couple) where I got too fierce. I hear you both and will try harder to keep emotion out of it and to step away when I feel restraint slipping. So little room for error in this work.

Softlavender with respect to your description of me as "unilaterally play(ing) judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users..." the generality of that statement is hard to read and the "executioner" thing is especially... inapt, as I am not an admin. (and if i ever become one, i would use blocking with extreme care due to the "no room for error" thing just mentioned) Are you saying that you see me doing that a lot, or are you reacting to the current ANI and Atsme things more specifically? If you are making a general statement, I would like to hear more about that - it would be useful to hear. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By executioner, I do not mean admin actions, I mean making and carrying out unilateral decisions about what to do in a COI case despite objections: repeated unilateral mass deletion actions or edit-warring, longterm "stalking", "battleground" behavior, etc. -- the things that are currently in question in the ArbCom and current ANI. (I don't follow your wiki behavior or edits or even closely read the various ANIs that mention you [other than a glance at their length and contentiousness]). I simply happened to see and closely read both the ArbCom and current shopping-mall ANI at the same time, and note that the issue common between the two of them seems to be not stepping back when legitimate policy-based objections are made. It's one thing, and a great thing, to stamp out COI; it's another to be so vehement about it that you shoot yourself in the foot and/or repeatedly remove content that may not be COI or may simply need citation. If other uninvolved editors request that you slow down on a particular case/article and go through more of a due process, then perhaps that's the best thing to do. All of us can get very zealous about what we do on Wikipedia ... and for all of us (myself included), that's not always in our best interests. In any case, you don't have to agree with or take to heart what I have written (especially if it's not an issue that is more general than these two cases); I was basically simply asking you to please continue the COIN work and offering a suggestion on how to avoid possible overkill that may possibly be to your detriment. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - again the purpose this "timeout" is to get feedback, so I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to get a clear understanding of all the discussions, but the first thing that stands out are the bad faith accusations against you that are a major part if not driving force behind it all. I'm still trying to figure out what to do in such situations, but I don't seem to do too badly when I just focus on deescalating the behavioral problems while putting aside the content problems. Doc James has given you great advice. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

islamic banking

Please let us editors of Islamic Banking know when the cleanup of Sukuk's edits is done as I hope to make a lot of edits on that page. Thanks BoogaLouie (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoogaLouie - last I saw of that case, Ronz had brought up the two sites, islamicfinance.com and sukuk.com, at the Project Spam discussion page, here - the outcome was not to blacklist them. So the only question is whether they are reliable sources or not. I don't see that Ronz listed them at RSN. That would be the next step for a community discussion. But I would say that editors working at articles where they are cited can keep them or remove them, as they see fit. If disagreement arises then that discussion can be brought to RSN. That's how I see it. Ronz may have a different perspective. Thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why take them to RSN? There's no reason to believe they're reliable, and no one claiming they are other than the author. My thoughts/plans were to review it all, remove the sources, remove any material that appears questionable, and look for some authoritative sources which the articles sorely need. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. So there ya go. If you and BoogaLouie/others disagree, RSN is where you will end up. I don't plan on digging into that content myself. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No plans to contest Ronz deletions, (not that I have looked over Sukuk's edits). Thanks folks --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pharmacogenomics Edits

Hi Jytdog,

I noticed you made an edit, with a note saying "academic spam." I ask for you to elaborate on that note, and possibly provide any reference to Wikipedia rules that validate that edit. That way, for my peace of mind, I can confirm whether to maintain or undo the edits accordingly.

Cheers,

Jarslan (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of that section was unsourced promotion of a few academic programs. No source saying that any of those courses is especially noteworthy. Universities spam Wikipedia all the time. If you want to restore that section with some sourcing and content that is meaningful (what is special about, say, University of Utah's courses) I will not object. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Well, I'm not affiliated with any of those institutions. So, rest assured that the intent was not to promote or spam. I've taken note of your concerns. It may be a few weeks, but I will restore and make those corrections appropriately. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Jarslan (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC at V

I hope this was okay. I'm thinking that you just missed that there was a separate "support" section. If I'm wrong or have been presumptious, please rv and trout me as may be necessary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for fixing my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

EHS

Shame that article exists already, it would have been a wonderful choice for an April 1 TFA. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Now I understand what my own head has been doing! ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle (DT56A) clarifications

Hello,

The "Femarelle (DT56a)" article has some incorrect information, along with the general feeling of a person trying to sabotage the product and the firm's good reputation. Femarelle is a food supplement for the management of menopause with 17 published studies in leading journals.

