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)

Please reduce the personal commentary.

Please adhere to WP:NPA and stick to content issues. And if you really want to call me a POV-warrior[1][2], tendentious etc. Then take it to the appropriate channels. Otherwise i expect you to adhere to WP's rules - thank you. As i sidenote i do not appreciate being called "Kimmy"[3], if you want to be specific about me, then call me KDP. --Kim D. Petersen 06:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the name, I will not use it going forward. Please tone down the POV-warrioring and I will be happy not to comment on it. Your comment at WT:MED was so, so ... unrestrained. I really don't think you have any sense of how sick the community is of the warrioring at e-cigs. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can say that again. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Please tone down the POV-warrioring" - i would appreciate that you took that to the appropriate channels, or left out that kind of accusations. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. You repeat yourself so much! And by the way it is not an accusation it is fact, provable with diffs. You need to dial it down, as I have been saying to you for a few days now. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Endless repetition?

yes, per last set of remarks, endless repetition. Again, we clearly need an RfC Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do rather object to having my comments arbitrarily classified as 'endless repetion' by you. In WP we try to resolve conflicts by WP:CIVILdiscussion. It is quite aparemnt from the replies that I have had that no one has even understood my objection to 'fad diet'. No one has responded to any of the points that I made in the secion that I entitled 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) You have repeated yourself endlessly as have others in response to you. There is obviously an impasse. Please draft an RFC question. I also fully understand your current campaign to clean up Wikipedia of what you see as POV rhetoric. If you are not aware of it, you are extremely close to getting site banned for the way in which you are conducting this campaign. It makes me sad to see you act this way; you have made some useful contributions in the past. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I am not aware of being extremely close to getting site banned. Could you please tell me where this discussion is taking place? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I am not going to drag around Wikipedia trying to find where your pattern of behavior over recent months has been discussed, but it has been - maybe AN, maybe ANI, maybe SlimVirgin's talk page. I am not sure. It is surprising to me that you are not aware of this. Well, now you are, at least via my representation. You can do with that whatever you like but what I hope you do, is reflect on what you have been trying to do with this campaign, and note how little support you have, and how much frustration you have been generating. It will be a very simple ANI for anyone to bring. I don't intend to bring it, but you are very vulnerable to it. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC) So you basically made up the statement, 'you are extremely close to getting site banned for the way in which you are conducting this campaign'. If you are aware of my and others' objection to the use of rhetoric in WP articles why have you not engaged in discussion with me regarding my comments in 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. I have made several points to which no one at all has responded, this is hardly repetition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Sure you can dismiss my warning. As you will. I and others have responded to you many times and I will not re-open that discussion here. fwiw, the mistake you keep making, is claiming that people who don't agree with you haven't responded to you or heard you. I know exactly what the form of your argument is, as do many others, and I and others working on the Paleo article understand the specifics of it as well, with regard to "fad diet". The problem seems to me that you believe you possess The Truth on this "rhetoric" issue, and are campaigning across Wikipedia in the name of that Truth. And of course, content that is condemned by said Truth cannot be allowed to stand. I get that too. But unless you become self-aware of what you are doing and the attitude with which you are doing it and change, a site-ban is inevitable. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I do not believe that anyone has ever responded to my points in 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. I am susceptible to rational persuasion so if you were to engage in a civil discussion about the points that I have raised you might be able to change my position. If all you do is to make vague references to topic bans then you will not be able to persuade me that you are correct. I have no idea what you think that I believe 'The Truth' is. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) About The Truth - my understanding is that you believe that Wikipedia is full of loaded POV rhetoric that is added to articles and kept there by determined bands of editors, and that this is a very bad thing. Your mission appears to be get rid of this rhetoric (but may be deeper, namely addressing the very difficult issue of Advocacy). Your strategy appears to be picking key examples of such rhetoric and trying to eliminate them from an article in which the term appears. Your main tactic appears to be to keep posing the same arguments or small variations of them, always remaining calm, over and over and over. All of this is very transparent and visible. And I have never seen you budge from your opening position in pursuit of your mission. Not an iota. Nothing you have done shows you to be open rational persuasion - only rather that you possess The Truth. And it is impossible to actually persuade one who possesses the Truth that the Truth is not true or perhaps not even important, and especially not with reason. One of my favorite sayings is "Reason is a whore". This is a light paraphrase (and translation) of something that Martin Luther said. It is apt. Reason begins with assumptions that are pre-rational, and the reasoner often has some goal, which is also pre-rational. All reason does, is provide a nice set of stepping stones from the assumptions to the goal. It is a very useful tool, of course. And if the reasoner bends it back on him or herself and uses it to see if everything they are up to is coherent and consistent, it is even more useful. But anyone claiming that he or she is completely persuade-able by reason is ..... out to lunch. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I have no goal, as you seem to imagine. I have no strong opinions on the PD. Firstly I note that you still resolutely refuse to discuss the disputed issues regarding 'fad diet'. If we talk we may come to understand each other's argument, which is the first step to reaching a resolution. I do not believe that 'Wikipedia is full of loaded POV rhetoric' but I do believe that some articles, which I have randomly come across, do use rhetoric, when they should have used normal encyclopedic language to say more precisely what they mean. One problem with rhetoric is that, because its purpose is to convice rather than explain and it is therefore often deliberately ambiguous, it is very hard to have a sensible argument about statements using rhetoric. For example, if in the lead of PD one editor wanted to say that it was 'nutritionally deficient' then the argument would be a straightforward one of whether that was what RS said. If another editor wanted to say that, 'its main purpose was to make money' that might be a little harder but it would still be resolvable. The problem with 'fad diet' there is no general agreement on what it means (desspit the fact that the wording is found in many sources). That is another point that I have made that has not been addressed. THis means that it is not even possible to have a rational argument about whether it is true or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RapAuthority

