User talk:Jytdog

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Young blood transfusion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Note

Hi, I am a university student, and this is an assignment i am uploading. Please can you explain to me what i am doing wrong, so i can fix it and re-upload it? Please can you advise which sources are unreliable? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessperrone (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please self revert; I was just filing an edit warring case and you are probably going to be blocked or the article frozen. Once the article is stable again we talk about sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Jessperron -- others have now come along and fixed the content. Please do read the several messages on your talk page, including the content at User_talk:Jessperrone#Welcome. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you evaluate...

... this and other stuff by same editor? Looks very much like promotion of med companies, and editor has a penchant for press releases. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that person is problematic. Will do. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

G11 declined

Jytdog, I've declined your G11 tag at Rohit Varma. While the intent of the page appears to be promotional, the language used therein is not bad enough for this to qualify for G11. I have PRODed the page instead, and will send it to AfD if the PROD tag is removed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

PROD is fine, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add that I very grateful that you took some additional action. It is frustrating when people just remove a speedy tag and do nothing to address the issues... so thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that it's frustrating. Vanamonde (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Chemical imbalance

Hello Jytdog. I stumbled on Chemical imbalance and noticed a redir and kind of want to go on a rampage of bold edits but I saw where you have touched upon this topic lately and I am wondering what your thoughts are about this? Personally, I do not think it is honest of us to include the phrase "chemical imbalance" and have it redirected like it currently is. I'm going to wait to see what you have to advise about this before editing this further since I'm not quite sure what to do here. -Thanks!TeeVeeed (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about "not honest". But this is best discussed at an article talk page or perhaps at WT:MED -- am thinking the latter because whatever you mean by "honest", the monamine hypothesis applies to disorders other than major depressive disorder, and it currently redirects to Biology of depression but aspects of this are discussed for example at Mechanisms of schizophrenia... shall we discuss at WT:MED? Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I mean using the term as-if we have an article, Chemical imbalance linked int like it is but we do not, but then it is a redirect. I'm concerned because the term and link is used widely. The 'dishonest" is the implication that there is an article titled Chemical imbalance----I know that we have a legit use for piped internal links but this is a little sketchy? Yes I changed it to the depression article section linked for one change that I edited but it almost looks like it would need to be on an article by article basis because yeah it is used in other articles which are not about biological causes of depression. TeeVeeed (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia"

You might like Mark Twain's parody The Awful German Language (with Wikisource fulltext). It's very popular in Germany. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

:) i do. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nanny Ogg: "Words have sex in foreign languages." Granny Weatherwax: "I'm not surprised." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had to go look that up! Maybe we have a better image for WP:IDHT.... Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it. Sure, but copyright, probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Schrenker Article

Hi, I read your edits to the Marcus Schrenker article. I just saw a 20/20 interview about him and have concerns about this Wikipedia article. It seems to be really slanted by someone that is directly connected to him. What I read about him, and saw about him, is incredibly different than what the Wikipedia article suggests. Are you sure it was a fair edit? It seems this is nothing more than using Wikipedia to slam a person at their rock bottom. There were no other viewpoints other than the persons rock bottom. This guy is out there doing far different and quite positive things (according to the news) and this Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything like that.

Concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcrossword (talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The article pretty much stops at 2010. If there are reliable sources for things he has done since then, i am sure the article can be brought forward. Please post at the article talk page, Talk:Marcus Schrenker, and we can discuss! Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ACT DYK

Regarding the Advanced Cell Therapeutics DYK nom, wasn't it another editor who did the review you noted as QPQ? Did you link the wrong one accidentally? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought commenting is "reviewing". I guess not, and I will remove that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Second issue, hook neutrality. See review page. I'm assuming you don't need the usual boilerplate template for issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK! I am starting to do a review, to satisfy that requirement. Will respond over there. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hii

I would like to create this article on this 22 yr old Company (https://novotech-cro.com/). I would like to know what I should do. It is not your birth right to not allow me to edit on wikipedia. Right ? or it is your birth right to decide which articles are not to be created, then why there is an article on PRA health sciences. Veilplot (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

birth right, dictatorship, whatever. diff, twenty-something year old company, whatever. diff. I'm just waiting for the shoe to drop. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shoe has dropped. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

You are determined to not allow that company's article in wikipedia. Dont skip your answers and say whatever whatever. Say that you are a vandal in the guise of a good editor, and your strategy is agenda driven vandalism. I know you work for IQVIA, and you dont want your competitor company to take a prominence over wikipedia.Veilplot (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

vandalism, check. I am waiting for the all caps to start again.

Look, it is very clear that you are the same person as Ssgajimouli; i have filed to have that acted on, but in the meantime, here we are.

Ssgajimouli disclosed that they were working for TPG Capital, then subsequently denied that, as have you.

There are processes here for managing paid editing and COI that you are ignoring. You are also very apparently evading a block, which is also a violation of policy. The right way to do this is to appeal the block at the Ssgajimouli account and if successful, follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline.

For the article, there needs to be sufficient independent, secondary sources, or we cannot keep it. It's not me, it's how WP works.

Please don't write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

Thank you for communicating with me regarding edits. No personal interest in engaging in a so-called "edit war". Rather, seeking to provide information concisely as provided in citation provided. The alleged rationale for termination from the medical institution is relevant information, as compared to the standard start date for an academic year in residency. I am certainly willing to hear out your perspective in the edits, however. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at the section I opened, at Talk:Eugene_Gu#Reason_for_terminating_residency. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of references

Hello, Jytdog. I see that you have decided to delete dozens of references to Angelopedia (including from people's User pages), doing so while discussion of the matter is still taking place at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I call on you to reverse your actions. After doing so, feel free to add a {{better source needed}} template if you feel that would be appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Have been leaving "cn" tags. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Angelopedia. It is going to be blacklisted soon too. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at RS notice board supports Jytdog's actions. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute at cerebrovascular disease

Diabetes not a stroke risk? You mean I've been miseducating my patients all these years?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mucositis - 2nd opinion sought

I'm in the process of answering a COI edit request at Talk:Mucositis#Treatment_&_Prevention_of_OM, as I'm still learning and it's your area of interest I'm keen to get your input & would like a second opinion before adding the information they are requesting. Looking at your talk page now though, I feel reluctant to ask because it looks like you're really busy. If not you, then perhaps one of your TPS's might be willing to drop by & have a look at it, see if I'm way off base here or not? I'd appreciate anyone's help (preferably med. related expertise)  spintendo  04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I declined the request on the grounds that the issue needed further discussion. It had already been sitting on the queue for over two weeks and no one had began that discussion yet (there was and still is a valid issue to be discussed). In the past, COI edit requests have sat on the queue for months, but my reasoning is that allowing that kind of a length doesn't seem to offer any benefit over having it just declined and then re-raised at a later date when someone might be willing to discuss it. (Note: This reasoning is specific to this article, and does not include the other one we were discussing earlier today.)  spintendo  01:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That stuff is workable. I will get there tonight or tomorrow. thanks for pinging me!! Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at The Pictet Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WikiEditCrunch. The purpose of the notice is to ensure you are aware of the policy. As I already gave you this notice, I am obviously aware of it. It is not a "badge of dishonor". You are consistently showing that you do not understand Wikipedia and what we do here, nor how we do things, nor why. Please self-correct. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your the self-appointed expert.I know.

Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still ignoring talk page conventions. Your editing is really aiming for the wrong thing. You are heading directly for a topic ban with indefensible edits like this which was immediately reverted, and this and this. Your edits are almost all promotional and overly detailed with regard to companies - which is not something looked on favorably by the community -- and your refusal to follow basic conventions and the continued snark of "mate" exacerbates that. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed those pages and found no issues.When will you stop stalking me?

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [[:File:Mulan Screenshot.jpg|thumb|Dishonor on you! Dishonor on your whole family! –Natureium]]

Multimodel Deep Learning

This just showed up on my watchlist. Does it look as spammy to you as it does to me? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhhh more academic spam: Special:Contributions/Kamykowsari. From some spot checks, that and Hierarchical Deep Learning are both copy and pastes of his conference papers. SmartSE (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. I'm a little hesitant to AfD or merge the pages because I don't know enough about deep learning, but a superficial search shows lots of Google hits for the subject, but they seem mostly to be self-references, not independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

They were even put through AfC. Yes these are not good; an expert using WP like a faculty webpage. argh. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly a PhD student, so expert is stretching it a little. At the very least they need all the content referenced to his papers or copied and pasted from them removed. Jusging by this, Multimodel Deep Learning isn't notable. The other is better, but there are still only 9 papers with it in the title, which for a field like compsci is very little. SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

Hi I wonder if you could have a look at this User talk:Lake Ontario Wind#Article Deletion discussion and tell me what you think. In light of this admission on his choice of editors to review articles [1] and the fact that as I already pointed out this editor has less than 500 editis and next to no experience in notability discussions. IMHO it is totally inappropriate to ask this editor to review his edit request and make the changes he wishes. We are getting close to a WP:MEATPUPPET situation because this could be seen as being akin to Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute.. I don't want to confront him about this as he already sees me as hostile but as you have collaborated on several articles with him and reminded him about behaviour as a paid editor I think you are perfectly legitimate to give me a balanced opinion on this. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is problematic that he had asked that person to review. I believe he is not going to do that anymore. Which is good.

About the post you link; looking at BC1278's contribs, that is the only person he notified, so yes that is canvassing in my view. I'll put a note there and at BC1278's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That said they were the only other contributor to the article so it would have been difficult to choose anyone else! But as they were the one who moved the article into mainspace following the request from BC1278 it is clear that they will not !vote delete so for me a real problem especially as they are asking them to directly publish the modifications rather than following the WP:EDITREQUEST procedure which is:

1. Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet.
2. Once there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation.
3. A user who can make the edit will notice the template has been added, and will respond to the request.

For me they are gaming the system and this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. If this goes on I can't see any choice but to take it to ANI. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've posted at the AfD about logistics for making changes while the AfD is running... Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis and Dom from Paris: @Jytdog: I understand why you think this looks like canvassing, but it is not if you look at the article history. I wrote that note intending to ping everyone who had made a contrib to the article. Then I went to history and it turned out that editor was the only one to have done any direct edits on the article, other than bots.BC1278 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You are making a very narrow legalistic argument there. Making that kind of argument is unwise. This looks very bad, and is bad, given the particulars. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:GAMETYPE #4. I believe you are doing this to avoid an accusation of meat puppetry. Noone would expect the person who reviewed the article and moved it into mainspace to vote delete. This is very unwise behaviour especially for a paid editor who has potentially a lot to lose in the case of sanctions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think enough has been said about this here. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it's me your favorite pain in the neck. I guess you saw I left Women in the Bible, and I wanted to explain. I have frequently found your manner and comments hard to swallow, but somehow, I always seem to eventually end up thinking your comments are right for Wikipedia, and darned if I haven't learned as much from your criticisms as I have learned from all the compliments I have received put together. That doesn't mean I want more criticism!! :-) However, it does mean that I see the worth of your input. I had totally developed "ownership" of that article and couldn't hear what you were saying, so it was right for me to leave. But I went and looked recently and I see that you have not worked on it since I left, and I wanted to say please don't be discouraged by my failure to support your efforts. Please do what you do. It's an important article and you bring valuable knowledge and I would very much like to see you finish what you--we--started and turn it into the kind of quality article we both want to see here. Maybe after you are done, you could send me a 'heads up' as I am not watching it anymore. It will be less painful for me if I see it after the fact. If you know what I mean... ;-) Anyway, good luck. I wish you well in all your endeavors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I always want is best for WP; yes my manner is rather harsh and i understand that can make it hard to accept what I say. I do intend to swing back by there; I had held off because you said were going away. Will try to get back this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hallucinogen#Deliriants

Hello, I am writing to explain myself with regards to my edits of the deliriants section of the hallucinogen page. All the information I have provided relating to A. muscaria and its lay categorization as a deliriant comes from the associated Wikipedia pages. For example, assuming Wiki is on beat with the pulse of culture, the page recreational drug use regards A. muscaria and its active compounds as deliriants, without citation. This is almost universal, except when I have edited it into the dissociative category, thinking it belonged there, and the odd dissenter like whomever made it so dissociative mushroom redirects to psychoactive Amanita mushroom. I am fine with not saying anything about A. muscaria in the deliriant section but please remove all the content associated with it, instead of leaving a huge paragraph, without context or subject stated, which despite its citation is as contrived and condensed from other pages as the other one. This taboo subject excites me and the information I have provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you could perhaps modify the content to your liking and take some of the cites from the related pages, like muscimol and ibotenic acid, this topic could be fleshed out nicely in proper fashion. Because this is a taboo subject, there is not as much high quality research into its pharmacology as their would be for a patented pharmaceutical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBaur (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! However, discussion about article content should be at the article talk page. Please post this at Talk:Hallucinogen#Unsourced and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural issue for Nextdoor

Hi,

As part of your straightening out the mess as Nextdoor Talk,I agreed to only submit one proposal at a time, which is sensible. However, I did not anticipate that a user would re-create a "Controversy" section with no RS. Nextdoor#Denial_of_service_to_sex_offenders_and_members_of_their_households

I don't want to start something new on Talk, as I promised. But it seems unfair to let an obvious problem like this go unaddressed. Since you structured the discussion, I'd like your advice on how to handle this.

