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)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Lot's wife 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. Namarly (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. Please join the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Lot's wife. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

it happens...you're still one of the best editors

• Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

:) thx ozzie. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Academic journals

I notice on your user page that you "find the best sources [you] can for articles you work on". To me this implies that you do research, but maybe this assumption is incorrect. I am saying this because what I am seeing, when you characterize the Academic journals project, it is way off the mark. To me it comes off as kind of arrogant. I guessing you don't intend it to be this way, but that is how it comes across. Also, the comments come across as quite demeaning - as if your view is more accurate than other editors who work on this project.

I have done some intense research for the almost the entire set of Metamaterials articles on Wikipedia. I started and built many of these. Other topics I wrote also entailed research. I mean searching through scientific journal articles that describe the topic and everything related to the topic. I have worked on Physics articles, and had to read journal articles for this activity. It seems to me that you have done nothing like this by the way you characterize the Academic journals project. I can see, after how ever many days on this talk page, that you truly don't understand it - even after feedback you have been receiving, which doesn't seem to sink in. I'm just letting you know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate you wanting to talk directly and in a less ... noisy environment.

Sorry for coming across arrogantly; not my intention. I am getting strident probably after repeating myself a bunch of times.

Definitely agree that communication is failing.

I am acutely aware that i am communicating across cultures/boundaries. It is not that I think anybody there is ignorant or incompetent, it is just that something has become normal in your project that seems bizarre to me and to others. (I addressed this issue explicitly on the Talk page in the 2nd paragraph starting with "Everybody here is busy..." here - please do read that if you haven't seen it).

Maybe breaking down the main message into smaller bits? The main message I have been trying to communicate, is 1) that you all take it as very normal and obvious that journal indexes are reliable sources themselves for notability. and 2) this is just... abnormal in the wider project and surprising; and 3) NJOURNALS doesn't explain about indexes at all; and 4) the recent turmoil is about 80% driven by this; and 5) it would be useful for everybody if NJOURNALs did explain.

Which part(s) of that do you disagree with? Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I recall, the 2nd paragraph you wrote and I guess this all started with that first "fringe" journal that went to AfD. We both agreed that a using this guide as a bright-line rule is inappropriate. I still agree with that. Moving on - I find it shocking that people have a hard time understanding that the indexes are very good indicators of a given journal's influence and serve as reliable sources. But, I suppose, it is what it is.

The third paragraph I proposed yesterday somewhat explains the indexes and that is just a start. However, can you see the explanation in there? It gets into some detail, but maybe not the finest detail.

After re-reading your last blurb I understand Randykitty's approach better and I understand the resistance to it. I think the resistance is because it wasn't clear what the parameters of that particular essay are. I'll work on this more during the week. Also, hopefully this will be in addition to what is already there in NJOURNALS, otherwise I fear there will be more resistance.

Just so you know, I felt bad after posting the original post, because I know you are a good person. But once something like that is posted there is no way to actually delete it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You are so kind!! thanks so much for talking. i took your initial post in stride and what i heard was "you are being too harsh and are frustrating me but let's talk more". Your whole post at talk:NJOURNALS was a huge step forward and your proposals there are too. Am just looking for more of a narrative - three or four sentences - that explains why NJOURNAL uses indexes and how. i hope that is not too much to help people who haven't thought it through or lived there way into understanding that already. thx again. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog - sorry I haven't gotten to writing this just yet. It seems I have been making the rounds to other conversations and even created a new article [1]. So, I will try to write this up over the weekend.

Then we can critique it? . Anyway, things are cooler and calmer now, regarding this issue. So, it may be easier to write with some perspective (I'm guessing) --Steve Quinn (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Beall's List Hacked

I've inserted the information with a link in the section on Beall's list User:Harnad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Jytdog. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My first edit to Wikipedia was removing an advertisement from an article. I remember that I wanted to know what the hell a Turnkey system was (it came up peripherally in the course of my work) and had turned to WP and was just aghast at a blatant advertisement that had been stuck into it. So much that I created an account and removed it. Some things don't change. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Inhaled insulin

From what I understand it was an actual product but has been pulled / is no longer made? Are they making it again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

sanofi dumped it but the originator, Mannkind, got it back into production and marketing ~6 months later.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah cool. They are still trying. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Advertising Dude

Señor Jytdog,

Can you help me with this user Jamescool101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is trying to add adverts to the articles D-chiro-Inositol, and tendinopathy. He encroached the 3RR on tendinopathy, but if there is an appropriate board for advertising would it be better to report there?

Petergstrom (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Petergstrom I can see that the edits are problematic from a MEDRS POV, but what do you think they are advertising? I see references to tendoactive in their edits to tendinopathy but I can't see anything similar at D-chiro-Inositol. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well firstly, there was a "Brand®" that he added by him and was removed. So obviously he is trying to justify some treatment, and he is doing a bad job at it. He is using old(>10 years) primary sources, some from weird foreign journals.Petergstrom (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi! I wanted to thank you for your corrections to my early edits and for your messages on my profile. I'll study the materials provided to me for to learn proper editing. Once again, I thank you! NimbleNavigator (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and you are welcome! Happy to help if you have any questions - just let me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Silicon Alley Biotechnology RFC closed

I have closed a RFC you initiated here. The result was that biotechnology should be excised from the article on Silicon Alley completely. If you have any questions or concerns about this closure, please feel free to discuss them with me on my talk page. Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Medicine and WikiJournal of Medicine are, generally causing me consternation

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.

---

Hi. As background, I'm a newbie. Retired with disability after an academic career in biology, and wp has given me a reason to get out of bed, which I haven't had for most of the last 3 years. I am a pretty active editor: you've seen at least one of the pages I've edited, so I feel I need to explain my consternation. WikiJournal of Medicine is intending to publish the dreaded Original Research articles. FANTASTIC, IMHO. Yet, wp in general, and Wikiproject Medicine in particular, generally frown on OR. Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.

You welcomed me at my talk page with what I assume is a standard template, including both the statements "be bold" and "We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers,"

So, what am I to do: be bold or restrain my enthusiasm and not make edits based on OR?

It is not acceptable to me to keep this consternation "bottled up" inside me and overheat from stress.

You reverted my addition of new research published in PNAS to the genetic testing article. On what basis? Your own policy, and the poliy of the project, states that you generally avoid using research papers. If you won't accept a research article in PNAS, what, specific, articles would you accept? Those from WikiJournal of Medicine perhaps? You removed my link to the mayoclinic.org site. THE reason I inserted that was the banner statement that the "article ...relies too heavily on primary sources." I see that there are 67 references! I think "what more do they need?" So, I search for a secondary source from the mayo clinic, insert it, and you revert it and put the banner back up. If you think you can find better sources, then find them.

In summary, it is my opinion that you are being overly-zealous and are not using appropriate judgement in the application of the concept of "generally avoid using research papers." I'm not going to revert your reverts. I'll stick to basic biology, unless you revet them yourself. DennisPietras (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! (and I mean that!! I am so happy you wrote instead of letting anger/resentment build up.)  :)

OK....

First of all, the WP:OR policy applies to articles in Wikipedia. Articles published in a journal outside of WP (i.e. "WikiJournal of Medicine") are not in Wikipedia, and so OR doesn't apply. Right? (I will note that to the extent the WikiJournal of Medicine is publishing actual WP articles, those articles in Wikipedia remain subject to OR.) Everything i write here will be relevant only to stuff in Wikipedia, not outside it.

So, yes, please don't add any OR to Wikipedia. It is not OK.

You might want to have a read of WP:EXPERT which is really helpful for folks like you.

I think one thing is that is tripping you up is the way the terms "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" sources are used behind the scenes in Wikipedia. This is a paradigm brought over from historiography, that is applied widely and kind of strangely behind the scenes here in WP.

For content about health/biology, these three terms are defined in WP:MEDDEF which is part of MEDRS.

With regard the PNAS article, it is a "primary source" as we use that term. And Mayo Clinic's website is not what we consider a reliable secondary source, as Mayo is not a "major scientific/medical organization" (by that we mean NIH, NHS, CDC, WHO, AAAS, any of the major medical societies like the American College of Radiology etc. -- Mayo is just another hospital (a leading one yes) but hospital/medical school websites have all kinds of unreliable content on them)

You might want to have a look at this section of my Userpage, User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources, which explains why Wikipedia in general is built on secondary sources. You might also want to see an essay I started, called WP:Why MEDRS? as well, which explains why MEDRS defines "secondary sources" the way it does and why the community developed MEDRS and tries hard to apply it consistently.

A lot of this comes down to the ... er.. epistemology of Wikipedia, and our mission.

Does that make sense? (real question!)

Again thanks for talking. Let' work this through! Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm surprised at the idea that the Mayo Clinic's website is not MEDRS, whereas the NIH or AAAS websites would be. (Of course, context and specifics matter.) I wouldn't cite Mayo's website for content about how one of their physicians is super-wonderful, but then again, I'd be cautious about using NIH's website that way for one of their scientists. However, it seems to me that Mayo's website (to a greater degree than websites from other major hospitals) really does provide the medical consensus as opposed to their personal medical practices. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is not reliable. Hospitals/med schools are in fierce competition with each other and the stuff they post can be really, really awful especially on alt med topics. That is why they are different than NIH and other such institutions. At one point somebody slipped Mayo into MEDRS and when we noticed it, we discussed it and took it out. See archived section here. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to the real question "Does that make sense?" No. Again, I point out that the exact quote uses the word "generally" and I believe you are substituting the word "always". I have no problem with "generally". I have a continuing problem with "always" without reasonable, IMHO, consideration of the quality of the primary source. By removing additional coverage of current, excellent primary sources, you are forcing wp to be "behind the times", which I consider to be a pity, and you won't see me trying to update your out of date articles. DennisPietras (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, "generally" means "do that unless you have some very good reason not to." Wikipedia is not "cutting edge" and it is not the mission to be cutting edge. "Accepted knowledge" (our mission) is territory pretty far back from the cutting edge. If you don't understand that you are going to be unhappy here. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme: I would like you to point me to an accepted "mission statement" from wp. I can't find one, but then again I'm a newbie. I do see that even in the welcoming message you sent me, the advice is to be bold in updating pages. If that doesn't imply a desire to be at the cuting edge, I must not be reading the Inglush properly. Perhaps you've forgotten some wp policies on using original research papers from peer-reviewed journals as primary sources, or perhaps the policies have changed since you learned them. In any case, in an effort to inform, I have captured the material below from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The bold emphasis is mine, to more easily draw attention to things you may be missing.

"Using sources

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly.

Reliable sources In general, the most reliable sources are:

   Peer-reviewed journals

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Primary sources

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

So, the next time you think you are justified in removing one of my additions, I suggest that you discuss it first and point out exactly how it doesn't fall under the real, rather than any imagined, wp guidelines. DennisPietras (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I very much understand where you are coming from. Lots of scientists come here with misunderstandings about Wikipedia and get all belligerent when folks try to help them see Wikipedia for what it is. (There is nothing new under the sun here - you are not the first to think and behave this way) I am sorry you are uninterested in learning how WP actually works. Being what we call clueful and editing however you like by cherrypicking bits of the policies and guidelines are very different things. Please read WP:CLUE - it is very short. It takes time to learn, and a willingness. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was tagged in this discussion by User:DennisPietras, so I'm adding my 0.02 for what it's worth. When you are encouraged to "update" pages, that doesn't in any sense imply that you need to get them up to the bleeding edge of current science. Taking into account the fact that most published research is wrong, I agree with the Wikipedia Medicine point of view of considering research articles, even peer-reviewed articles, as primary sources, and relying instead on less volatile sources.