Hello this is RapAuthority I wanted to thank you for helping with the Eric the Prince article, once that is settled, I can start to build profiles for independent artists who meet notability requirements, and update major artists after I do my interviews with them and create articles on Rap.com that we can then cite here. Please do what you can to move the Eric the Prince article to be kept for articles for creation and then help me do it right so that I can do it right with all of the other artists who meet the standards that no one has the motivation to write about 75.80.192.81 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RapAuthority

actually, You have been blocked so editing here under an IP address is not OK. You need to follow the unblock instructions that were left on your Talk page. I can't help you now. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Message from Fyi&otherinfo

It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Fyi&otherinfo (talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, --Edcolins (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks again for notifying me. (forgot to reply here) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

AbbVie

hi Jytdog, I contemplated writing to you yesterday regarding guidance over the 'dispute' over at the Abbvie article, but I wanted to see what else Bmedick said. I didn't realise falsely stating your an admin was a bannable offence but I guess its just gross misreprestentaion. As for the article would you mind casting your eye over it and seeing where we can improve the content /formatting - if its not too much trouble. Thanks for stepping in! (glad your back too!!) XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it happen, most often as one reason among others. I couldn't find the place in policy where that is stated, but it is in the WP:TPG. I was in the process of looking that article over in any case..... Thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Postorgasmic illness syndrome

You just removed a reference to a presentation at a medical conference. Why? How is it not encyclopedic? This is a newly described rare disease with no known treatment. I think a case report from a medical doctor that is presented at a medical conference and that describe possible treatments is encyclopedic. --POIS22 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for reaching out to me. I had wanted to open a discussion with you. Let's discuss article content on the article talk page -- if you just copy your comment there, I will respond there. (the reason for that being that discussions of content should be centralized so everybody who cares, can see it and join in if they like) I will leave you a note on your talk page about the stuff I wanted to raise with you. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Added comment on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by POIS22 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, I will respond there shortly. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the latest revision. It's much more objective and straightforward, even if short, unlike the previous version.

I will look for citations to support the statements I made. I saw your changes to the CCLA article and understand now what you're getting at.

Unfortunately, I've seen the opposite in the past, by other editors, who claimed that if there wasn't any citations supporting the allegation, then the allegation could be accepted at face value. So, my objections to the lack of citations went ignored.

This kind of inconsistency is what creates confusion so I appreciate the fact that you have also provided Wiki policy references.

Best wishes

Tobeme free (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Sure! Good luck, and feel free to ping me if you have questions about Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For having the commitment and kindness to spell out, in detail, COI guidelines and other policies for users who would've been left by the wayside in another situation. Keep it up! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

that is super nice of you. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I aspire to your level of calm and level-headedness, Jytdog, in dealing with these issues. - Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

please aim higher than me! i have much room for improvement. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Major breakthroughs in AI"

You've been told, 'First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary.'