The background is this. I am loathe to ever directly edit articles where I have a COI, except in rare cases where I believe clear cut vandalism. In this, an SPI editor, in their one and only edit on Wikipedia on April 12, 2018, with their Ft. Lauderdale IP address revealed, inserted a "Controversy" sub-section sourced only to a same-day, April 12, 2018 blog post and self-published letter from an obscure Florida advocacy website for sex offenders. dif Their complaint is that household members of sex offenders are prevented from having Nextdoor accounts. As I understand Wikipedia, a self-published blog post on a local sex offender's advocacy website has the same RS weight as if they had posted the info on their Twitter account or Facebook page. Editors who review COI requests have told me repeatedly not to bother them with removing vandalism similar to this - just to do it myself. I chose to do it, after checking on Google that the complaint by the sex offender group had not been written about by any RS. I also left in the edit note that I have a COI. And I notified the SPI editor of what I was doing.

Now it has been restored as an "improved" version, with a link to the Nextdoor website and a link to a Supreme Court caselaw note that does not mention Nextdoor, but deals with sex offenders. The Florida sex offender advocacy-group self-published blog post is still the main citation. The new version now explicitly says that Nextdoor may be violating the law, with no RS. I have directly asked the editor to please remove the section, and even pointed out that if they just wanted to add the Nextdoor policy on excluding sex offender households from the service, there is a RS for that.

I have explained the substance, as I would on a Talk page request, but only for the purpose of giving you context for a process decision. Not to weigh in on the merits. Where am I supposed to bring this issue since we've decide the Talk page should be for one issue at a time? This is me being very cautious.-BC1278 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please discuss content on the article talk page. In general, I advise you to not try to have these "side bars" at people's talk pages about article content matters. I'll reply there if you post there. So yeah - just post about it, focused on the content, at the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I just wanted to be extra cautious I wasn't going to be criticized for bringing up more than one matter at a time on Talk, given the problems before. I gave too much context.BC1278 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I understand the situation. Sorry that things have gotten hairy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with Paolo Casali

Hi, Jytdog. I know you are probably busy with editing articles for people who do not have a conflict of interest, but wanted to check in to see if the disclosure I made on my user page at your request is sufficient and what the next steps would be. I left a few comments on my talk page. Thanks. --Meriville (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural advice

Hi,

Thanks again for helping to straighten out Nextdoor.

Seeking out advice again on process since I don't want to step in it again. In light of the IP address, one-edit SPA inserting self-promotion in Nextdoor (Florida), and the bad experienced with sock puppet vandalism, etc., do you think it would be OK for me to seek semi-protection for Nextdoor? Or some other sort of protection?

I am going to soon introduce a new update for review since we're about done with the racial profiling section. I will try to think of a very nice way to make the requests but it might nevertheless draw the attention of socks or SPAs. It is the nature of this subject, it seems. Am I potentially going to piss anyone off by making such a request?

BC1278 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

In my view there is not a significant enough history of disruptive edits to warrant protection. Edits like the IPs need to happen a lot (for instance if the IP editor was IP hopping and edit warring to keep the content... Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll just keep an eye out instead. BC1278 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

User:Mlbnkm1/Assetz Property Group

Hi Jytog. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at User:Mlbnkm1/Assetz Property Group and assessing it for potential COI and paid editing. The reason I'm asking is that this post give the impression of someone working under some kind of guideline and someone not intendeing to submit the draft for review via AfC. Also, there's File:Malayalam Dorector Marthandan.jpg which in an of itself is nothing really, but when you considered that the same editor who took the photo also created G. Marthandan a few days earlier, then there might be some kind of connection between subject and editor.

On the other hand, I might just be seeing smoke where there's no fire, but I just thought I'd ask you about it since you're way more experienced in this type of thing I am. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. "Assetz Property Group" is technically still a userspace draft, so maybe it can be left as is with a suggestion that it be submitted to AfC and not directly added to the username space. G. Marthandan, however, is already in the mainspace so I'm not quite sure how to deal with that one. Do you think it would be over kill to add a {{uw-coi}} template or a a post of some kind to the editor's user talk page about WP:COI and WP:PAID? The account has been around 2012, so it's not as if somebody just created the account to create these particular articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind the above. I didn't notice that you'd already posted about this on their user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to update this thread, Mlbnkm1 has gone ahead and created Assetz Property Group despite the advice you gave them on their user talk. Their intentions might be good and they probably are just under pressure to get the article added asap, but they seem to have missed the point of what you posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Greyjoy ^talk 12:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not posting this to your talk page, as is customary to do so. I'll be more mindful in the future. Godrestsinreason (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That board is for content disputes. You brought a behavioral complaint there. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

And it will be closed as a behavioral complaint. Before bringing a behavioral complaint, it is a good idea to read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida‎‎

Hi, just for reference - that's the cell phone spammer, who does nothing but insert contact numbers for his admission scam outfit into Indian university pages. Usually IP, these days mixing it up with throwaway accounts. Whenever you see 11 bytes added to these pages, it's an alarm signal :) Ship'em straight to AIV. I'm doing that one now. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

what's up

What's with the removal of the ref I recently cited? Was it questionable? Was the ref not appropriate for the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Please see the message on your talk page at User_talk:September_1988#References_2. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Agressiveness

I want to assume good faith.

But you might want to consider being more patient and flexible when threatening with stuff etc. when things are more about nuance and smaller points than proper violations.

Violations of those kinds are there for a good reason. But invoking those rules aggressively beyond common sense is not a good policy IMHO.

It might also land yourself in hot water at some point. Be careful. You can be assertive while polite. Not every disagreement calls for those sharp language and tools.

Respectfully Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not respectful. Not aware. Do not edit war. Do not violate copyright, and do not edit war to retain copyright violations. It is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP: ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Godrestsinreason (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Smart Contracts

Hi Jytdog,

I'm new to the editing process, and not quite clear on where to go to respond properly. On this page you say to post to the article Talk page - which I haven't found yet.

My recent changes to the Smart Contracts page were deleted citing problems with the reference I cited. The reference is to the AMiX user manual. This reference also appears on the "Phil Salin" page. The AMiX user manual exists only in hardcopy. I am not quite sure what is wanted to improve the reference.

Can you give me some guidance on how and where to address this?