As for the question of the basic policies of Wikipedia, the five pillars are probably the closest that you will find.

References

--Slashme (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme:"Cherrypicking bits of policies"? The wp policy is that primary sources can be used. You appear to me to be unwilling to accept that policy, and are determined to enforce your own policy. I look forward to our next disagreement and taking it to arbitration to see if the wp policy or the jytdog policy rules. I'll even tag you the next time I insert coverage of a primary source into one of the medicine project articles to make it easy for you. DennisPietras (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: It's really not fair to call that "jytdog policy". WP:PSTS describes the use of primary sources in general, across most Wikipedia article topics. But for medical and health-related content, there really is a consensus at Wikipedia that WP:MEDRS is the guideline that sets a higher standard for sourcing that kind of content. Wikipedia set similar special rules for articles about living persons. It's quite appropriate to have subject-specific sourcing requirements, and there is wide agreement about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras as I said there is nothing new under the sun. Another inexperienced and aggressive editor was trying to force content about health into WP based on primary sources, and went and filed an ANI - you can see how people responded here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fulvestrant. You are editing against both policies and guiidelines -- all of which say we should use secondary sources. Of course one can but that is not the point. There are a lot of things one can do but shouldn't. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, Slashme, and Jytdog: I have read the consensus link that Tryptofish provided. That is in general, and it indicates that consensus can change. If there exists a policy that jytdog has adopted, then, IMHO, it is fair to call it "jytdog policy". I read how people responded to the ani above. I'm looking forward to reading how people will respond to my ani if the jytdog policy is enforced again, in spite of my reasoning that will be explained on the talk page. Taking a step (maybe two) back, I was a molecular biologist/geneticist. I haven't read what the complainer above wrote on the talk page, but I assure you I won't use profanity. My edits will not involve drug dosages. I'm not going to post discussions about results dependent upon establised cell lines or antibodies. If I do, delete them and redirect me to that promise. I intend to post discussions of basic molec bio/gen from respected journals that happen to fall on pages that the medicine project has tagged. I ask that you use common sense and discretion when you view my edits. As a further step back, 4 decades ago, when I was an undergrad doing research, a grad student in a lab across the hall was getting fantastic results. She was a bit odd, but the results got published in a very prestigious journal. Later, nobody else in the lab could replicate the results. The suspicion was that she slipped some radioactive P into vials before scint coounting, and the paper was retracted. During my career, in addition to that incident, I have known 2 other people, one postdoc and one grad student, who obviously/apparently fudged results. I knew an undergrad working in the lab of a declining full professor who came to me to ask for advice after the prof asked him if there wasn't something he could do to make the data better. I'm not wet behind the ears. I believe there has been enough said here on this subject. There are sooooo many articles that need to be improved; let's get to work! DennisPietras (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is about my third draft reply. You will either learn how this place works and why, or you will get more frustrated and either leave here angry or get thrown out of here. Why you choose to argue when you don't know what you are talking about (nor expressed any interest in understanding why the community put these policies and guidelines in place) is beyond me, but that is the road you seem to be choosing. No, your edits will not get special treatment; nobody's do.

It would seem that you have the potential to make a lot of good contributions here but you are currently taking the path of most resistance - the path that leads away from that. One thing that academics who come here have to wrestle with is simultaneous loss of personal authority and the experience of not understanding what the heck is going on (there really is nothing new under the sun here - I have seen this many, many times.) Some people handle that better than others. We will see how your path unfolds. But really, you would do much better to treat WP as a strange new world and try to explore it and understand it before you make proclamations about it. It is a strange world - the way this place is wired from the ground up makes it work differently than what people expect when they first come here. But it actually makes sense, in a very deep and coherent way. The use of secondary sources is way down deep in the guts of WP, as I said earlier. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras:, I never said anything about cherrypicking bits of policy. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this, but your style of communication can come across as polemical and confrontational, and that can lead other editors to be confrontational in return. Bear in mind that most Wikipedia edits aren't urgent: after someone reverts your edit, there's plenty of time to go through the WP:BRD cycle. A worthwhile quote from that page is "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive and moving the article forward, I took a look around, and it seems that the term "second generation" isn't that widely reported in the literature about cffDNA, but I did find a good book source that says that it's the most specific and sensitive screening test for Down syndrome, so I added that fact. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme: Clearly, I'm a newbie and don't now how these discussions work, and this one is getting so complicated/convoluted that it is difficult to follow. I know that you didn't write about cherrypicking. jytdog did above. I pinged you to let you know that I wrote a response and you appear to be interested. I didn't ping jytdog because this is her/his page. Thus, my response wasn't to you. I used the ping to you more like a "cc" in email. Is there some other technique for doing that on wp that I should be using? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras:, the "ping" template is relatively new, so I'm not sure whether there are any clear rules yet, but if you look at the paragraph in question it starts: »@Slashme:"Cherrypicking bits of policies"? The wp policy is that primary sources can be used.« That makes it look as if you're directing that comment at me. If that's not your intention, it's probably best to ping other users at the end of your comment, saying something like {{Ping|Slashme}}: what is your opinion? --Slashme (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2017 (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.

Can you explain your revert

Hi,

I don't understand this revert.

The article says Greger promotes a vegan diet, which is false. (For example, he warns against junk food vegan diets and college student vegan diets consisting of beer, coke and crisps.)

I added that he promotes a "whole food" plant-based diet. This term is written all over everything he publishes, so I don't see why this would get insta-reverted for being unsourced (when it's in all the existing sources in the references section of the article).

P.S. I find the "instantly revert everyone who's new to an article" to be an awful trend in Wikipedia. I think it's the reason Wikipedia is failing to retain new editors. I haven't looked at your edit history to see if you do this all the time, but I hope not. The people who do this are killing Wikipedia. Great floors (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I gave my rationale in the edit note. You added unsourced content and removed sourced content. I also replied on the talk page with respect to Hall, here. Please continue the discussion there if you wish. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete all my edits?

Why *all*?

My *later* edits added some stuff that you could argue was unsourced (but I would say it's already in the existing refs), but my first edits were just merging duplicate content (adding *nothing*).

Why are you reverting edits which violate none of the policies you give in your edit summaries? Great floors (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what all your edits are. On articles I watch, you have added unsourced content and removed sourced content, and yes, policy-violating edits like that get reverted. I appreciate your enthusiasm but please do make sure you cite reliable sources per WP:RS or WP:MEDRS as is relevant, and please don't remove sourced content without a policy or guideline based reason. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed duplicate content - and you revert everything

I removed the list. It seems you want to keep it. Fine, keep the 4 or 5 lines you have sources for and delete the rest.

But I also merged duplicate sentences, reducing redundant text. Why did you delete that?

You just revert everything. *This* is what drives people away from Wikipedia. Someone should lodge a complaint against you but we both know you have more time and better knowledge of the procedures, so I'd be wasting my time if I tried. Great floors (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You should discuss article content on the article talk page. Roxy the dog. bark 16:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Off-wiki handling of COI evidence

I wrote a very detailed reply to what you said at the harassment policy talk page, about maybe we should handle the private information off-wiki, and then found that you had self-reverted, so I figure it should not go to waste (wink). Here is what I was going to say:

About handling the information privately, another complication arises. I proposed WP:COILIST a few months ago, and the community reacted very negatively to functionaries investigating ToU-violating users in secret. So we have a pretty strong consensus against handling these things privately, but we also have lots of language in the current version of WP:OUTING that says that it's OK to email the information privately. Contradictory, and not a stable situation.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So hard to keep conversations at WT:OUTING focused! herding cats.

I think the "special function" got shot down. i don't think anyone opposes sending stuff to an admin offline on an ad hoc basis. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not clear. There was a lot of sentiment that everything needs to be onsite, so as to be transparent about why someone was blocked. Also, a lot of opposition to anyone, including individual admins, conducting investigations of other editors. That's not really compatible with that kind of ad hoc. Obviously, there are tons of internal contradictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really surprised to see that discussion since at least that would be official and more transparent than current off-wiki communications. Personally, when making accusations of UPE against someone, I want to be really sure that I'm right before presenting evidence and getting a second opinion is vital to that. I've certainly looked over users that people have had suspicions about and decided that there probably wasn't a problem. Keeping it private to begin with limits the chances of unnecessary drama and harassment. OTOH, there are cases where off-wiki evidence is a vital part of the reasons for being suspicious, but at the moment we have nowhere to report it. Bleurgh. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It certainly was not the result that I wanted. +1 to "Bleurgh". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And who should admins email?! I sent an Arb details about someone over a week ago and heard nothing. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(tps) Preferable to send emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org than to individual arbs. Gives greater certainty that it is seen and discussed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but I thought that Arbcom had made it clear that they didn't want to deal with UPE. SmartSE (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ArbCom, at least in the past, has been very firm about not wanting to be contacted about it. And I'm really not sure that the community has a consensus that this would be OK. Anyway, further about herding cats (I, of course, am a fish), I'm going to note at the policy talk page that this discussion exists here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Olive branch, or clarification, or whatever you like

moved here from my user page, message was left in this diff Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, man, I'm on your side on this issue. I don't like the fact that Arbcom and the community's attitude toward COI is somewhere between "meh" and shooting the messenger. But I'm honestly perplexed at what I did to give you the impression that I did. Definitely not saying it's your fault -- somehow, I screwed up in my attempt to communicate. Can you help me to say what I meant more clearly? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for your responses at jimbo's talk page. It was the first sentence "Jytdog and OID need to accept that they are on the wrong side of this issue. " that alarmed me so. The rest of what you wrote was fine, and we do agree there. That first sentence was just too condensed. I understand, pretty well, the range of views on OUTING and respect the core value of privacy here in WP. The hard work will continue at WT:HARASSMENT to see if we can craft some reasonable way to build consensus around providing more latitude to deal with paid editing. It might not be possible to reach any consensus given the very strong feelings people have about privacy and about paid editing which get in the way of discussion on several levels, the limitations of communicating by writing only (things happen like what happened between you and me), and the difficulty of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hi, I got a notification that you sent me an e-mail but I can't read the message, it must be lost somewhere in my inbox. Just saying in case you wonder why I didn't reply. Polyamorph (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you

Here, have a nice cup of tea and biscuit. After what you've had to put up with you deserve it. Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tea! Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS

Wikipedia has a problem if it doesn't allow primary medical literature to be cited. The sites have reverted to citing medical textbooks that are 15 years out of date and are written by people who are educators, but not experts in the field. There is no higher quality of citation that to cite the primary source, period. Citing mediocre "reviews" in an attempt to reduce bias (good luck) is not going to make this a useful resource for the public, which is likely why academic publishing requires primary citation. Well, lesson learned. Farewell, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoimmunity rev (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Articles do need updating and other work and the more people we have the better! But no, we use primary sources rarely and gingerly. There are lots of reasons for that. Happy to discuss, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Autoimmunity rev actually Cochrane reviews are widely regarded as being sources of the highest quality. (by talk page stalker) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea how insane this would get!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Skin whitening

Hello,
You reverted one of my edits with the comment "Spam". My edit was about adding a hyperlink to a webpage which was already cited in the article, so I think the edit is pretty legitimate and shouldn't be reverted as such. Now, either the reference is spammy and should be deleted altogether (on the face of it, I don't think it is the case), or the reference should be kept and then I guess it's only reasonable to have the hyperlink.
--a3nm (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

you are correct, it wasn't spam. I self-reverted and fixed it here. Thanks for your note, and sorry again. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Levofloxacin

Yes, WP:CIR#Some common types (section Newby) is why I prefer finding a ref to deleting unsourced content if it can be done with reasonable effort . Although you might argue that with 300 content edits, the editor you reverted might have found out about citing sources by now... At any rate, I'm going to tell them now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fulvestrant#MEDRS

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

And as you seem to be around, ditto. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

sorry was in the process of reading/thinking about that and got distracted. back on it! Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why been reverted?