Now have a look at mw:API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also:

• Reasonator and Autodesc are tools that create machine-generated articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

Here's an example of such an article: [4]. Here's another: [5]

meta:2016_Strategy/Knowledge#Approach_Six specifically refers to the idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content." Just sayin'. --Andreas JN466 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It may interest you to know that Lila Tretikov has opened a Q&A page on Meta: meta:Knowledge_Engine/FAQ. Also note [6]; conversations over there are a lot more pleasant. Regards, --Andreas JN466 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted there. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: [7] Andreas JN466 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent . . .

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

. . . contributions and insights re. the KE at JW talk. Much appreciated. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Whatever Jimbo's hiding, he's certainly hiding something, since almost every question he's being asked could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" yet he's frantically throwing chaff. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

yep, it is transparently clumsy. sad. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I am answering you fully and with detail. I am not hiding anything. My answers and clear and honest and transparent. I encourage more specific questions, and I stand ready to answer with all that I know. Listening to a chorus of people with a huge long track record of insulting me rather than honestly engaging me isn't going to lead you to understanding, and that's a very straightforward fact of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. I am doing my own homework. I realize that there are all kinds of people who have strong feelings about you and the WMF, for very many reasons, and ~some of them~ are loony.

I very much want to understand what is going on.

Your responses on your Talk page have been profoundly unhelpful and in response I have indeed grown increasingly fierce. It would be a big waste of time to track diffs but if you look you will see that I have been dialing up the intensity of my responses, step by step.

I realize I am just another face in the crowd to you, but you don't seem to understand how dehumanizing your responses have been. I would love to hit the reset button and have a real discussion. Maybe your note here is a sign you are ready to do that. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you becoming more fierce, but I also don't think I've been "profoundly unhelpful". I've tried to answer all your questions clearly and with full information. Here's an idea - if you're up for a "reset button" then how about starting a new section, with a clear set of specific questions? Try to keep the questions from making accusatory assumptions, just stick to factual questions that you'd like answers to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try that. Thanks! I hear what you say about leaving out accusatory assumptions.

And I ask you to consider, when you are framing your answers, to consider that there is a lot of bad feeling and distrust even from mainstream (?) people like me over this. Please hear me when I say that however you intended them, your answers have felt curt and dismissive. I wrote the section about power relationships because I experienced a feeling of powerlessness throughout this drama (since James was dismissed from the board), and when I thought about ways the community could hold the WMF board accountable, I realized that there were none.

Please hear me, that your style of responding has only re-inforced that feeling of powerlessness for me, and the sense that you and the WMF board don't even feel like you are accountable to us. The feeling of that.

But please try to speak plainly and honestly in a way that addresses what has been upsetting. Not like Lila did here but rather like what Max wrote in his comment on that, here. I will post something in a bit. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kudos

		The Original Barnstar
		For your set of polite, persistent, and acute questions about where WMF is at and where it is going at Jimbotalk. Thanks for your efforts. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the barnstar I came here to award. Anything additional would feel cheap, so I'll just add my +1. Keep up the good work. -Pete (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you both. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Our discussion at WT:HA