Thanks, Deltavelocity (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it should not be there either. Wikipedia content should be based on independent, reliable sources and aiming for high level, encyclopedic content. If you find yourself trying to cite a user manual you are probably aiming for the wrong thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Godrestsinreason

You said that the chance was vanishingly small that this person was not associated with Bernie44 or with Chewy. Yes. As I have just said at WP:ANI, I know believe everything that they say, which is that they are a low-level employee of Chewy, and have nothing to do with Bernie, except that Bernie is being paid by, among other things, Chewy. (I now believe everything that they have said. I have also learned a lesson that some of the rest of us should learn about newbie editors who show knowledge beyond their experience. Maybe they really did use Google.) The timing that they started editing at the same time as the socks were blocked may really be a coincidence. In any case, I agree with your request for an indef, but think that the formality of a ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't argue with that outcome.

on the bigger picture, when I deal with conflicted editors on my good days (and this was a good day) - i ask them about connections and am actually hoping to have a conversation. The outcome of the discussion depends on the other person. Many people respond in an honest and reasonable way and the discussion unfolds well; other people say things that are pretty clearly not true, other people get all upset. Some people lie and get upset. There is no good way forward if the other person gets upset, which is when I kick it to COIN and/or SPI. I've basically ignored them since I filed those two posts.

btw I read everything you wrote and agree, including the negativish stuff about me. I appreciate your forthrightness. I like working with people who are not playing wikipolitics. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

and i hear you that it turned out to be somewhere between SOCK/MEAT and completely unconnected. Yes my post at ANI was too binary. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Re your G11ing of Workflowy

Please do not G11 articles of established contributors without even notifying them, as you did at Workflowy. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mediterranean diet

Opened a discussion in the talk page. See you there. Ffaffff (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

yep already replied there. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence article

Regarding this edit, how would you rate this source? Should we let it remain for now? The editor who added it is one I've had to deal with on domestic violence issues, because he pushes a men's rights POV and engages in WP:Editorializing. If we let his text at the Sex differences in intelligence article remain for now, the "So, it cannot be due to differences in general intelligence" editorializing should at least be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of Booster Tag on University Pages

As you have probably noticed, the extent of boosterism on University Pages on Wikipedia is significant. I'm identifying the pages which are the biggest offenders. Harvard, University of Chicago, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and UC Berkeley sound like they are written by PR people. Check those pages out and let me know if you agree. Any support on those pages would be greatly appreciated. Hellishscrubber (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Hellishscrubber if you want to see raw BOOSTER, check out Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University. Pure industrial waste. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to [[:WP:NJOURNALS]], did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unarchiving section for Nextdoor

Hi,

Seems like the discussion at Nextdoor has settled enough to move on to discussion of proposed updates for another section. History seems most significant. Since you set up the process, wondering if you think it is better to de-archive this discussion: Talk:Nextdoor/Archive_1#Improve_Section_on_History? or if I should just start a new section/discussion, with a smaller set of distinct Request Edits. Best, BC1278 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please post notes like this at the article talk page. I have a very strong personal preference not to have side conversations and that is very strong in this kind of interaction, which everybody watching the page should be aware of. So please post at the talk page and ping me there. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Power posing

Did you mean to only undo some of the edits at Power posing or was that a mistake? Natureium (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In this diff I meant to undo just the last one. The others are OKish to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The only other edit between him back and forth between himself was changing discredited to controversial. I guess neither are technically false. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Thanks for reviewing my contribution for vns therapy. I have been researching this topic pretty intensively and have been incorporating a lot of credible references to try to make the piece as comprehensive as possible, so I'm definitely looking forward to some detailed feedback of you removed my changes. Thanks for your help with this whole process and for helping me get caught up to speed with how to make wiki edits responsibly.18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure how this works, but I was assuming that since you removed a large portion of the contribution that I researched, that you provide guidance on why it was removed and provide direction on how I can improve it to make it more appropriate to traditional wiki format. My goal for this page is to provide some additional information that I have came across in my research. Ultimately, I feel like the content for the page does not provide wiki readers with enough information around the pros, cons, and developments of this type of treatment. The current content is also dated, which is why I'm trying to update it with some new developments, FDA approvals and data. I could really use your help for becoming an effective wiki editor. Please advise 13:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

On rules, templates, projects, goals, etc.

Hi, we had a discussion on User Talk:DocJames's talk page, which seems best to be continued here.
Back in 2009 I spent a few days analyzing the growth of Wikipedia up to that date. It was clear that something happened in 2005 that suddenly changed the editing activity from exponentially increasing to exponentially decreasing. My explanation for that abrupt change was that, in the wake of a memorable and traumatic incident involving the article on a famous reporter, Wikipedia changed its policies to make it much less friendly towards "newbie" editors. Those changes included the AFD mechanism (where discussion on merits of a new article are carried out in the "old boys" logical courtyard, rather than on the article's talk page), and tight "notability" rules. As a result of these changes, the few newbies who dared to create articles on topics of their interest saw their contributions sumarily deleted by "higher authorities" -- an experience that is extremely upsetting and discouraging even for calloused editors.
I posted that report in the relevant [[Wikipedia:]] page, but no one seemed to care, or even to admit that the editor body was shrinking, or even that there had been an abrupt change in the growth rate.
I sincerely hope that the editor body has recovered since then. However, the decline continued for a few years more. So much so that, at one point, Wikipedia launched an initiative to make editing easier; maybe you remember that.
According to their own experiments, when "virgin" volunteers were invited to edit Wikipedia, the single main factor that prevented the recruitment of new editors was the complexity and inscrutability of the source code that they saw when they clicked the "edit" button. A number of factors contribute to that complexity, including:

• Extensive used of templates, many of them inscrutable, unnecessary, or created for purely typographical effects.
• Infoboxes and navboxes inserted at the very top of the source. (Navboxes thankfully have now largely been moved to the bottom of articles, but infoboxes are still there.)
• Pointless article-side editorial tags like "needs citations".
• Bibliographic data of references inserted in the middle of text, instead of at the end of the article, or in some Wikidata repository.
• A totally brain-damaged syntax for tables.