There isnt any edit war! The post has been revert without giving authentic reasoning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenBingo (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did edit war. And please see the talk section i opened Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How does this place work really? Follow up to my general consternation section above.

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.

---

The section above has gotten so convoluted that I've decide to start a new topic. This is in reply to your last response starting with "This is about my third draft reply." You continued with "You will either learn how this place works and why,..." Let me explain to you how I've learned about how the place works.

About a month ago I came on board. I looked at the list of requests for articles, and found that somebody requested one about convergent evolution in humans. That is in my wheelhouse, so I started composing 2 images with easy to see examples of c e involving humans, with the goal to make a subsection of the wp convergent evolution page and then a redirect page to it. Made the images. Got stuck in a quagmire of image copyrights. Eventually sorted that out while being involved in other things wp-related also. Finally, the time came to make my additions, and I discovered that the c.e. article had been nominated for GA status. sigh. I asked at the teahouse whether it was OK to edit an article nominated for GA review. They said, sure, it happens all the time. So, I did more digging to find out who nominated it, explained what I wanted to do on the talk page, and asked if it was OK. The editor told me to go for it.

I composed a subsection about human skin color and blue eyes, based upon 2 and only 2 primary sources, and supplemented with my 2 "collage" images. There were changes to my images. I understand why. It was interesting to see their evolution. I don't think all of the changes were improvements, but I understand why some of them were, and hope I won't make the same mistakes again. There were some changes to the text. The subsection became "primates". However, to this moment, "my" section, supported by 2 primary references, remains largely intact. To summarize, multiple "casual" editors allowed primary sources to be used. Yesterday, I got a belated Christmas gift: The c.e. article was rated GA! Imagine, me, a newbie, contributing to a GA article. Imagine "experienced/intense" editors allowing primary sources to be used! In case you haven't read this thought between the lines above, I'll write it. I dare you to eliminate the primate section because it is based on primary sources. I'll be interested to see how your edit is greeted by the community.

I was also involved in editing the article about VUS's. If you don't know what a VUS is, you should probably read the article now. You'll see that VUS's are important in clinical settings, and they are going to become increasingly important as DNA testing increases. VUS's will be detected in cffDNA. Parents will agonize over what to do. yada, yada. As brief background, that article was started as a draft under a different title by a user not involved in it's recent evolution. Just before it was to expire from a long idle period, an editor moved it out of draft into mainspace. Another editor noticed it and started discussion about it on the genetics project talk page. It wasn't very good. I thought, again, that this is in my wheelhouse, and so, over a period of days, with the under construction banner on it, I went about extensive editing. There was a lot of discussion on the talk page. At one point, I almost told slashme (whom I now consider a pen pal) to bite me There were lots of revisions to my edits. But, through this team approach, an article of interest to genetics, the general public, and (should be) to the medicine project has evolved, in spite of being supported by mostly primary sources, including one from 2017. It isn't a great article, IMHO, but it seems to have stabilized. I'd give it a C rating now. I hope to raise it to a B with a "further reading" section and the like at some point. But, for now, I don't have time because I'm involved in this debate with you. In case you haven't read this thought between the lines above, I'll write it. I double-dare you to eliminate the VUS article because it is based on primary sources. I'll be interested to see how your edit is greeted by the community.

You continued your "third draft" reply with "Why you choose to argue when you don't know what you are talking about..." I have chosen to argue because you, madam or sir, appear to me to be out of touch with standards of the community and the policy of wp, which clearly states that primary sources may be used.

You continued your "third draft" reply with "One thing that academics who come here have to wrestle with is ... loss of personal authority..." Yes, I did wrestle with that. I've come to embrace it. You, on the other hand, appear to me to want to personally be the authority over whether primary sources are appropriate, without discretion. I don't want about 90% of primary sources on wp pages. But, I use discretion to select those that I think are appropriate.

Now, I would join other wise wikipedians in suggesting that you have some tea while you consider whether you need to reconsider your approach, but I fear the stimulants would only make things worse. For me, dry roasted peanuts and sugar- and caffeine-free soda work, and, believe me, I've consumed a lot of both over the course of our discussions. One of the reasons I have spent so much time on this topic is that I expect we will end up in an ani, and I want to be sure to be able to show that I've tried to educate you about the community standards I see regarding primary sources, and the wp policy that allows use of primary sources. @Tryptofish and Slashme: DennisPietras (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you barely know what you are doing, and you continue to argue with me instead of trying to learn. Whatever. Please don't write here further unless you come ready to learn. Good luck, but based on how you are conducting yourself your career here looks like it will be unhappy and turbulent. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: It is true that primary sources can be used as sources, but only with caution because they can be misinterpreted. Furthermore if an appropriate high quality secondary source is available, it should be used in preference to a primary source. When I first started editing here, I had an attitude much like yours. Primary scientific sources have undergone peer review and that should be good enough. Over the last several years, it has become painfully clear that a shocking large percentage of primary biomedical research simply cannot be repeated. An encyclopedias' mission is to state facts, not hypotheses. Without a secondary round of review, primary scientific results remain hypotheses, not fact. An encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard than the primary scientific literature. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for using your talk page as a forum, Jytdog, but I want to respond to this discussion in general and in particular.

General:

Wikipedia gets a bad rap for being an unfriendly place. For example, although my father edits here very successfully and tolerates some flaming, my mother prefers to volunteer at Distributed Proofreaders, partly because she finds the community nicer. I have heard too often that people have stopped editing because Wikipedians are not nice, and that makes me sad.

In this discussion, I see too many aggressive and defensive statements, and too few collaborative statements. @DennisPietras: your comments along the lines of "I dare you to eliminate…" elicit the kind of feelings that humans should reserve for mastodons, and Jytdog, "you barely know what you're doing" feeds the fire.

Particular:

The Convergent evolution article isn't subject to WP:MED referencing rules, so it's not relevant to this discussion. Even if someone were to find the sources insufficient, a suitable response might be to slap a refimprove-section template at the top of that section, or to go and find some secondary sources, if it were to become particularly contentious for some reason.

The VUS article is supported by a mix of reference types, but you have raised a valid point: about half the references are research articles. I don't think that the article is particularly contentious, so maybe we should work through it, see which statements are supported by research articles, and decide whether better sources can be found. If not, we need to decide whether the statements in question need to be removed or rephrased, or whether they can stand as they are until secondary sources become available.

Many wikipedia articles are not compliant with policy. That usually doesn't mean that the policy is wrong or irrelevant, but rather that those articles need work, especially in the case of a hard-fought policy like WP:MED's referencing policy. When you find yourself saying anything along the lines of "other stuff exists", you need to pause and ponder. --Slashme (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: to spare Jytdog from further spamming of his talk page, I'm going to take discussion of the VUS article to Talk:Variant of uncertain significance. --Slashme (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I hear you Slashme. I put a bunch of time into the first few exchanges above and tried very hard to explain, carefully and nicely - and you will see that Dennis obviously didn't take time to read the links provided, and my responses have grown more curt as Dennis has persisted in arguing that their approach is OK. People need to find their own way here, and if they spit on a helping hand I send them on their way. As I said Dennis might end up being productive and happy but they are showing all the signs of being yet another academic who is too full of themselves to shut up, listen, and learn, and who will flame out one way or another. But as I said, we'll see. I hope they figure things out. I am closing this as I am uninterested in continuing to participate. I have tried enough. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2017 (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.

Paul Horner

Hi, the Paul Horner article is on my watch list, so I noticed your reverts here and here. The rationale you provided was: "not about Horner". However, the edits you reverted were indeed about Horner. Please can you explain those reverts, or else undo the second one if the reverts were in error? Thanks. zazpot (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss on the article talk page, if you'll put your comment there. This kind of discussion should be centralized. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. zazpot (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

ENO Drugs

Hi, Would you please share your views on redirecting the ENO Drugs page to Antacid. I don't understand why Doc James has redirected the ENO Drugs page which is running from 2005 to antacid stating brand to generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Wildnet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In general WP:MED has been redirecting articles about specific products to articles about the generic. That's the reasoning here. Not sure about this one, will open a section on Talk:Antacid. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Actually I am in learning phase in Wikipedia. I have started just before 3-4 months. I have seen many brand pages are running separately instead of getting redirected to generic. For example 'Tylenol (brand)' has its on Wikipedia page. Tylenol is brand of Paracetamol. So I don't understand why it is so. Can we do something so that ENO has its own wikipedia page. Ravi Wildnet (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Learning the ropes

I like to involve and be a watcher of bureaucratic side of Wikipedia and other existing stuff in Wikipedia other than content editing. Can you suggest links that would help in better understanding of this. When i say other stuff I don't exactly know what compromises other stuff. I have seen GA nomination -I don't the necessary rules or at what page they are happening, Guild of Editors - my understanding is some sort of article correction team -I haven't seen or know at what page it happens, now a bit above I see about Distributed Proofreaders - where does it happen in wikipedia, I have seen this arbcom notifications in many pages - cant get a good picture about it, a word I recently saw is villagepump and functionaries in comments - i don't understand that wiki lingo, in your recent contributions i see this https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ - what is it. Can you help me in getting good understanding of these few things mentioned above and provide links about what other things are there in Wiki.117.241.55.2 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Good (and big) question. Try starting here: Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/117.215.194.175; see contribs of both accounts. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

On 27 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Elsevier publication Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" that publishes "truly ridiculous studies"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

i didn't really pay attention to the DYK. i can only say, wow - quite a statement. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Since there is only one article citing the new synthesis of diketene, does that mean it cannot be placed on the page? And why did I not get a notification that my post was removed? I added it back in because I thought it did not save, perhaps a message would have prevented the extra work on both our parts. Grnltrn5 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the restoration. Per WP:DUE we look for secondary sources to show that something is noteworthy; we don't include every primary source about any scientific matter. This place would be an endless set of summaries if we did. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

5:2 diet

You have added an article to this link to Wikipedia, to a page on nutrition. The article is written by a freelance journalist, is largely a picture of a dinner plate, doesn't cite a single reference, quotes "Crime Writers" as medical sources, and is non-scientific. Please read it before re-adding it.