That discussion is making me think of something that I'd rather discuss here instead of there. You are framing a lot of the concerns that you express there in terms of your desire to be considerate of other users by discussing things with them before escalating it to a dispute resolution board. In general, that's a good impulse. But there are limits. As I said at the other talk page, regular editors really should not attempt to investigate things that checkusers are responsible for. But more broadly, having too much pre-discussion can backfire, because the other person feels like you are bugging them. I gave you some advice at my talk recently, about how you might want to stay away from dispute resolution boards for a while. It occurs to me that approaching someone one-on-one is fine initially, because maybe they will respond positively and the two of you can work things out. But if they react negatively to your initial approach, my advice would be to drop it right there. Say woops and just let it go. Getting into a protracted argument with a disruptive user can get you into the kinds of situations where you've had trouble before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I hear where you are coming from. I am going to say now that I do not view my situation as dire-ly as you do. The case against Elvey finally was closed and he was was 3-months-banned and his TBAN extended, and we were finally able to get his disruptive close at WT:MED reversed. There are escalations I am still very much pursuing. I am pursuing them carefully. I agree that if I end up all over ANI that would be a very, very bad thing. The period leading up to the arbcom case was a very bad, and very extended time (I cannot say more, of course) and I do not anticipate getting involved in any kind of content dispute like that again any time soon - I don't even see it on the horizon. I do very much appreciate your advice, and I listen to it. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy to hear that. (And, ahem, the Elvey thing worked out largely because of the information that yours truly provided there. ) My main point here is that it is possible for you to get into extended discussions with disruptive users where you have the best of intentions, because you are trying to fix things by yourself, but where it can backfire when the other user is a bad actor. If you reach out to someone who appreciates it, that's great, and that person will be thankful for your help. But reaching out to someone who is acting in bad faith leads to that person trying to paint you as a trouble-maker if you pursue it. And please don't underestimate the extent to which there are editors looking for a reason to say "see, Jytdog is doing it again!". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your input there was very helpful, as it is almost everywhere in WP. And I am very aware of my haters, and probably even some mainstream editors who look at me with some askance now. But I do hear you about being careful about getting into entanglements. I do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jonathan Fernandez

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

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 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete away. I was helping some editor with that, and they abandoned it, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time page extensive edit

Hello jytdog, I see you've overwritten all of my edits on the page. While, I agree and apologies for the way I provided some information, I would appreciate if you stop taking away the content and replacing it with irrelevant information such as linking two public figures together and to the organization for no apparent reason. Can we agree to leave the page as it is now, i.e. unbiased introduction, logo and organization's manifesto. I strongly disagree that publishing organization's manifesto constitutes self-promotion. It is a relevant information, and ultimately it is for a reader to interpret it, not a single abusive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please ask me, on the article's Talk page - I would be happy to discuss it there. It is best to discuss content in a centralized place so everybody who is interested can see it and participate. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Feldenkreis

Did you read the latest edit of the Alexander technique? Alexbrn did it, and my edit of Feldenkreis copied it! If you read the Australian meta-study, my edit here and Alexbrn's @ Alexander reflect it quite accurately. Please get back to me here on this. Thanks. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added another point to the Talk: Feldenkrais Method linguistic discussion. Tapered (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Mashlonik

A tag has been placed on Nicholas Mashlonik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks for taking care of that. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you! Thank you! You cannot imagine how many people you have helped by editing the misophonia page. Because of you people will no longer be misinformed. Misinformation leads to misdiagnosis, mistreatment and misery. Thank you.

Drjobrout (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

sure. thanks for all the "thanks" too! Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REFUND#International Misophonia Research Network. Looks as though you're doing a good job on the main article. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for letting me know about that refund request. this is so messy, on a few levels too. ack Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robbie Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hansen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your request

I'm checking. I won't have anything until tomorrow my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

danke! Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on my review, I'm unwilling to take any action, against the named account or the two IPs. Any disruptive conduct will have to handled through non-SPI forums. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. was what I did OK, process-wise, in your view? Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you handled it very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

great thanks for the assurance. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The MEDRS thing

There's got to be a way for us to come to a meeting of minds on this, and I'm sorry if I came off as unnecessarily testy. I'm skeptical that you can't see the distinction I'm drawing or recognize that it's real, so I'm wondering what the issue is. Two theories come immediately to mind (1. there's so much fringe crap, we can't do anything to ever undermine, even slightly, the perception that mainstream medical authorities are authoritative, even if they sometimes really aren't for everything, especially when politics and money are involved; 2. it's hard to distinguish in a definitional way between an AMA-or-whatever publication that is essentially a literature review produced in-house and which is rather or even entirely neutral, from a position statement that is clearly reflecting political priorities as well as or instead of medical science ones). But for all I know it's something else entirely. You tell me. I don't think either of those two problems are insurmountable, if either of them are the source of the friction. But until this direct policy conflict is resolved, I have to keep treating MEDRS as a weak document, WP:MED's biased, WP:PROJPAGE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS masquerading as a guideline, which cannot actually be followed or taken very seriously. And I'm very firmly anti-FRINGE. Is it worth it to lose the support of editors like me, for nothing but the convenience of not having to deal with a definitional problem about source types? I'm hardly the only editor who has less respect for MEDRS than it could earn. I don't think it does WP:MED or WP any good whatsoever to drive natural allies back across an artificial, pointless line MEDRS's editorial camp has drawn, to the side where their mutual enemy is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to try to talk. I will ask you to try to read the first two sentences of what you just wrote through my eyes. You are saying that i am purposefully not addressing your question. Please think about what it is like to read that. It is not happy. And I suggest you completely chuck that out the window. And on the level of WP:MED - the project has been very careful not to build a walled garden, so please don't treat WP:MED as though it has. It is really corrosive, on a lot of levels. So basically please be more rigorous in AGF on both levels.