The first mistake is regarding to the (12) reference, Femarelle is not a Drug, it is a food supplement and has gone through PreIND reviews in the FDA as a botanical drug candidate, and was approved to go into Phase III based on existing data. Femarelle has tried to get a disease prevention claim for the reduction of osteoporosis and other bone disorders among post-menopausal women under article 14 of Regulation (EC) no. 1924/2006 at EFSA(1,12) , however the claim was not accepted and the file was withdrawn from EFSA. Hot flushes has noting to do with this reference as well. This information is correct, it is important to write it all and not only a part of it.

The second mistake is regarding to the ingredients, The ingredients in Femarelle are 322 mg DT56a (a tofu extract) and 108 mg flaxseed powder,[2] which act as a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM).

My final question is why did you delete the references? all of the references in my article are published and authorized by professional committees and peer reviewed journals, i would expect them to have great value for this article because they are public domain...all that needs to be done is to go to Pubmed"

Please take this information in consideration while re-editing this article.

Thank you. SecurePharma (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securepharmaltd (talk • contribs)

Please post at the article's Talk page: this conversation belongs there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tartrazine July 2015

Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not enough information in Femarelle article

Hello, This article has almost no information what so ever. Wikipedia is a tool used to help people get an idea about things they don't know about, a tool to get information. You deleted almost every reference that was added before, Why did you? In addition to all, you gave no information of the "mode of action" of the supplement, no information of the positive effects of use, not enough information what so ever, good or bad. I believe it is important to inform the articles writer that:

1. The legal regulations for marketing/presenting of such supplements are different i US, EU and in other parts of the world. the writer's EU-POV in this article is geocentrical and therefore not in line with W-policies.

2. As W prefers review articles as a source for medical and health information, it is important to draw the writer's attention to such an article with specific references to Femarelle: S. Bedell. et al., The pros and cons of plant estrogen for menopause, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.004

3. the writer has removed so called «inappropriate categories» from the article, while another article on a SERM the writer has edited (Menerba) still are categorized in Menopause, SERMs, Herbalism and Botanial drugs. Why are these products treated differently?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by קוריןבןקים (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You left the same note on the article talk page. I'll reply there. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning 2

Who do you think you are leaving such an offensive, unfounded personal attack on my talk page? I will continue editing as I am doing and learning along the way by reading guides provided. Don't threaten me again because you feel sorry for this editor who holds a blatant COI and only entered Wikipedia to edit his friend and mentor's article. He has had conflicts with over 5 other well intentioned and experienced editors. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages! If you leave another message like that on my talk page I will take it your personal attacks to an administrator myself. Bring it on! I hope I have made myself patently clear sir!Baroccas (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Such ferociousness. Jytdog left some helpful advice, so this response is way over the top. Your battlefield attitude is not helpful. User:Gjboyle is a new editor who is learning how things work here, so don't bite the newbie. Your animosity toward him needs to be kept out of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This one appears to be a sock. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'll file an ANI momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At least he said "sir". — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The addition of the "2" in the heading is necessary, since the TOC won't work properly with identical headings. Clicking on such a heading in the TOC can send one to a different section with the same title. I suggest you restore it, or modify it, preferably to the original heading, which shows the unreasonableness of the attack on you. Changing it removed the evidence from view. That only helps the attacker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, i put it back. thanks for telling me about the problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged_hounding_by_SPA_User:Baroccas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle (DT56a)

Hello, on your last edit you removed all categories, leaving not even one. Could you add a correct category no the article, broad as it may be. TNX, DGtal (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. This is a better comment for the Talk page, however. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Visual prosthesis