References

--61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

am aware of the talk discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explicitly confirm you've read the article in question 61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

sure, i don't discuss sources i haven't read. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. Could you tell me what the last sentence says? And then, explain how on earth you think this is a reasonable source? 61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And then, while you're at it, tell me which part you think supports "skeptics and dieticians have categorized it as a fad diet".61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

article discussion belongs at the article talk page. please ask there, and i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to your contributions there, but do wonder if you'll ever show up there61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol

[2] Doug Weller talk 15:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

that made me laugh too! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Oz

Hi - it's my first time making a proposal like that, so thank you for pointing out things I was missing. I hope it is clearer now. I think that there is too much emphasis in the lead on him being a doctor and too little on what I think is the most important fact about him - that he promotes woo on TV to millions of people. I'm just going based on news articles though, so as I said on the page, if there are other sources I should be looking at, then I can do that. Everything I read seemed to be about his TV show though and the garbage on it. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll reply to your new proposal. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at...

Hello,

It would be good if you take an eye on this 1 editor's edits. It seems that his/her revision history is full of with WP:UNDUE and pov-pushing. Thanks. 185.75.46.151 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 lauds

Looks like glutamine was one of your New Year's resolutions! I am still plugging away at dietary supplements, vitamins, minerals and amino acids - mostly removing content that is based on flimsy primary sources or derivative sites (Livestrong, anyone?). And if there are good, recent meta-analyses or systemic reviews, referencing those as MEDRS. Especially in supplement land there is a tendency to find the one obscure, old, small (more adjectives) clinical trial in support of a theory, and insert that as evidence. I still personally feel that Cochrane Reviews discriminate against supplement evidence by using very rigid exclusionary criteria, but I am not deleting any Cochrane-based content or references. Anyway, persevere.David notMD (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy that it pleased you! Thanks for your note. Keep on truckin'! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

WT:HA

You are over-reacting, and it is off-putting. I am now going to log out, and will not reply to anything until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! (I mean that) I understood that you perceive it that way from what you wrote at WT:HA as well as here. I am sorry you do not see the issue I am raising. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm back – and I want to thank you for a very good reply to me here. And I can see from the talk section just below this one that there are obviously differences in perception. I honestly don't think that anyone is questioning your intelligence, good intentions, or anything else like that. Rather, I believe that this is a case of people just not understanding each other. I'll comment more on the merits of the issues there. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I remain very much disturbed by what happened. I am not sure what to do about this behavior issue or what board I would even bring it to. The irony of it, is that OR's comments were totally about contributor not content and deeply violated basic operating principles here. And they stopped the discussion dead. A sitting arbitrator has done this, and arbcom governs OUTING violations. Totally chilling. And I ask myself (not you or anybody else) - what does this mean with respect to me appealing my TBAN? OR's !vote appears to be already determined.

In any case I am not going to participate any further in discussions about amending OUTING. I see no reason why it would not lead to more bad behavior like that, which will derail the discussion again and prevent progress again. Better I just stay out of it. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a significant reason why I started this section on your talk page was exactly that I am concerned that your conflict at HA will result in a negative decision on your appeal. I hoped that a peaceful resolution might have improved the chances of you getting a favorable decision. I really was thinking that. Maybe I'm just missing something, and if so, it certainly won't be the first time that I've made a mistake. But I just do not think that OR was saying that sort of thing about you, nor that it "stopped the discussion dead". Instead, I think that your reaction to her comments is what stopped the discussion. And I think that it would be a pity if you end up staying out of the discussions, because you are very smart and experienced and you have a lot of good ideas to contribute. I don't think anyone wants you to go away. Maybe the best course of action would indeed be to stay away for however long it takes for this incident to blow over, as well as for you to feel like your own disturbed feelings have softened with time, as they will. When it feels right to you, I hope that you will come back to the discussions, because nobody considers you unwelcome there. Another strategy if and when you do come back, is to simply stay away from interacting with anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable. That's something that I have done numerous times, and it's just a matter of which talk sections to get into and which editors to reply to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and intentions. I hear you about the effects of my reaction on the discussion. I agree that the discussion turned into a train wreck of which I am part, and that nobody wants to participate in a train wreck.

I struggle with your discussing this as a matter of my feelings and comfort; I believe that OR acted badly and doubled down on that, and I think I am going to bring this to a board. Am still thinking and am drafting to see if I can describe this in a way that makes a concise and coherent argument. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I respect anyone who struggles with any problem. Please let me clarify that all that I meant, as regards your feelings, is that I wish you well (and we all have feelings), and that I carefully repeated your own word of "disturbed", so that I could avoid attributing anything to you that was original research on my own part. That said, if you do decide to make a complaint, and please give it careful thought before taking any action, I will certainly try to see all sides, but based on what I know now, I am likely to comment disagreeing with you and taking OR's side. Just so you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood on all that, thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course the elephant in the room is that I am currently under a TBAN on COI matters because I violated OUTING. Perhaps because of that people will see it is as fully justifiable to derail any discussion I open about OUTING to question my assumptions. There is that. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's inevitably true. (And I know that some editors see my own efforts in that area as some kind of psychiatric issue on my part, when I'm actually trying to fix some things that I came to see as needing fixing.) Anyway, all the more reason not to get people pissed off at you. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerns

I read with interest this post of yours. I have been having identical thoughts about a pattern I see emerging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am hoping they will be responsive. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry if this isn't the correct format; I just wanted to make sure you saw my question. Please point me to a link if there is a better way to do this.

I want to understand why the version of the edit that I submitted today -- the one with the second source -- is not considered to be "well-sourced", or the language not neutral? It is sourced entirely by verifiable public statements, and is entirely factual.

Thanks, newimpartial — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. See Talk:Tarek_Fatah#Quebec_shooting and the links there. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contributed to that discussion, by now, but do not feel enlightened yet. The standard that you and another editor seem prepared to apply to my edit is a higher standard of evidence than has been applied to the other conspiracy theory claim present already in the same paragraph of the article we are discussing. I don't see how it is "original research" to juxtapose the documented statement by the subject of the article with a documented account of what actually happened - there doesn't seem to be any reason why the documentation of what happened should refer to the person making the conspiracy theory claim. If there is a quibble about "unfounded" versus "unproven" claims, I would be happy to have the text read "unproven". Newimpartial (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

Hiya!

We need your help over at Effects of pornography. You know the difference between a scientist and a self-proclaimed expert you see on TV. Would you please please help to improve this article, it is in a bad shape. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

ok... Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also asked our friend Doc James for help but he is currently hanging out with sharks (no, that is not a euphemism). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Jytdog,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 814 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see it

I just realized from your recent edit to your user page that the startup company you've been involved with may have gone out of business. I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. If you don't want to discuss it here, that's fine, but I felt that I should leave you a note. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, dead dog. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you already know this, but it's awfully hard to get these things off the ground, and there's a pretty high failure rate, so you're in good company. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore independence DRN

Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. Best, CMD (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Jytdog, I hate to put you on the spot but I have encountered an issue and was wondering if I could get some advice.Petergstrom (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

that is the WP:Boomerang - pretty unsurprising based on you bringing the ANI with dirty hands and behaving the way you did there, arguing instead of listening. Folks are looking at you now. The worst thing you can do is go there and argue more. If you want to do something, go back to the ANI and read every response you got there, and think about those responses. If you can hear what folks have been saying to you about your behavior, post a note in a new subsection below the TBAN motion and let folks you know what you heard, and what you intend to do about it with respect to your own behavior. What you write needs to be about you, not about anybody else. That, or do nothing. That's my advice, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to take your advice...but I finally couldn't stand it. The thing I don't understand his how my first edits didnt demonstrate newbie behavior. I remember one time you told me that many new people misinterpret the primary source policy...just like I did.Petergstrom (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That dif is broken. But if you mean this yeah that was foolish. There are some "preconceived notions" (e.g. flyer has a reputation and is well respected and highly valued as someone who keeps perverts from skewing content about pedophilia and who does other great work here too. everybody knows that they are too harsh sometimes too). but with respect to you, because you are new here, people are looking at a) how you have behaved in the past, as demonstrated by diffs and b) how you are behaving at the ANI itself. Not "pre-conceived notions" but evidence.

Listen - please listen. Wikipedia is created and maintained by a community. People come here thinking it is The Internetz and behave like they would on some forum somewhere. They don't understand that Wikipedia is a community and the patterns of behavior you establish matter. How you treat other people matters. Although nobody here knows your RW identity, who you are -- your character -- gets expressed very clearly here and is actually demonstrable with diffs.

Wikipedia is a laboratory of human behavior. You write something and it is recorded forever in the history. People can go find diffs and tell a story about you with them. (one of the skills of long term members is knowing how to do that, and also knowing when someone is doing that to a tell a bullshit story)

Watching ANI is fascinating. Very often, people come there accusing person X of doing Y, and when other editors start looking at actual behavior, it turns out that the OP was causing huge problems and had no self-understanding. This happens all the time. It is not uncommon for both editors to have been doing bad stuff, and neither has any clue of their own behavior. This is human, all too human.

Working in community here over a long time (just like holding a job for a long time) requires being self-aware and being able to take feedback (since we are all blind to ourselves in various ways).

This is why I advised you above to shut the fuck up, and go back and actually read what other people have written to you at the ANI, and reflect on it, and try to learn from it. And if you are able to learn, then communicate what you learned to the community at the ANI. That is folks need to hear to let this go. The more you post arguments that show no self-insight like what you did in that diff, the more people will become convinced that you are indeed incapable -- incapable - -of the kind of self-insight and self-control that it takes to be a productive member of this community and support for a topic ban to prevent further disruption by you, will keep building.

This is indeed all about you now. You need to make it about you as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So I have dug a pretty deep hole...do you see anyway out. I mean most evidence points away from sock puppetry, but the ban for aggressive edit behavior being proposed...I'm not aware of how the ban proposals usually work. Do you think there is enough consensus for a indef ban? Or a temp ban? What are the chances of avoiding a ban all out, if I acknowledge and attempt to change aggressive edit behavior? Is it even worth it or should I just walk away from WP altogether?Petergstrom (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Answering the factual questions first:

1) TBANs come with the ability to appeal after a given amount of time (usually 6 months). If an editor is given a TBAN and sticks around and edits and behaves well in other topics, and in their appeal they express self-insight about what went wrong the first time, then the TBAN is usually lifted. But again people will look at what you have actually done while the TBAN was in place; they won't just rely on what you say.

2) About the SPI - you are not in the clear, btw. I proposed two possible sock accounts, and neither were borne out by the CU. My posting at SPI did not directly address what Flyer has intuited - if you are a sock of someone who has not edited in a long time, a CU cannot go back forever in time and I don't know who flyer has in mind so brought no behavioral evidence about that person. So whatever flyer was concerned about is still out there.

With regard to the ANI which is primarily about your behavior in this account (not the socking), I have told you the way out, twice now. Whether it will "work" - how people respond to it - depends on how well you do it (not ~just~ rhetoric, but whether you actually are starting to "get it" and yes whether you can express that effectively)

Whether it is worth it, is something only you can answer.

I want to add, that i understand that what is what is happening with you now is very challenging. It is never nice to have people saying bad things about you and it is hard. I get that. I have been through this myself. This is where people's character really shows itself. Are you strong enough and self-aware enough to deal with this authentically, will you try to fake your way out of it, or will you run away? It is all in your hands. Nobody else's. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

your warning(s) about an upcoming edit war

Dear comrade editor, given your track record of receiving and distributing "edit war" warnings, I take it that your approach to editing might be just a bit rash (please take some time to investigate into the exact criteria for a war). May I suggest that you descend from your high horse for the future? It is not exactly cooperative style that you are exercising when your entry into a dialogue is just a mixture of threats, derision, and intimidation. -- Kku 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User Acuhealth: Is this suspicious behavior?