Some complexity is unavoidable, and some templates are really helpful: the code "{{chem|H|2|O}}" is actually more readable, even to a complete newbie, than "H₂O". But, for the most part, the contribution of templates to Wikipedia is strictly negative: they do not improve its value to readers, they only make it harder to edit.
Unfortunately, the social dynamics of Wikipedia favor the endless proliferation of pointless and harmful templates. One editor who likes writing templates creates a "cool" new template, and starts using it in articles. A few other editors like him, who like the template, start using it too. Then other editors see that template being used, assume that it is a "consensus rule" of Wikipedia, and start using it too --- without even thinking whether it is good or bad for the project. Meanwhile, those editors who are not able to write templates, or do not not like doing that, or do not see the need for that template, do not get a chance to express their opinion. Even if some knowledgeable editor bothers to express disagreement on the template's talk page, his opinion is simply ignored --- because the decision on the existence and use of the template rests on those who like it.
Even if a brave newbie persists and gets over the initial hurdle of the complexity of the source, he then has to cope with the general hostility and arrogance of some seasoned editors. The same lopsided social dynamics plays here too: the editor is infinitely more likely to be reverted and scolded by an editor who disagreed with his contributions, than confirmed and praised by those editors who liked them -- even if the latter outnumber the former a thousand to one.
A typical bad experience is being told by a "senior" editor that "your edits were reverted because they violate WP:XYZ37/K-3(a)", rather than "I reverted your edits because [explicit reason why they are bad for Wikipedia]". While the latter means more work for the "cop", it is often the case that he cannot actually provide an explicit rational justification for the reversal -- other than "WP:XYZ37/K-3(a) says so".
Over the years, a HUGE mass of rules has been accumulating in the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace. For obvious psychosocial reasons, rules are much more likely to be expanded and multiplied, than trimmed and discarded. The more rules there are, the more difficult it is for newbie editors to join, and the more likely those clashes above become.
Several years ago I took the trouble to check how a particular rule became "consensus". The issue was whether the "unreferenced" tag should be added at the top of the article, at the bottom of the article, or in the Talk page. I posted my observations somewhere in that vast murky ocean of the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace (with the result that you can guess), but cannot find them now and must quote them from memory. Only a couple dozen editors (out of the 10'000 or so who were active at the time) took part in that discussion. Naturally, most if not all of them were people who (a) were sufficiently involved in rule writing to know about the discussion, and (b) though that the tag itself was a good idea. A poll was taken at some point among those interested parties. Some 20 votes were cast, and the alternative with FEWER votes -- "at the top of the article" -- was declared "consensus" by the "leaders" of the debate; who, IIRC, included the creators of the template.
And yet, when Wikipedia was created, one of the cardinal rules was that the article itself should have absolutely no editor comments or notes, and that all editor-to-editor communication should be conducted in the Talk page. Try mentioning that to the creators of article-tagging templates...
Another development that was a net loss to Wikipedia was the establishment of "Wikipedia Projects". On the surface, they seem to be a great way to promote and organize editing of selected fields. In practice, they only promote editorial wars, misguided editing-for-style, and further drive away newbies -- who, besides the general Wikipedia rules, are expected to also know and respect the rules of whatever project claims "ownership" of the article that they try to edit.
Several years ago I also took the time to investigate one particular Wikipedia project, "Microbiology". Again, my findings were posted somewhere in [[Wikipedia:]], with the same result as above. From memory, there were several dozen registered members in that project, but only a handful of them did actually edit some article in the project's "territory". Most of the edits were done by two or three members, and by a handful of other editors who were not members. The project had produced an article, Virus, which it considered "top quality"; which was mostly the work of one devoted editor. Yet, while the article's content was indeed quite good, and would have made a superb monograph on the subject, it was at the time way too long for a Wikipedia article. It should have been split into a dozen or so articles (which thankfully has happened since then) -- but that would clearly have made that editor and/or the project's bosses unhappy.
Each project creates a list of articles that need work, and sorts it by priority. However, the existence of that listing will not increase the total amount of work that editors will spend on those articles, and not even direct that effort towards the high-priority articles. Each editor will naturally edit whatever articles he is interested in and feels more competent to improve. In the end, only the project bosses -- at best -- will follow their own priority list. And that list is inevitably subjective anyway.
One of the many ways that Projects are bad for Wikipedia is that they inevitably want to define their own style rules, and try to impose them on all articles in their perceived "territory". But the same article often belongs naturally to several areas: Prussian blue can be a chemical substance, a drug, a paint pigment, and several other things. Which project will get to define its style?
This problem was acute years ago, when each little project in Wikipedia wanted to put their navbox (navigation box) at the top of the article. At least now the "consensus" seems to be that navboxes should be at the end of the article, and closed by default. But many projects still have their own infoboxes, and then the problem remains: should benzoyl peroxide have a "chemical" infobox, or a "drug" infobox?
My recent conflict with User:DocJames is basically of that nature. As an MD, he naturally decided that chlorine-releasing compounds are drugs; and thus set out to format the article in the style mandated by the Medicine or Pharmacology project (including a non-standard structure for the head section, and a totally inappropriate drug infobox). Yet those products (not just the compounds, but the commercial products) are widely used also for other applications, such as laundry, bleaching fibers, paper, flour, etc. Since I am not committed to any project, I tried to edit that article in a style that I thought best for the general reader, without regard of its "ownership".
Indeed, infoboxes themselves are a huge drag on Wikipedia, apart from the turf cnflicts. Once someone decides to add a field to an infobox, editors feel compelled to fill that field on every instance of that infobox, even in articles where their time would be better spent in improving the text in other ways. Infoboxes should reside in Wikidata projects; they should be closed by default, and pull the data automatically from Wikidata if and when the reader opens them. Then each article could have as many infoboxes as its editors are willing to add.
Another way that a Project may harm Wikipedia is when its "bosses" choose one external authority that has its own classification and nomenclature for the concepts in that area, and then try to map that same classification into Wikipedia -- namely, one article for each entry in that external database, with the name that the external entity chose for it. I ran into that problem in 2014 ago when I tried to edit the article on cellulase. That name actually refers to several very different classes of enzymes, with different products and mechanisms, and the only thing they have in common is the subtrate they decompose (cellulose). Logically, the Wikipedia cellulase article should be a short summary with links to specific articles on each class. However, the Molecular and Cell Biology project at the time had chosen one specific database (EC) as the Supreme Authority on enzyme nomenclature and classification; and since that database had one entry for cellulase, Wikipedia ought to have one article on it too. Moreover, that database listed dozens of alternative names for "cellulase", including many mis-used ones and just errors; and the Wikipedia article slavishly copied all of them as "also called" names in the lead section. (That article has been cleaned up since then, thankfully).
The Medicine project seems to have lapsed into that sin too. There are several articles, like ATC_code_D08, that are mirrors of the corresponding entries in the latest WHO classification of essential medicines. Doesn't this violate the spirit of this rule, if not its strict letter?
And there are many other similar "pathologies" in Wikipedia's processes that have developed over the years and have turned into huge wastes of human resources: the category system, navboxes, many irrelevant items in infoboxes, templates for imperial-metric unit conversions, the distinction between en-dashes and hyphens, etc.. I bet that more than 80% of all time that editors spent on Wikipedia was wasted in such pointless tasks.
I am also quite sure that, if some calamity completely and permanently erased the entire [[Wikipedia:]] namespace -- including all style rules and Project pages -- readers and content editors would not feel that anything is missing, and Wikipedia would instantly become a zillion times better for both.
What is frustrating is that all my complaints about the complexification and proliferation of pointless features, even on forums that explicitly asked for such comments (like that editability initialive), have not only been ineffective, but have hardly deserved a perfunctory reply. It seems that those who should take measures to curb such waste, and keep Wikipedia tied to the Five Pillars (all the way up to the Foundation board), simply do not want to notice those facts. Which is to be expected: the editors most likely to become admins and "cops" are not those who enjoy contributing contents, but those who enjoy being "chief editors", by imposing their views on other editors through Style Manuals, Rules, templates, infoboxes, article-side tags, projects, etc. -- and by making mass robot-assisted pure-style edits across thousands of articles.
Anyway, that is where I stand. Sorry for the rant, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a long note!