Would you like to explain why you think it appropriate to remove reference to the use of the Argus Retinal Prosthesis in a new context - which has been reported by national media in the UK?Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on one of the relevant article Talk pages; I've already responded at one of them. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clinuvel page

Well, the page was deleted. It's a shame. The admin said it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I really don't understand where that guy saw the promotional content. Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

so it goes. a good try! Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for having recovered and improved the text after I have given up.Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Asparagus curillus

Sorry to trouble you again. I came across this article, which is notable by definition since it's about a plant species. Most of the text, however, makes medical claims sourced to three journal articles, two of which are written by the editor of the article. You are more au fait with the medical stuff than me, so I'd be grateful if you can spare the time for a quick look. The editor has removed the species box and my tags once, so you may need to check the history. No sweat if you're too busy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do so later today. Thanks for pointing out the problem! Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, it's much better. I'll keep watching, although I suspect he's more concerned about keeping his journal refs than the medical stuff. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:1AM

You might find my essay at WP:1AM to contain some helpful advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am listening, and I understand consensus very well. But thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Woodland Meadows speedy

Did you notice this? I almost wonder if it was a defense against a future speedy. — Brianhe (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content?

Why delete a perfectly good chunk of an article instead of working on it? And yes, some of the content in Anavex_Life_Sciences was unsourced, but much of it was sourced, and the rest can be easily sourced if someone puts some time into it. If you look at the revision history, first sources were removed, and then it was claimed that the text was unsourced.--Agamemnus (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I added 3 sources from the company's website for 3 sections.. maybe some other stuff is unsourced; not sure. Doesn't mean one needs to go around removing it when it can easily BE sourced.--Agamemnus (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone should have notified you

...but they didn't, so I will. Editors are talking about you at WP:ANI#Hounding by GregJackP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. FYI, you referred to Risker at ANI as "he", but she's actually a "she". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Phenothiazine possible effect

Hi Jytdog, I receive your edit war warning. I would like to let you know that the Phenothiazine could possibly trigger antiphospholipid syndrome as described in the session "Other clinical associations" aPL(Antiphospholipid) antibodies are also found in association with phenothiazines, such as described in Antiphospholipid Syndrome Antiphospholipid Syndrome among in the original link i posted to the article Liwk (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. It is best to do this at the article talk page - if you would like to post there, i'll response there. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i will move this to the talk page there then. Liwk (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that

If someone's following you around & annoying you? the best thing to do is ignore that someone. I found out on Wikipedia, that if one doesn't have a strong support-base, then this is how to handle such situations. It's best to let somebody else deal with whoever's bugging you. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay I know that. As I replied to you at ANI, the problem is that in the course of following me around, Elvey is making a mess of ongoing COI discussions. I cannot ignore it when Elvey purposefully disrupts those discussions as they did with ColumbiaLion or harasses editors who do the right thing and disclose, as they did at KaiserPermanente. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten NY "spam"

I know you are removing the Forgotten NY website links because it may be "spam". However, a closer look shows that this is not the case. Forgotten NY is a pretty reliable source as it goes, and the only mistake made here was that the site's operator added the links. Epic Genius (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

this is 100% spamming behavior. If you, as an independent editor, want to restore the link, evaluating each instance on an article-by-article basis, knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. It looks like some of the links were added before Mr. Walsh began editing, e.g. On the South Brooklyn Railway article. Epic Genius (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I just followed their contribs and reverted their spamming edits, one by one. As I said, if in your evaluation as an independent editor you judge that the EL adds value to any article, please feel free to include it. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. When i get the chance, I'll check them one by one. Epic Genius (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick word, and you can delete this