You seem to have more experience than me in stuff like this, and since you already talked to the same user: What do you make of this?

[3] Isn't this what a shared account user would do if they wanted to keep doing it without making waves? Normally, if the conjecture of sharing an account were false, I would expect a polite "no" answer, not a deletion with the comment "inaccurate accusation". It wasn't an accusation either, just a tip and a question... but maybe I should AGF more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

i don't know what to make of that name that they choose to display, but no i wouldn't take it as referring to three people off the bat. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	No doubt you were frustrated by the San Marcos Seven expansion process, but thank you for being willing to thoroughly vet information being added to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fluoridation by country

In accordance with established procedure [[4]] I am contacting you to ask why you reverted my citation required edit in the Fluoridation by country article. Your explanation that the subject was discussed in the article is incorrect. For your information, I have a degree in biochemistry (do you?) and have worked as a professional medical translator for over two decades (who pays you?). I have also taken note of the well-known fact that you are a known troll that is very active at editing other people's work on the Wikipedia. Please be assured that I am planning to elevate this to arbitration if you do not explain your revert or undo it. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

fixed: diff. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your instincts were right at Gender dysphoria

Hi, Jytdog. In retrospect, your instincts in reverting User:71.222.33.159's original comment at Gender dysphoria were spot on.

I had hoped to give the IP a second chance to see the light, as it were, but they just doubled down in their obtuse insistence in their righteousness, so I'm sorry now for my engagement there, which at this point just seems to have been pointless; you were right all along. If there's a silver lining, it's perhaps that the IP's refusal to listen to reason is clearer than ever now, including to uninvolved editors like User:NeilN (and I thank him for his involvement as well). I had hoped for a better outcome with 71.222.33.159 (talk · contribs) but that hope now seems misplaced. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

it was very kind that you tried. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed source opportunities

You have an unjustified negative view of the various reports on phytochemicals, nutrients and other health-related articles by the Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) staff of biochemists and nutritionists at Oregon State. These articles are updated regularly (unlike many similar academic and hospital sources), include rigorous reviews of recent clinical research for each topic, employ USDA analyses from colleagues at the university, and are overseen by the LIP faculty. There is no hype in support of any position. Although their research focus has been mainly on vitamin C over the years, they have broadened their coverage based on the various research activities of LPI scientists. I've looked for similar expertise from universities anywhere in the world, and find no group with the breadth of expertise and article rigor as LPI has. IMO, there's no similar facility or site - not Mayo, Harvard, MSKCC, WebMD, UC Extension (Heneman, as you added), etc. - that comes close to the content value and referencing depth that LPI uses. I'm sticking by and using them as a good source, not externally peer-reviewed as in a MEDRS systematic review, but better than most for topics like phytochemicals, individual nutrients, and food science where the higher quality of MEDRS source usually isn't available in the PubMed literature. --Zefr (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

University extension offices tend to be very good on nutrition stuff; they are not the same (at all!!!!) as university websites which are very uneven and tend to cater to people who want to use DS and other forms of alt med. i hear what you say about LPI being better than most, but that is a very low standard. this entry at LPI is maddening if you read it rigorously. they make it kind of clear what the active substances are, then they say that various supplements have different versions/amounts of that active substances, then say without qualification "the results of randomized controlled trials suggested that garlic supplementation" does X. argh. and the random rah rah woo: "Scientists are interested in the potential for organosulfur compounds derived from garlic to prevent and treat chronic diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease" cited to some random primary source out of pubmed. meh.

but let's discuss at WT:MED to get other voices, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we drop our guard and accept every statement among all LPI articles. On one hand, we can find specific statements implying too strongly anti-disease activity of garlic, while on the other, I don't know, do you?, of a better overall review of garlic phytochemicals and health research than that one - I get irritated seeing all the PubMed review articles on individual foods, extracts and phytochemicals proclaiming anti-disease effects. I give the LPI articles a thumbs up for good introductory overviews for each article (where the typical non-science user will stop reading), usually pointing out contrary findings stated in plain non-jargon, and this is why I think they're useful for the encyclopedia as a solid, trustworthy, up-to-date, easy-to-read source suitable for the typical WP user. No problem with getting other opinions, of course. --Zefr (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_source.3F let's see what folks say! am not totally opposed - it is better than others. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your harassment of Wikipedia editors

Jytdog, looking at your contribution history, you have a pattern of engaging in edit warring. You like reverting people's edits, and when they revert yours, you seem to feel a phallic urge to slap your cool kid warnings on their talk pages. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak? Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, searching your username on Google brings up some interesting results. If you continue to harass fellow Wikipedia editors, I'll make sure everyonee knows about you. You should take a break. Ethanbas ^(talk) 09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look a this

[5], this is really very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious. What has that got to do with Jytdog, do you think? Roxy the dog. bark 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He closed the debate, and it was after that closure that this was inserted, he then deleted this, moved the thread to archives and then this as re added after it was archived. Thus it was his work that was undone (and I assume he had a reason for deleting it in the frost place).Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh, that isn't what happened. You need to loosen up. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog closes it [6] , 2 minutes later 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS inserts the material [7], Jytdog removes it [8] and then archives the page [9], after it is archived 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS reinserts it [10], so what did I get wrong with this sequence of events?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

But so what? What is your point? Roxy the dog. bark 16:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My point is that Jytdog did not think this should be there, and it has been reinserted. I will add that (I may be wrong) you were not allowed to do things like insert material into archives, for any reason.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed that was very poor. my goal was ending the disruption which was good for nobody and maybe especially not for jps. am not going to edit war in an archive and the key thing is that the dramah is off the stage, and still is. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ARCA

Here we go: Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC) (fixed WL Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)) (made a dif Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

Maybe it is too late to tell you this, but it is common for editors requesting a lifting of ArbCom restrictions to do so privately, by emailing the Committee. (Of course, I don't know: maybe the Arbs told you to post at ARCA instead.) The obvious downside of posting on-site is that one's fan club may well show up and make a lot of noise. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I received no guidance about how to appeal. When I considered doing it I thought about it for a good long while (including what you mention) and read a bunch of things, and this guidance seemed the most on point: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Appeals_of_topic_bans. If that is incorrect I reckon I will be told so by clerks or Arbs. Overall due to the controversy around what happened it seemed best for everybody if the appeal was public. I hope it stays that way. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

MED-EL article and COI

Hi there,

From looking at your previous edits, it seems that you are rather experienced in the area of COI on Wikipedia so I wondered if you would be able to help me. I work on behalf of a company called MED-EL and it appears that previously their/our Wiki page was involved in a COI dispute which doesn't appear to have been resolved. Any further edits that I make personally would obviously still remain a conflict of interest, so I wondered how to best address this. From what I can see, there are some issues with sources but beyond that is it purely the fact that previously employees have provided information that remains the problem? If so, I am keen to help find a resolution here so that there is informative yet neutral content available to readers.

Many thanks in advance for your help/advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.41.44.84 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I cannot help you at this time. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

closure at Talk:IRS

I was just about to get the last word in! Your timing sucks. ;P (I'm joking, you did the right thing.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:Hey

Thanks for the message. Discussion is over at my talk page, I guess. Feel free to delete this; just unsure as to how to send you a notification without coming over here. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Psoriasis

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psoriasis&diff=765501372&oldid=765487887

http://www.phcogrev.com/article.asp?issn=0973-7847;year=2014;volume=8;issue=15;spage=36;epage=44;aulast=Srivastava, satisfies review article requirement, would you be open for crosscheck, it could also be verified at pubmed. Plus Halverstam2008 says climatotherapy not balenotherapy at first. good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.255.18 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please post this at Talk:Psoriasis so that other interested editors are aware of the discussion and can participate. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Enjoy! :) Ethanbas (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed

Hi Jytdog. I'm required to notify you that an arbitration motion has been proposed at WP:ARCA that relates to you. The motion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Jytdog:_Motion. Comments are welcome at the amendment request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria on Acupuncture

Hi Jytdog, this is herbxue, I'm having computer issues right now and have to step away from commenting for a bit. But in a nutshell, criterion 1 is just too limited, under 2 I object to the underlying goal of briefly describing theories and summarizing them as "pseudoscience", and there is no mention of mechanism studies. I'd rather have the sprawling mess we have now than have a concise "hit-piece" on acupuncture. I'll be back in a couple weeks. 98.223.168.84 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I reckon we'll talk more when you come back. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

User:Jytdog, There is a contributor here on Wikipedia, 92.83.117.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who, as of 31 January 2017, has persistently been engaged in vandalism on WP articles, choosing to randomly change the places of birth and death of various WP subjects. His IP address should be blocked. Can you do this?Davidbena (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope I am not an admin. The place to report that is WP:AIV Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis et al.

Thanks for your help.

If you feel so inclined, there are also a lot of primary-sourced bits at Michael Voris's BLP which we might find to remove.

jps (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

[11] What do you mean by this? Could you explain on the talkpage? jps (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

ok. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking good

I hope I'm not overreaching here, but it looks to me like your request at ArbCom has passed: there are 8 support votes, and that makes a majority. I hope that's the case, and if so, congratulations! I also see that the vote that I think put you over the top was from Opabinia. I know you and she had some friction recently, but I hope that nonetheless you will take her comments there to heart. Her comments strike me as particularly perceptive, and include some good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well people can still change their !votes, until the thing is closed. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

CRISPR

Thanks for your contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CRISPR&diff=next&oldid=765873043 . I noticed the year of the ruling was given as 2015. The Times article says the ruling was Wednesday, meaning in 2017. I want to check with you, before correcting it. I will watch this spot, in case you respond. Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes that was a typo. fixed it. thx! Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hôpital Albert Schweitzer

Jytdog, I noticed your "attempted" merge of the hospital in Gabon and the one in Haiti. While I agree that these two pages should not have remained in their former conditions, I do disagree with the methods you have used to get it done. Why? For starters, the histories are not merged. Editors on the former pages are not getting credit for their edits. We call this a cut, copy and paste move. What I would have proposed would not have been a merge at all. Although these hospitals may have had the same founders, I think it is crazy to even merge these two pages together when they have completely different histories. What I would have proposed would be to have moved the former Haiti page "Hôpital Albert Schweitzer" to Hôpital Albert Schweitzer Haiti and the former Gabon page "Albert Schweitzer Hospital" to Hôpital Albert Schweitzer after the first move is completed to free the page up. This set up would be in sync with the French Wikipedia, as this is how it is set up there and its a Haiti move that I wanted since 2014 as you will find on its talk page. OR

We could have also moved each to parentheses pages such as Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Haiti) and Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Gabon) or Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Lambaréné) (I believe the country is preferred but in the latter this set up is on the Portuguese articles).

One thing is for certain, the page cannot stay in its current condition. I would suggest cut, copy and pasting it all back to its original destination and attempt to gear up for separate article destinations. Also, I have found a Hôpital Albert Schweitzer in Brazil, specifically in Rio de Janeiro, but a slightly altered name (pt:Hospital Estadual Albert Schweitzer).