I read it.

There are lots of people who try to fight proliferation of policies and guidelines (per WP:CREEP! There is something proliferated in Wikipedia space, that I would imagine you would like.)

While I am sympathetic with your message, that it is hard for people to manage all this stuff.... in my view you are kind of missing the forest for the trees. Looking from the outside, in.

If people are aiming at the mission (to provide readers with articles, the content of which summarizes "accepted knowledge", working in a community of pseudonymous editors) the core policies and guidelines (for content and behavior) make sense and aren't just arbitrary rules. We created them to meet our needs. They are just how we get stuff done, working in this bizarre environment.

I've only learned enough about templates etc to be able to write content and work with content created by others. People get all invested in particular style or having an infobox or not...and have big battles about them....which I find baffling and avoid. That is all surface stuff, to me.

But just doing the work to build or improve the content on some particular article, is not that hard. Yes you have to bend and accommodate other people, and you will discover all your own flaws pretty quickly too.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how we could better "form" new editors, to aim for the mission and understand how the policies and guidelines exist to make it possible to realize the mission.... I have no big answers for that. I've just been thinking about it.

Sorry I don't have more to say. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! And apologies again for the long rant... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased editor.

^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.160.82 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User BritishFinance and Related Articles to Ireland

Hi Jytdog,

Thanks for your edits to the Martin Shanahan page.

In our view, there is ground to believe that the contributor BritishFinance is following an agenda in their edits. If you view their edit and creation history, you will see a common theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corecontent (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Who is "our"? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. You work for IDA. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jytdog,

Hope you are doing well! You recently edited JDRF’s Wikipedia page shortly after I had on the 14th and I wanted to ask a couple of quick follow-up questions to better understand what I did wrong. It looks like the reason you took it down was because it was promotional. Admittedly, I did source my edits to the JDRF page. (However, the information that I added comes out of JDRF’s tax documents and is not listed anywhere on their website). If I put up the information again and source it to GuideStar (similar to what you did on the page), or a similar website, would that solve the issue?

If there is an issue with the content itself would you mind explaining? The information I want to add is simply a history of how much the organization has spent on research by year, something which I feel has value and relevance, as JDRF itself describes itself as a research funding non-profit.

Thanks so much for your help! ElisabethF (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit led me to look at that page more closely which led me to uncover a whole slew of unpaid editing on behalf of several nonprofits, where someone was basically hijacking WP to do PR for them. Not good.

In general content should be driven by independent sources. Point data for one year of funding is not really encyclopedic. If there is some independent source that talks about their funding over time that would be fine. Please do be careful to not use WP for advocacy, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help!ElisabethF (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

About the JDRF wikipedia page, I have two sources for the information I want to add and wanted your opinion on which you think is best. This one, http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials, is from an organization that I originally pulled the information from, but their graphs are colored red and come off as biased so I made my own. I could not find any other source that discussed their funding over time besides this one. I also have this one, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729, which is a website similar to guidestar that simply lists the point data for all 10 years that I am discussing. Thank you for all your help, again! ElisabethF (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:ElisabethF. Do you have some connection with JDCA? If so you should disclose that per our COI guideline.... Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do! Although, you did not give your opinion on which direction would be better for me to take? Thanks again. ElisabethF (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Afternoon, I saw you took down my edits to the JDRF page and would like to understand how to correctly source this information, or alternatively, can you please describe in more detail the issue with the sourcing. We have two source options, both contain 100% of the data that we posted; guidestar/projects.propublica.org which we note you have sourced previously, or thejdca.org, which I believe is a tertiary source. I have consulted multiple wiki editors online, and in person at a wiki conference, and have been told that both should be acceptable. Would it be better to source this to guidestar, as you did previously, or 100% to the JDCA? Which source meets wikipedia criteria? Again, thanks for your help.ElisabethF (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Martin Shanahan

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for earlier. I have gone through your edits to the page and they are very helpful (to me and the article). I understand now the need to focus in bios on facts the subject did/said vs. events around him (and obviously, not using events to interpret actions). I overhauled this page in its entirety because while it was tagged as COI, it was still left up in its COI state, which I thought was pretty biased (and this is a major job in Ireland). However, I should have spent more time on the references to make sure they were fully relevant (and only related to Martin). The TCJA is a major issue for Ireland but will make sure that my edits on this page "trail" Martin's factual observed actions (as a bio), and not try to anticipate them (in offtopic or as syn). thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your effort to clean up the page. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash

Hello, i noticed you deleted the 'also referred to as bcash' in your recent cleanout. I was wondering if you were opposed to it, feel it is undue, etc. It was my understanding from the previous RfC that the content was good to add, but not in the lede. Maybe I was mireading it (certainly the bitcoin cash advocates are opposed to it.) One issue is it seems we cant address the naming controversy (if one exists) as I can't find mainstream RS that a controversy exists. Do you suggest another RfC to address if it is undue as Ladislav asserts? I'll add the reflist below for convenience if you want to comment on the sources as well. PS, it would be great if you could ping me in your response. Thanks!