I think Anavex is probably notable enough for inclusion, though you are right that it needs to be much better sourced with regard to independent and secondary sources. Startups in pharma are most often notable if they are presenting at national meetings—it takes much more in the way of resources to open a chem-focused operation, than an app or other digital startup (I can tell you form first hand experience, having worked for the former, and started two of the latter in my living room). The fact that they are a penny stock, only, should not be used against them (and in fact is a plus, though it may mean as soon as they come up with something, they will be bought or squashed). My opinion. Will only express it at that deletion page if we can agree. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Please do at the deletion discussion as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a final comment to close this, and then do as you will with the Section. (I would prefer deletion, because I got as personal as I get here, and I have not had a good record here with individuals who piece together who I am from snippets shared.) No concern for you, just all the others less committed to integrity. As far as that article goes, just be aware, I am viewing it as a business article, not a medical article, and so will (i) harshly edit any overstated medical claims, and (ii) view loosely any expectation that it still be around next year (because that is the name of the game, and we at WP have an opportunity to create records of such important entities, even if their existence in the long run is transient). I say important, because they have gotten buzz at Alzherimer's meetings, and so stirred the pot, even if that is all they ever do. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

thought you might be interested...

[1] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xna

Hello Sir/Madam, I just wanna know what was wrong in the editing I did in in the topic Xna. Its just for the sake of my knowledge and nothing else Thanks Lekhni Tiwari (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - please post your question there. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source what?

Hi Jyt: On Alice, what do you want to source? The Diehr case from 1981 is [[ ]]'ed and there is a whole article on it? What do you mean by the Cn? Thx.

BTW, Jyt, you aren't a patent lawyer or a software person. Are you following me around? Why did you go to Alice? It's curious. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about the cn tag. It means "citation needed" and we use that when someone adds unsourced content to Wikipedia. This is one of the things I've been trying to speak with you about - you cannot add content to Wikipedia based on your own authority - content needs citations that support it. This is a fundamental way that Wikipedia is really different from writing a journal article that has your name on it as an author. In this content you added, the first sentence is sourced. The second sentence is not sourced, nor is the footnote; that all came straight out of your head. That's not good editing, here in Wikipedia.

Am I following you around, and why did I go to the Alice article? I care about IP for a bunch of reasons. It is one of the key engines of the US economy and is playing a bigger and bigger role on the world stage as the "knowledge economy" is spreading into more and more industries. The Alice article has been on my watchlist for a long time. So no, I didn't follow you there. You are going to find me at a lot of IP articles. I care about it. I also deal with it as part of my job; I make decisions that depend in part on what kind of claims are allowable and what the chances are that issued claims will survive efforts to invalidate them. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, if you don't mind I will reply on the Talk page of the article. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

i don't mind at all - that is totally appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 29 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)

DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ubiquinol.23Therapeutic_Uses_of_Ubiquinol_discussion Notification, cos the OP didn't do it. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bothered !!! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That was nice of you! I had been debating how to respond there... Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

Hello Jytdog. A few hours ago you edited the article Crowdfunding which had just been edited by an IP user. While your edits were fine, the IP user's good faith edits are problematic, in that the IP user replaced significant portions of the debt-based crowdfunding section with different wording, and then used citations that are all about equity-based crowdfunding (apples and oranges, I'm afraid!). Anyway, I'm going to take another look at that section (in a few hours from now), but I wouldn't mind a second opinion before I boldly fix it. (I'll watch here for any reply -- no ping necessary)  Etamni | ✉  22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry - yeah i should have caught that. i fixed it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You're quick! I just got home and just got to this on my to-do list and you had already fixed it (and probably did a better job of it than I might have!)  Etamni | ✉  01:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

glad you are pleased; least i could do after polishing a turd, as i did. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 1 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)

Tamoxifen and Aggressive fibromatosis

Tamoxifen is a complementary treatment for this illness. Source: Several online medical articles. Thanks.

Happy to discuss at the article talk page. "several online medical articles" is not going to cut it, btw. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Can you exaclly explain what the wrong of the soruce?.--Jobas (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay i saw now the talk page. i will bring one. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jobas Yes that is for discussion on the article Talk page. While we are talking on user Talk pages, I have noticed that you are on a bit of a streak, editing about Christians in science. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, per the policy WP:NOTADVOCACY. I am not making a statement that you are doing that, at this time, but I am giving you a heads up. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)