Let us regroup. Again, my major concerns is of course its current status and merging of histories. Perhaps something else to consider is turning Hôpital Albert Schweitzer into a disambiguous page, listing all 3 articles in a bracket form, (Haiti), (Gabon) or (Lambaréné)--whichever, and the Brazil page (even though an English version doesn't exist, maybe that is something you could facilitate?). Let me know what is most conducive. Our first step should be to undo the copy and paste move and go from there. Please ping me back in your response and which above would be most suitable. Hope this can be resolved as soon as possible. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Savvyjack23, pinging as requested. We call what i did a WP:MERGE, following the process described in WP:MERGETEXT. This is a process that has existed in WP for a long time and is a fundamental process here -- please correct your understanding of it. The actual edits I did were completely fine, and there are {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} tags and edit notes that deal with the copyright/attribution issues you raised. There is no issue there.

However, I boldly did that merge, and apparently you disagree with how the content and names ended up (although your argument seems to be based a) on your misunderstanding of MERGE and b) what other projects do, neither of which is persuasive). But we can discuss outcomes at Talk:Hôpital Albert Schweitzer. I'll open a discussion there about that. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

by the way, the real COPYVIO issue on the page is that almost the entire version of the haiti article that was created in April 2014 (see this) was copy/pasted from the hospital's website (see version of their website from April 2014), with some light editing in spots. I don't know how an admin would react to a request to revdel that deep in the history but every version up to the one just before I did the merge (up to this version) violated COPYVIO, and that content stayed several edits into my work, until I removed it all. ~Maybe~ I will try that and see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalking admin: the way I read WP:COPYVIO, there's no need to revdel the copyvio text, Jytdog. Removing it, as you did, is fine, and it's also the practical option. I know we delete pages that are all copyvio, but that's something else. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

Great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry IV of Castile at Acromegaly

I've noticed that you've deleted him.....fair enough, but I'm curious as to why the BBC would confidently publish that, if the information is 'only a minority view'.. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

yes I reverted this. That was an odd claim and not mentioned in the article on Henry IV of Castile, so I went to see if any other source discussed this, and found none. One can sometimes find one ref or two that makes some claim but we don't work that way; our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge (per the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING) so it matters what other sources say. If you can find other reliable sources that discuss this, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Umami

Would appreciate your review of the issues and behavior of one editor under "Not used in science" and "Umami receptors - Yu study". Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

looks like they blew themselves up (block log). Aggressive SPA per their contribs. I've watchlisted it. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit War warning

Please discuss on Talk. I have already opened a section.

Your recent editing history at Robert Sungenis 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. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Thank you for all your work on the sequencing.com clean-up. It is always useful to have someone who knows something about the topic to help sort out the sourcing. The original article is difficult to see through the PR. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Jytdog,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 814 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

That was surprisingly drama free. Thanks for clerking. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

YAY!!!! Congratulations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What now for COI work?

Jytdog (and talkpage stalkers): It looks like your arbitration reinvestigation or whatever is done and you can talk about this now. I want to strategize and coordinate with you and other interested parties on this to maximize positive effect and benefit to the project. In the open-kimono mode here: right now I feel like we are collectively doing a bunch of work but in the end, spinning our wheels. There are several areas where I've given up:

• Indian media in general, Bollywood and spinoff music in particular
• Sports teams and players
• Beauty contests

It would be crummy if the following subject areas fall into the same category for me, but they are damn close:

• Western startups and their execs
• Western financial companies mostly equity-funds, botique banks, and the like
• Indian startups and their execs
• Indian banks

Without across-the-board reforms like DGG talked about in December, I think we are falling behind in maintaining parity with the COI creators here (SEO, PR, autobiography). I've contributed very little to the WT:OUTING discussion because there's too much organizational inertia/entrenched interests/misguided info-anarchists opposing it to make a difference.

One of the problems we have is that there's very little to show the people opposed to reform, other than anecdotes and our personal experiences. Metrics might help which I took a stab at last October, monitoring the COIN board activity. Perhaps we could automate this and some other things like promo speedies, that would help gauge the scope of the problem? Or perhaps more manual data collection as to genres of problem articles?

On the upside, recent interest in fake news and realization of the power of Wikipedia as part of a perception manipulation campaign might be on the side of people in favor of reforms.

Am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. - Brianhe (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear on where I'm going with this, it's basically reopening WT:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Institutional knowledge and memory: towards some solutions with a core of interested editors who can drive forward some solutions. We have another year of experience at COIN and elsewhere behind us since I penned it, and should be wiser for it. But it doesn't seem like we've made progress on any of the six fronts I talked about back then (metadata gadget for readers, collaboration tools for investigators, COI procedures guide, assistive bots, metrics reports, shared COI watchlists). Calling @Lemongirl942, Nagle, Smallbones, Smartse, SwisterTwister, and Tokyogirl79: for more input. - Brianhe (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(Lurker decloaking) I'd be interested in writing software to help. I could probably do something interesting that analyzed user contributions and produced reports - and I should have some time to devote to this kind of thing later in the year. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So glad to see you participating! Yes, software is our friend and I'm convinced well-specified and crafted tools can help with these workload issues. If you're not aware of it, there's a conversation here with some great ideas. I personally brain-dumped some ideas at #11 on rating new articles with machine learning to discover COI signatures; please take a look. - Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex, also item #22, which I called a better creep detector, is related but has some slightly different implementation ideas and links to a test case. - Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out as well. One of my recent concerns is that due to a large amount of promo articles, it is somehow shifting the goalpost and new editors are thinking that "promo is normal". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw Brianhe, somehow I didn't receive a notification. I guess it would be good to leave a talk page message or ping everyone again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nagle, Smallbones, Smartse, SwisterTwister, and Tokyogirl79: you are pinged. I might have flubbed the first one. - Brianhe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fortunately, we've had good success removing the worst of it, and I continue searching for others, and the recent campaigns have not succeeded in their advertising. I also attempt to be as clearest I can at AfC or other similar, to note what is unacceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, not to diminish your work, mine, SmartSE's or anybody else's who does this stuff, but I think we put in relatively large amounts of effort for relatively small payoff. I could tote up the time I just put into one sockfarm as an example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin had over 150 socks, some of whom had extensive edits to scrub, took about a quarter of my editing time for several days and I'm sure much more of SmartSE's. This simply isn't sustainable, and really, there are only 3-4 of us who do this on a regular basis. We need to change the way we do this fundamentally. Changes include working smarter not harder with the people who are willing, deter future bad apples and try to influence GF editors to either come onboard, or to not stand in the way of reform. Either that or, I hate to say it, abandon whole segments of the Wiki to the bad apples as I led off with. This will probably mean completely losing the fight for neutrality and well-sourced evidence on the financial stuff that needs it more than ever if you are following the Banc de Binary/SpotOption Knesset fracas at all; I also think we have a lurking monster in the crowdfunding/crowdfinance category. - Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just now reviewing that SPI I realized we'd missed Lars Kroijer, an obvious promo crowdfunding hedge fund manager bio (no kidding) written by what has been possibly identified as an OrangeMoody ring. Missing stuff like this is bad for Wikipedia, and as noted above encourages even more of it. Take this as another test case if you like. - Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My notes on dealing with COI problems are here: Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems. Most COI problems fall into one those categories. In general, I've worked on articles others have reported to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. We may need to encourage more people to report COI problems. A tool that lists all articles with COI or {{ad}} tags would help. Dealing with the problems is not that difficult for about 80% of the cases. The remaining 20% can be time-consuming. As for the big controversy on outing, I don't find that a major problem in practice. For an individual article, it usually becomes obvious quickly who the COI editors are. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

One idea that came up before was separating the sausage-making of COI investigations from the AGF phase where we can invite people to self-disclose, and do some outreach/education around issues. This seems to me to be a no-brainer as the investigation/confrontation part being mixed up with everything else just makes it a bad experience, and (I suspect) some regular WPedians avoid revealing themselves at COIN because of this. - Brianhe (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting! I've read it and am thinking about what you have specifically written. Am going to run some errands and then will reply. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, great, I didn't think this would snowball so quickly without your input. - Brianhe (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm most interested in going after the big fish. We're always going to have new users coming along to create articles about them or their company, but those are easy to spot and we do a good job of catching many of them. Professional paid editors are harder to catch as they create what appear to be ok articles, but on closer are either non-notable, promotional or unverifiable. We really need some automated systems for finding new suspect articles in sufficient time that we might persuade a CU to examine the users. AFAIK, there's currently nowhere I can find a list of all the new BLPs and company articles from today. I'm sure we can all think of ways that would narrow the list down even further (Brian already included a lot in the Doc James discussion) and we should really try out a better edit filter since the COI one is useless for anything like this. That would also give us a better scale of the problem and allow us to see how much gets through the net now. Considering how much I just seem to stumble across, I expect that there is quite a lot. @Alexbrn: can you make sense of edit filters?

Another tactic is to go after the users of freelancing sites more actively. If as a community we can agree that some of the jobs being advertised are unacceptable, we stand a good chance of persuading the sites to remove ads. We're a tiny part of their business, and profiting from spamming Wikipedia isn't a great PR strategy. I've had success this week at getting an active ad taken down, but it helped that I could link it to Orangemoody. A good deal of refspam comes from them as well e.g. [12] and this might be a good thing to discuss at a community-level first rather than suggesting that all Wikipedia-related ads should be banned. I think that other users (Doc James & Bilby?) have also been in contact with other sites, but we should try to coordinate this more effectively.

I'm not great at getting involved with policy matters, but I agree with Brian that we need more efficient solutions than the current luck-based ones, so please continue to prod me to engage! SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a quick clarification, I don't bother contacting the sites. I can't complain about the existence of ads for Wikipedia editing, as we don't forbid paid editing. Accordingly, the only thing we can do is target the paid editors who answer the ads. My difficulty there is that the most that ever happens is that they disappear for a couple of weeks and then create a new account to start getting jobs with. The difficulty being that I then don't have the ability to connect the new account to the old, so they get a free pass until it can be proven that they're breaking our policies under the new account.