References

--Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, read your response there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I should have posted this morning. I was just rushing out the door. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Columbia mortality rate study on the Opioid epidemic page

Hey Jytdog, I saw you reverted my edit regarding the study that Columbia University did on post-overdose-survival rates on the Opioid epidemic entry. Just curious what the issue regard the source that I used was and how I could remedy that? The information seems legitimate otherwise. Thanks! PcPrincipal (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

For content about health we don't use what we call "primary sources" (see WP:MEDDEF) and we don't hype where studies were done. We just communicate accepted knowledge, which for content about health we find in recent literature reviews published in good quality journals or statements by major health/science bodies. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see. I will do some more digging on that particular study then to see what I come up with. And brush up on that WP as well! Thanks for the pointer. PcPrincipal (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather than looking for some particularly study it is way better to go find MEDRS sources, read them and learn (!), and summarize what they say, giving emphasis as they do. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Great, that's a good starting point! PcPrincipal (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, I rewrote and added back that information regarding the Columbia study using this source. If you wouldn't mind letting me know if you think this meets MEDRS and if I adequately summarized the information I would greatly appreciate it! I would like to be able to speak to the subject more confidently and accurately. Thanks again! PcPrincipal (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It was another primary source :( Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cosmeceutical, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Objective pair of eyes needed

Hi Jytdog, I took on a GOCE copyedit request for an article on the Indian National Theatre. I've just completed it, but in one reading I felt like there was some promotional tone to the way I've written, but I'm not 100% sure. The article is quite short so if you can spare a bit of time, given your regular contributions in articles that see a lot of COI, would you mind giving it a look over to see if any of the language might need some additional attention? Thanks. Blackmane (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I will look! Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jytdog: for your help.-Nizil (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I left comments on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hi, please restore the sources you deleted in this diff. Without sources, the mentions of criticism of IRV just become weasel words. One user is edit warring and wikilawyering to remove criticism of IRV from that article, but references should not be automatically removed just because they're self-published. See WP:USESPS: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation." — Omegatron (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. We summarize high quality sources here. We don't build arguments from blogs and conference abstracts. You are aiming for the wrong thing and so you are doing the wrong thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Brinks

I thought you would be good to help deal with Brinks Home Security: it's being horribly dealt with and is being edited directly by a paid user. More than COI management, it might be worthy of AfD. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to look at that over the weekend. Am very busy with RW stuff this week. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Check reference in book "Martindale 36th Edition Page 2277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:810F:7E99:9990:588:D13A:7654 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

no idea what this is about. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Its Related to Caroverine drug to be added in Tinnitus wikipedia under Management of Medication Header — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8285:6553:18E4:7F0:E26A:47A3 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Arum palaestinum

Mr. Jytdog,

Thank for your suggestions to my edits in the Arum palaestinum article and for pointing me in the direction of the Wikipedia guidance documents. However, after reviewing these documents, I still somewhat disagree with your conclusions on the use of primary sources.

In the guidance document WP:MEDDEF, it states, in pertinent part, “primary sources should generally not be used,” but it does not ban their use. WP:MEDDEF also says:

"Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors."

Clearly, the above paragraph contemplates that primary sources may be used so long as they are used properly. In other words, they should simply state the conclusions of the original authors without using them to support the editor’s independent conclusions.

Moreover, an explanatory supplement entitled “Wikipedia: Identifying and using primary sources,” states:

'"Primary" does not mean "bad." "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable.” While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. (emphasis in the original)

However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for."' (emphasis in the original).

That document goes on to say:

"Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does."

Therefore, while Wikipedia advises cautious use of primary sources, they can be used in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

The edits I made to the article simply restated the original authors’ conclusions and did not draw any conclusions not found in the primary source. Further, I provided the citations to the sources so that the reader could compare the information in the article to the source material. This is in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines referenced above.

The purpose of the studies cited was to show the history of the plant’s use in the Middle East and that the plant is currently being studied throughout the world. It was not to provide any conclusions on the science itself.

As someone with a strong interest in this subject matter, I wanted to share some additional information about the plant with other likeminded people. The plant’s history of dietary and medicinal use is not well known in the West and I think Wikipedia’s readers will find this information interesting. Furthermore, since modern scientific research on this plant is relatively recent, this may explain why most of the studies published are from primary sources. As noted above, that alone does not disqualify those sources from being used in Wikipedia articles. In addition, the article does not rely solely on primary sources as there are several secondary and tertiary sources cited. (See, “Wikipedia: No Original Research”). Finally, most of the sources are from well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I will continue editing this article in the future as additional information becomes available. If you make further edits to my edits, please do not provide conclusory statements, but rather cite the specific provision of Wikipedia’s guidelines you believe my edits may not be in compliance with because, as stated above, Wikipedia’s guidelines clearly appear to allow the edits I made to the Arum palaestinum article.

Thank you for your contributions to this article and I look forward to more collaborative efforts in the future.

Fancyfeller14 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fancyfeller14: WP:MEDRS specifically restricts the use of primary sources for medical claims, because they are too small a sample to make any firm claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account! I had left a message at the IP-talk page here: User_talk:70.166.234.58; hereare the IP's edits to the article; you left it in this state after the first set ofedits, and in this state after the 2nd set of edits.

Both of those were full of content that was not actually supported by the sources, or that was based on sources that were primary.

it really is not ok to assemble a literature review here in Wikipedia from primary sources. You appear to be a scientist, and many scientists try to write like that when they first come here, but it is the wrong genre. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we summarize secondary sources here, generally speaking.

Please read WP:EXPERT, which was written to help folks like you adapt to this environment. You may also find User:Jytdog/How helpful. 19:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Favour

If you have the time, could you take a look at Rich Wilkerson Jr.? It was created by an apparent UPE account who is currently adding promotional and marketing material to a number of other articles. I would do it myself but I'm trying to keep a lid on the other edits admin-wise and don't want to get caught up in editing their contribs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will! Thanks for noting this. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your help is invaluable; cheers for that.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So kind! Just getting started there, more to do... Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland

Hi Jytdog. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Djc Thomson and Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland for a bit? This, this and this might indicate a WP:COI and possibly even WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

looked at page, started discussion with the person. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. As you probably noticed, attempts by some others to help this editor out both on their user talk and at WP:MCQ have been dismissed as patronizing. Perhaps you'll have better success. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on food waste?

Hi there! :) I noticed you undid my edit on food waste - could you perhaps explain what was so offensive about it? If you read the article on the app in question you'll see that it's reasonably well established (used in several countries) and pretty well covered in WP:RS mainstream media. I feel - although happy to be proven wrong, of course - that my addition was relevant to an article on food waste, given that the app aims to reduce it (waste). And finally, I've no connection with the app/company in question, so to just label my edit as 'spam' seems a bit harsh, if I'm honest. All that being said, it's perfectly possible that I may have missed something or otherwise caught the wrong end of this (happens all the time...), hence why I thought I'd ask you for your further thoughts? TIA, DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The content you added was unsourced and promotional. It was spam.