What is happy is that I think you are onto something with the definitional issue you start talking about. You seem to be drawing a distinction between different kinds of statements put out by MSMBs. What I would urge you to do, is build that out. And I will say that if you cannot clearly define categories, and provide examples of each, you should back off the very strong statements you are making, until you can. You should not be pushing so hard on something that is maybe true, but tentative.

we can probably have a productive conversation (as in, getting somewhere in community) trying to see if there is a usefully-makeable distinction among kinds of statements. That conversation is very unlikely to happen if you are demanding changes to the guideline and accusing WP:MED of being a walled garden.

As you have been around way longer than me, I shouldn't have to say this to you, but I think that if you want to build consensus for change, the way to do that is by drawing people in to see the problem and asking for help solving it. "Hey all - MEDRS says X. But when I look at X, I see two kinds of things, A and B. Here are examples of A, and here are examples of B. Stuff in B, in my view, is really outside the purview of reporting "accepted knowledge" and instead provides "judgements about social issues." I think we should make this distinction in MEDRS. Do folks see the difference I am defining, and agree that we should express that distinction in MEDRS? Do you maybe see yet other categories within X?" That would start a much more productive discussion that could drive change. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just did Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Resetting Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

All fair points, which I will absorb, and I appreciate both the measured response here, and the efforts to realign the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for talking! And thanks for surfacing this issue - i think there is maybe something there. sorry i didn't hear it before. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia user group, with a bank account and its own fundraising banners...

representing the people who make and run the WMF's cash cow? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that would end well. Once there is a smell of money, the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start (cf. WM UK). But it is entertaining to imagine the competing fundraising banners: "No, don't give them money, this is the real Wikipedia... " JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start" that's WMF to a t. I'm not saying we'd be any better (though I think we might) but at least then they'd be coming to us for resources instead of us to them, cap in hand ... and if they take another five years to get the visual editor right we can just sack them, and give the contract to Google. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

the specific idea is funny; i don't know that WMF would allow our banners.  :) it does fit with talk of a union of editors or the like - some kind of entity that could actually hold the board accountable (but only through work slow downs or strikes). Without such an entity the board is not accountable to us in any concrete way. It would mean building a whole additional layer of infrastructure here in addition to all the governance we already have, and then figuring out how to actually govern the thing. that is daunting. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like very hard work. Probably the easiest approach would be just turning the WMF into a membership-based organisation, where the members elect the majority of board members and the board appoints expert members. It's being discussed on meta somewhere. The present situation isn't optimum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with harassment and vandalizing of OCLA page

Hi Jytdog

You helped out with this page Ontario Civil Liberties Association and I agreed with your final edit.

However, an IP address keeps coming in and making ridiculous changes to the page.

I have filed a complaint in the Admin forum HERE and am drawing it to your attention.

Hope you can help resolve this?

Tobeme free (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

This would be a good time to use "page protection". I will request it, and will link there, so you can see how to I did it. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

done here If this were a registered user, the edit warring notice board would be the way to go but it is little use with an IP editor Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Learning a lot from you. Appreciate the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim of "harassment" or "vandalism" is ridiculous. See my response at Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association#OCLA.2FCCLA. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

forumshopping is a kind of harassment, and your hands are not clean here. Please don't act like they are. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI post removed by intention

Hi,

You seem to have good connections in the ANI area. Dishonesty is a requirement? Anyway, please keep my recent posts removed as I intended. -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, you mean this change you made. You really should WP:REDACT - oy. DePiep you are too cantankerous for your own good. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Refrain from Allegations of Bad Faith

Warning: Please refrain from your repeated allegations of bad faith: [8] [9]. I warned you at the talk page here to stop and yet you have continued. I also mentioned in that diff that this may be a violation of your topic ban on GMO's. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)