The reality is that we're going to be ineffective at stopping the jobs on freelancer sites unless we can ban the ads, but even then the most likely outcome is that the would-be employers will move to the WP-editing companies instead, where there is no means of tracking them. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• As most of you have doubtless already noticed, I've not followed Brianhe's probably wise approach with respect to "the WT:OUTING discussion because there's too much organizational inertia/entrenched interests/misguided info-anarchists opposing it to make a difference". I think that the ideas here are all very good ones. I also think that it is wise to pursue these kinds of ideas, that do not require policy changes, for the very reasons given in what I just quoted from Brianhe. Alas, I'm pretty sure that we do need policy changes, but I'm also pretty sure that a major scandal will have to happen before the community as a whole will agree to policy changes. But I urge those of you who pay closer attention to COI work than I do to recognize how significant it is for Wikipedia that we are entering an age of alternative facts, because there is going to be a whole new class of COI disruption that will look very different than what is described above. I tried to present a picture of it at WT:HA#Break 3. To bring that meta issue back around to the more practical issues you are discussing here, I want to make a suggestion about possible software/bots. It would also be useful to have bots recognize subtle patterns of information change that are not like the business-oriented ones you've been discussing, but instead changes that advance various sorts of anti-factual interests. A specific example, based upon what I said at HA about climate change denial: a bot that would notice and track an uptick in edits that change the numerical values of average temperatures listed at pages about geographical places. Another example: a bot that watches pages about politics, and looks for multi-editor interactions in SPA edits, and that could make it easier to early-detect socking or meatpuppetry. And another thing: I'm planning very soon to reopen discussion about having a way to notify good-faith editors when first registering an account, about how we handle COI and paid editing. I hope that editors will strongly support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Brianhe:, Thank you Brianhe, for raising these important points on COI, as I read above, I would like share few thoughts, Conflict of interest, can be directly noticed in some cases, where only purpose of editors is to highlight a particular article, with best of efforts. But there can be loopholes, for example, conflict of interest, as per Wikipedia, is some one related to subject and editing the subject as they have conflict of interest, but there can be groups, who could be working on reverse pattern, i.e. instead of promoting an article, in which they have COI, they could be working to demote/or add promotional(negative content) to an article, which can seem like a good faith work, but still Neturality and COI problems remain there!, and it can pass unnoticed. Its good when an editor comes forward and shares that they a COI with an article, but we cannot rely on ones who have not disclosed it voluntarily to community. Anywaw inputs from experienced editors, would certainly help, making Wikipedia more neutral and free from COI disputes!. Junosoon (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• promised thoughts...
  • We have a senior engineer at WMF who is willing to work with us to build a bot. See this phab item. I am not sure what the next step is there. But Alexbrn if you get in touch with Leila, who opened that, it would be great. I agree that a bot to surveil existing content, and especially new articles, would be great.
  • Further on those lines, we should be more closely allied with the NPP folks; they are on the front lines of the torrent of new promotional articles that come in. User:Joseph2302 used to spend a lot of time there looking especially at promo editing and burned out eventually as near as I can tell. But a bot would help with that, I think. Pinging User:Kudpung who has been vociferous about the need for more attention at NPP... Kudpung what do you think about a bot to help??
  • About stats. That is just hard. I'm not sure (and I am really not sure) what the value is gathering them. The "old saw" that is brought up is that some people think unpaid advocacy hurts WP more, while others say COI/paid editing is a huge problem. In my view, they both are significant problems; whatever drives POV editing is bad, and POV edits are what catch our eye at COIN. But Brian please say more about why stats would be useful to have, and maybe then I can think about that more...

About the specific topics you mention that really cry out for attention - startups in the developed world and India, and execs, and banks... how do we monitor those, especially for new articles? Are there on-target categories that we can follow? I hear you on the need.

• • I am starting to address the "raising the N" bar issue. I started an NJOURNAL (drawn in by an advocacy/FRINGE issue) and am now working in WP:PROF. Will be moving on to others. And will be happy to support efforts of others.
  • In my view we also have to continually work on raising source quality. The issues of "churnalism" refs is an issue at N discussions of not-really-notable people and companies. (this overlaps some with "fake news" but is different). I tried to get consensus to discuss churnalstic sources at RS and that will have to go an RfC. Old discussion is here.
  • Here is maybe my most controversial idea. I have been thinking of something like a "Guild of paid editors" (within, or like, the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) that we could work with good paid editors to form, and that could act to enforce high standards among paid editors. Something like this got kind of falterningly started with the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms but I am an unaware of that statement leading to anything visible; I have no idea if there is less undisclosed paid editing by those companies or more disclosed paid editing. No idea. It might be good to talk to them about this too?  ?? Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad you gave us these thoughts, Jytdog. I'll just address one of them for now, statistics gathering. We need to treat ourselves more like what we are, an organization with fixed resources. And we can't do that until we know where the resources are going and what effect they are having. Ideally I'd like to see one or more of the following (off the top of my head).

• Proactive outward-looking monitoring

• Proportion of new articles across various genres (startups, finance, media?) that have significant COI problems
• Proportion of new editors who create a corp article from scratch, who eventually turn up at COIN
• Proportion of ditto who eventually turn up at SPI
• What off-wiki job sites are causing the most effects at WP
• Are there trends in the sourcing used on COI/UPE articles (potentials for RSN or blacklist)

• Self-monitoring of our team

• Who is the team? Who contributes at COIN?
• What makes people drop out? Do people hit a wall after X hours of time investment?
• Are people involved more likely to experience negative consequences on-wiki? (definition TBD but I think you know what I mean in general)
• Estimated backlogs in article review, number of COI cases never responded to, etc.
• Time investment of GF editors in reviewing and deleting new articles

• Post-mortems

• Meaningful network analysis on COI/UPE sockfarms to enable future early detection

Yes, it will be hard to gather some of these data. But maybe not so hard to pick some low-hanging fruit. The trouble is that right now we have basically nothing to show, not even easy-to-collect data. This leads to two problems. First, how do we shape opinion on-wiki? What does one post at a discussion like the one at WT:HARASSMENT weighing pros and cons of certain actions on our part? There's no current measure of the damage done by spammers, SEO, UPE sockfarms and the like. We know it's "big" but how big? If you want to have a meaningful discussion with people who assign a very high value to privacy in the privacy-vs-content debate, then you need something. Otherwise each side is just a raw appeal to emotion: "perfect privacy infinitely good" vs "spammers infinitely bad". Second problem, in the short term this is going to be a numbers game: how can we raise costs for the bad guys at the least cost to our own resources (mainly volunteer time)? Where's the biggest bang for the buck? Third thing is not a "problem" but an opportunity to recognize and reward each other for good efforts, build a sense of community, attract others who want the same. - Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is a thread on my tp here which addresses these issues. It zig-zags somewhat, but it should be read because there are a lot of useful ideas in it, including AI and ORES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Something else that I think is a very good reason to collect those kinds of statistics is that "evidence" is going to be necessary in order to move community consensus. At present, it's obvious that many editors think something like if we just edit for NPOV, all the COI issues will resolve themselves. That opinion tends not to be moveable by logical argument, but if there is quantitative evidence of problems like backlogs and burnout, then things are more likely to move. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I came to this discussion somewhat circuitously, but now that I'm here: I spend a fair amount of my time deleting and/or pruning the immense quantities of promotional/COI content that comes from South Asian articles (it's not restricted to India). Some of the things I'd find helpful, especially with respect to avoid burning out, is having a larger set of templated messages, particularly to deal with situations beyond the initial COI notice. If I did not have to type out a personalized message to everybody who contests a G11 by writing "this is not promotional because it's about my company and I want it to have a profile and I have cited its website", I'd get through twice as many CSDs a day. Also, automated tools that could flag issues in existing articles (as against to stuff coming in from RPP), such as by flagging citations to facebook and such. Finally, I think coordination is something we could work on: by which I mean that though I spend a fair amount of time cleaning out spam, I generally do not dabble in the more "meta" areas of anti-COI work, and generally do not have the time to do so; but I'd still find it helpful to be aware of efforts in this direction; and I have not gotten the impression that simply watchlisting COIN will do this for me. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:PROF

About the discussion at PROF, particularly given how soon it is after the ARCA, you are being too confrontational in your comments to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY. I'm one step away from asking ArbCom to reinstate your ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the distinction between a) discussing guidelines and policies related to COI/promotional editing generally (from which I was never banned, and explicitly not) and addressing editors with a COI or discussing COI of any specific editor (from which I was banned). Dealing with arbs on a) was delicate because arbs were going to make judgements about b). That was the only connection between the two. There is no ban to reinstate with regard to a) - you would have to take that to ANI or the like to get that done. Just saying. I understand you see my behavior as disruptive. I wish we could talk because I am baffled that you cannot see what I see going on. Not that what other people do should have much affect on what I do, of course. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The above moved down to here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If we are discussing the best venue for me to take you to in order to chastise you, then we are discussing the wrong thing. I see that you said that you walked away from the discussion because you feel that other editors are focusing on you instead of on the issues, but I want to try one more time to explain very clearly what the issue is.

I think I understand your concern: that there are too many low-quality spammy pages under the scope of PROF, often resulting from self-promoting COI, and that you want editors who are interested in those pages to take action to cut down on that spam, and you feel like I and the other editors are not hearing you and instead personalizing it against you.

The issue as I see it is: the purpose of WT:PROF is to discuss possible revisions to that guideline. Unless editors there get interested in new page patrol, they cannot be expected to be paying attention to new pages that are being created and to do something right away to deal with the bad ones. (Myself, I watchlist List of neuroscientists and always check new pages that are listed there, and take the stinkers to AfD myself, but that's obviously only a small subset.) It is generally unlikely that the self-promoters arrive here, and begin by reading PROF. They just show up and try to create their pages. What SNGs like PROF are good for is when such a page escapes CSD and PROD and ends up at AfD. Then, if PROF is properly written, the editors at AfD will reach a consensus of "delete". And if the wrong consensus emerges at AfD, I can assure you that I and others will be very interested in tightening the criteria. I promise you that.

So what you have needed to do is: provide examples of AfDs that went wrong, not bad pages, not complaints at COIN. I told you that. Other editors told you that. You did not do it. Instead, you kept complaining that the rest of us were too arrogant about academics, and were not listening to you. I'm unpleasantly surprised to be telling you this, but you were doing WP:IDHT. I know that you can do better. Now, the ball is in your court. Please remember: examples of AfDs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to continue that discussion, and you still don't understand what was so frustrating for me about it, and appear uninterested in that. So it goes. I am very aware that I failed to communicate well and the kind of evidence that people might have found compelling.

Really Trytpo - what you wrote above about my TBAN was very serious to me and dead wrong, and for you to not even acknowledge that is very disappointing. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Two things. My reference to the TBAN was intended neither to hurt your feelings nor to be legalistically exact: I wanted to make clear the severity of what I was warning you about. But I do understand when you say that the specific details of what the TBAN was are important to you, and that it's deeply disturbing to feel like people are misconstruing it. I've been there myself, so I understand what you feel, and I'm not here to make you feel badly. The second thing is about "and appear uninterested in that". If I were uninterested, I would not be spending this much effort communicating with you about it. Apparently, I do not understand. If so, please feel free to make it clear to me, because I have no idea what you mean. Now, those two things having been said, all you had to do in that discussion was to provide examples of Afds, and you would have gotten a much more agreeable reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is more dialogue-ish.  :) I do understand that I handled that badly, on a few levels. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I remain interested in cutting down on COI-ish PROF bios, whenever you feel ready. Perhaps, at this time, it may be best not to take on too many battles. No hurry. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

[Alektorophobia]. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree it is ripe for AfD? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

we could maybe just boldly merge it to the main bird fear article. which has its own passle of unsourced-ness problems.... and address those next. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

this may be our ani

In Expanded genetic code there is this section

Orthogonal sets in mammalian cells

   tRNATyr-TyrRS pair from Bacillus stearothermophilus[41]
   modified tRNATrp-TrpRS pair from Bacillus subtilis trp[42]
   tRNALeu–LeuRS pair from Escherichia coli[43]
   tRNAAmber-PylRS pair from the archaeon Methanosarcina barkeri and Methanosarcina mazei

41, 42 and 43 are primary sources. The last one is unsourced. I added an important primary source. You reverted it. I am going to revert your reversion. If you elimnate it again, this will become an edit war and beyond. Bite me. DennisPietras (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Too bad. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What they feed on

I'm beginning to think that the more we say, they more they like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics Notability

According to Wikipedia Guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) Advanced Bionics is a notable subject worthy of it's own article. Information about the company is available in numerous secondary sources unrelated to the company, such as USA Today, extensive information from reliable sources like the FDA is available; Secondary sources such as the LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/business/fi-advanced-bionics10) covered the topic; Websites already listed are independent of the company and hence provide the needed independent sources; and has significant coverage in reliable sources. (Already listed)

As for why it should be a separate page, please remember that subsidiaries often have their own articles (Delta Airlines and Delta private jets, El Al and Up, EADS and Airbus...) even when a parent company has it's own article too. Any Advanced Bionics has a higher market share than Med-El, making it all the more noteworthy. Plus AB implants are not marketed as Sonova but as AB, hence making a separate article all the more reasonable.