The Olio (app) page that you created is very typical PR editing. You may just be a fan, or you may have a connection with the company that you are not being upfront about. The editing of fans and conflicted people is similar. In case you are unaware, there is a place for conflicted and paid editors (who are also conflicted) in WP, but we have a process to manage conflict of interest. Some people who come here are not aware that there is a process to manage COI, and instead do strange things... Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that the company is keenly interested in digital marketing -- here, here... heck they even provide sample social media postings in their press pack. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, that's how it works, is it? You say 'it was spam', so therefore it's spam - end of discussion. Anyway, given your evident pedigree here on Wikipedia, compared to which I am a mere ignorant newbie minion, I've no interest in entering into an edit war, as that can only end badly for me, so I guess I've no option but to drop it. Thanks for your help. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DoubleGrazing please do read WP:ADVOCACY. If you are just a fan, it is still not OK to promote anybody or anything. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards WP:ADVOCACY, which I had already read before, and have now re-read. Just out of interest, which particular part of that policy do you think I've breached? You seem to think that if I write about topic X, I must be by definition 'advocating' topic X - so I guess I shouldn't edit the article on global warming, then, lest I kill off a few more polar bears? DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I know I said I'm not going to enter into an edit war, but I've just seen that you've undone a lot of my editing work, which I'm really not happy about, so on second thoughts I am going to take this up with the powers that be. (Whatever happened to WP:AGF?!) I don't know what the process is for having such matters adjudicated, but rest assured I will find out. DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is an essay that explains part of the WP:NPOV policy. As I said above, the Olio (app) page was very promotional. You hit several of the signs of PR editing -- see WP:Identifying PR. The content you added to food waste was unsourced and advertising the company and app. Fans and conflicted editors edit the same way. If an when there are RS that say that Olio has made a serious dent in food waste it might be encyclopedic to mention it there. Not until then. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read the above before you start restoring spam and WP:OFFTOPIC marketing to the page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

'Spam', 'fan', 'very promotional' - seriously, who made you the judge and jury here on Wikipedia?! I know you have much more history here, but I'm not exactly wet behind my ears, either (10+ years, etc.), so please don't patronise me quite so much. Do me a favour, look through my edit history and tell me what there even slightly suggests that I'm a paid editor or advocate or whatever else you're accusing me of? DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing is not OK. I am not "accusing" you of anything. Promotional editing is done by fans or people with a COI. Please have a read of User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_2:_COI_and_advocacy_in_Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"10+ years" is an overstatement, you've only been seriously editing since last June, and even still, 750 edits is minor. Jytdog is right to be wary here; the article was pretty promotional. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Pmuehlen

Thanks forl helping out Pmuehlen. The name connection didn't click until he mentioned that the article was about his wife. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

sure. Thanks for your work too! Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

update

So I know you're busy--you're always busy--but Women in the Bible is abandoned and alone. If I go back, would that give you the incentive to go back too? You could harass me, that could be a temptation you can't resist--my work inspires you to new heights in response--which would mean we could get it knocked out. You hate my lead--I am still learning what makes a genuinely good lead--so let's trash it and start over. Anywhere you see it needs improvement let's do it. I sure would like to see it finished and you bring a unique perspective.

Oh, this is kind of beside the point, but I thought you might actually be a little happy for me--I got my first article through GA approval. It's Biblical criticism. And the whole time he was dragging me through it I was thinking how these were things you would have said. It made me think that being harassed by you--and surviving and learning from it--has made me a better quality Wikipedian.

Anyway--so much for the smaltzy stuff! Go fix women in the Bible! Or tell me what you think I should do--or something! Please! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I will try to get back to it. It is an important topic. Real world is eating me this days. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ouch. You have my sympathy. Ping me if you want me to come play too when you get around to it. I will wait on your discretion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

Plusart123 reached out to me asking for help in managing their conflict of interest. As the best COI person I know, would you have time to answer their question? -- Dolotta (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I reached out to her them and will walk her them through the COI management process. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC))

Well appreciated! Thank you! -- Dolotta (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoring an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page

Sorry to pester, but we exchanged a few notes in April regarding the restoration of the Multisystem proteinopathy page, which was merged into the "hereditary inclusion body myopathy" (IBM) page. You requested a few sources, which I provided on the IBM talk page on April 13. Is it possible to restart this discussion now? 192.55.208.10 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for following up. I will get back there by tonight. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

question

Hi there Jytdog - I hope you are well. I noticed that you edited the wikipedia page that highlights the work of my lab and various struggles and accomplishments I have had in my career. A lot of the info there was removed - for example - as far as I can tell including information about a technology that was developed in my lab reaching regulatory approval is not promotional - this is a big milestone for an academic lab.

Just curious if you could walk me through why you cut most of the information? Especially since most of it contained references. Happy to do a call if easier - thank you!

As I see it, Wikipedia is a place for factual information to be disseminated that can serve as a resource to educate and help others and to maximize impact. Seems like the changes you have made go against this and are in fact in the disinterest of the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Karp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.207.5 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note!

The page when I found it looked like this.

In terms of the content, it was promotional, and had a great deal of unsourced content, and content that violated our policy against original research. In terms of editor behavior, it had been heavily edited by what we call "single purpose accounts" - accounts or IP addresses that only edit one topic. Those are listed on the article talk page, at Talk:Jeffrey Karp.

All of that are signs of sustained editing under unmanaged conflict of interest.

Wikipedia is a place for dissemination of factual information; it is not a vehicle for promotion, nor to "maximize impact".

My work on the page removed the promotion, and added well-sourced information about you (taking you at your word, that you are Jeff Karp).

If you like please have a read of User:Jytdog/How which provides a kind of crash course in the mission of Wikipedia, how we realize that mission, and why we do things, the way we do them. It has a brief description of our COI guideline, along with the other policies and guidelines.

I hope that all makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

I'll take you up on this, thanks. I've temporarily enabled my e-mail. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Valamis Group Ltd.

Hi Jytdog. I was wondering if you'd mind taking a peep at this article. Based upon User talk:Marchjuly#File:Valamis-logo-black-rgb.svg, I think I've stumbled across another case of undisclosed COI/Paid editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

/* Influential */

Hi Jytdog, I have read and taken your message ad notam Torben Larsen Odense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torben Larsen Odense (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

revert citation

hi Jytdog,

Why did you remove the reference of "injections can bruise the extra ocular muscles, resulting in double vision."? I referenced Dr Kenneth Chang who did the study in 2010 with this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20057294 This is no different from the reference using http://www.jerrytaneyesurgery.com/cataract-surgery which is under reference #5. Surfer808 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)