According to Wikipedia policy on mergers: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger)

"Merging should be avoided if:

   ...
   The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"

It is clear you did not read the guidelines before deleting, and btw, hitting undo once is not an editwar. Reverting a reverted edit (what you did) is. When I first started the article it was first redirected because of spelling/grammar errors and told that the article would be great once improved. The Sonova talk page seeks a separate article for AB, you are and Lemongirl942 are the only ones that think it shouldn't be it's own article. I have consensus on my side, CerealKillerYum agrees AB should have an article and requested so; but you claimed consensus was the reason for deleting in the first place, ironically going against consensus; as for being a subsidary, read the reasons above. By the way, if as much info was given as for AB as for Phonak, Unitron, hear the world...it would be a very long article in much need to being split. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this would be at Talk:Sonova. Please post there and I will reply there. thx Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thread

@user:Jytdog. I have responded to the thread that you created on my user talk page. Please let me know if it contains any errors of fact. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

You've got mail!

Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sam Sailor 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References?

I'm curious what this is in reference to. Jbening (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

your edits to Human genome were sourced to the database and cited kind of funkily... Thanks for working to improve the article! Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks fot the clarification. The Ensembl database is authoritative, so those citations are no lower quality than citations to a journal article (higher quality, if anything). And the table has referenced the Ensembl site that way for ages--I just updated the numbers based on the newest Ensembl release. But thanks for working to maintain quality. Jbening (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

May I have a word with you?

I'm asking you because I really do not know. I rl'd the name of that drug because I actually was doing some research about it for a patient and it was not mentioned anywhere on WP. Since this is included in major insurance formularies, thought it is worth having it mentioned at least ONCE on WP? But I did not feel up to creating an article for it. Also-so I do not know what is the right thing to do with particular brand name drugs--is there something tat makes some spammy and some not? I can dig-up a different source if that is your problem? There are OTHER BRAND name drugs listed there---why is this one not good? Is it the ref? Thanks for any help here.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I just left ypu a note about this at your Talk page, here Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Singapore sovereignty section

Jytdog, it has been three weeks and it is clear there is no further discussions forthcoming although the editors involved are active daily. You have not been participating as well. What do you suggest? Shiok (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hang with the process. It is not swift. I will pitch in at DRN finally (if that is actually re-opened). We might need to go to an RfC if we can't reach a clear consensus at DRN. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease

Yo, Jyt, just come across this is as being CSD#G13 liable- could you have a look and see what you think? Looks like a fair bit of work has gone into it, so it would be a barbarism to just delete it without trying to save it. Basically, can you be my WP:BEFORE ;) cheers! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

hey User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi thanks for posting. it was actually keepable it just needed a complete workover, which i have done, and boldly moved to main space. Thanks!!! Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant- I was hoping for something like that but it was well beyond my competency. Thanks very much jyt! Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

?coi

glad to see your back at coin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Special:Contributions/Pllakers17 article Medibio I was just reverted [13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - have reached out to them. yes those articles need cleanup! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Weird reactions

Aren't those "aggressive reactions" just weird? Please comment on 123. 85.107.24.161 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi again, just wanted to note 'for the record', that the Filmmakermagazine source is not my source. Have a look at what you reverted to - the source has been there for quite a while and the link is broken. I simply searched the website for the article, archived, and relinked it.

The only information I added was some I found on the amount of seminar hours attended, additional information regarding the curriculum (i.e. 'evening lectures'), and 'how contact is kept' (newspaper source). If you figure this for advertising, fair enough. I moved the faculty reference to the bottom because it was in the middle of information regarding what one might call 'academics' and it seemed out of place. Didn't want to delete anything after looking at the edit history between sept. and oct. 2016 and a series of reverts you did with the reasoning: "This was product of a very, very long and contentious set of RfCs." I have another question but I will eventually post it on the talk page (no walls of text, promise!)Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I noticed your comment "tone this down a bit", but it looks like you did that (taking out the word "rigorous", for example, which I absolutely agree with). Were you wanting me to tone it down more, or should it have read "toned this down a bit"?Wildgraf quinn (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I was describing my edit. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks, check your email. I sent you a pretty interesting message from a POV pusher that approached me. You should keep an eye on it. Likely is going to attempt on BLP next few days. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

well thanks for the barnstar and thanks too for the tip. I will put that on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IP COI editing on Odeon Cinemas, etc

Hi Jytdog. You seem to do a lot of work helping to sort out COI issues, so I'm wondering if you would mind taking a peek at WP:COIN#IP COI editing on Odeon Cinemas, etc when you have a spare moment or two. This seems to be an employee of the Odeon Cinemas directly editing the article about the company. I've tried encouraging the IP to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, but they have not responded so far. They keep making major changes to the article in attempt to update it, but they are removing sourced content in the process. If the edits are fine and I'm overreacting, then I'll step back. The IP has been editing related articles as well and the COI declaration was actually added to the IP's user page by another editor. I don't want to BITE any new editor, so maybe someone uninvolved and more experienced with COI stuff could provide some insight here. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article, and I'll post at COIN. Thanks for the nudge. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and for your post at COIN. FWIW, I think the IP probably has good intentions, but just not sure if they were going about it in the right way. I've tried to fine some better sources, but have not had much luck. Anyway, if I was overzealous in my reverts, please undo them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No your reverts have been great. The IP doesn't know what they are doing and have added bad/spammy content that belongs on their website. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mental Disorder"-Article

Hi, can you please comment a bit more on your revert of my additions? Where did I violate WP:ELNEVER? My edits had nothing to do with external links. What do you mean by "Content added only to the lead and not to the body" and "this content is not about diagnosis per se"?

I was somewhat confused that you reverted my work on really important topics (like quality of life and "symptoms vs impairment"-stuff) because there is much text in the mental disorder article anyway that is either irrelevant or poorly sourced.

If you think that my edits don't belong there, please suggest to me other articles where it might fit.

Thanks very much for your clarifications. --Trantüte (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. I'd be happy to reply at the article talk page, if you would just copy your opening there -- discussion of content should happen at the talk page so that anybody else watching the article can participate. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions about etiquette

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.

---

Just a note to say, your behaviour on Talk:Alternative for Germany is troubling me. In particular, on several occasions, your actions have clearly been inconsistent with several of the points here, including the assumption of good faith, the general commitment to be polite and civil, your refusal to remove gratuitous swearing from the talk page, refusal to respond to reasonable questions, and the refusal to concede points to which you have raised no objections. You have also accused me of several policy violations (in my opinion vexatiously), such as canvassing and tendentious editing, when I have shown that I am not guilty of the former, and in the latter case, it's fairly clear that neither of you are being reasonable.

I'm not quite ready to request intervention yet, but I thought I'd leave a note here to make it clear that I'm not at all happy with the way you seem to go about things. Hayek79 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be happy to meet you at ANI, whenever you like. Your approach at the AfD article is way too aggressive and it will not end well for you. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to where you have found my approach aggressive? What is ANI? Hayek79 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

btw :I struck the "do not give a flying fuck" thing here. before you wrote this. Your "refusal to remove" is a misrepresentation. Noted. About your "way too aggressive" I already pointed you to WP:TENDENTIOUS - please read it and ask yourself the questions there. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I had seen that, but I can still read it, and therefore as far as I am concerned it has not been removed. As for aggressive behaviour, I could throw an identical accusation back at you, since you have refused to assume good faith, have refused to respond to reasonable questions, and used explicitly aggressive tones and language when addressing me. I also feel you've also been fairly obstructive in addressing my comments, which, particularly in User:Beyond My Ken's case, has bordered on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Hayek79 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. I cannot "remove" it. You don't know what you are doing in WP, and you are being way too aggressive. You should edit about noncontroversial things and learn how this place works before editing about things about which you are passionate. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (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.

Regarding Medical Device Section of Risk Management Article

You have started an edit war with me regarding my attempted corrections of content in the Medical Device section of the Risk Management article. I am not understanding why you feel that it is appropriate to reject my well referenced and well justified changes without providing a rationale or justification. I am willing to contact you directly on this to understand your perspective and concerns, but I am not aware of how to do this. I am posting here in the hopes that you can provide more information. John Walters (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here and at the article Talk page. I replied there. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia. Please slow down and learn how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying over comments

Can you explain why you don't want your comments copied onto the talk page? Don't you think it would be useful to have the disagreement clarified? Hayek79 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My comments at ANI were written for ANI. They are not about content but about your behavior and they have no place on the article Talk page, which is for discussing content. User talk pages and noticeboards are the places for discussing user behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments explicitly addressed content, not only behaviour. I'm making an effort to be more conciliatory, and I'd appreciate if you'd do the same. Hayek79 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You were obviously confused about what it was that I was saying, so why are you still maintaining that I'm repeating myself? Hayek79 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Because you

are

repeating

yourself Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The links demonstrate nothing. When you say I am repeating myself, you can't mean that I'm repeating things you were already familiar with on the talk page, since there was obviously some confusion when you restated your interpretation on AN/I. If you're referring to the fact that I copied over the comments from AN/I, do you have any intention at all of addressing what I've said, content-wise? Hayek79 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating that your claim that I am confused (now for the 4th time) does not make it true. I can't do more than you show you diffs of an example of you repeating yourself, to answer your question about why I am saying you are repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you either haven't read what I've said, or you're just being obtuse. I can't think of any reason why you're behaving like this. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you do and are now deliberately derailing my attempt to be accommodating. That's obvious to anyone reading this, by the way. I sincerely hope they don't ever give you administrative powers. You've both wasted enough of my time already. Hayek79 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Sorry the timing was off. I tried to read through your comments and articles you'd suggested and my brain finally flat stopped working as I was reading the "Terms of Use." I would suggest that if you added a Wikilink to your ToU remark, it might help others to find it. Oh, lastly, I don't know what "diffs" are. I'll have to look that up too. Activist (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A "diff" is a link to a specific comment, like this. If you are going to make a complaint about someone's behavior, you have to support that with diffs of the behavior. Have to. For more on diffs, see Help:Diff.

I didn't write about the Term of Use in your thread - you must have been reading something else. The ToU are discussed in another thread at ANI that is about paid editing. Here is why -- the ToU were amended in June 2014 to require people who edit for pay to disclose that - the relevant section is here. (note that this didn't ban paid editing - it just banned undisclosed paid editing). That is why the TOU are brought up sometimes - otherwise we rarely discuss them. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert of revision 769501669 - Palomar Mountain

Hi Jytdog. I see you reverted my addition to the section about Boucher Hill fire tower, the paragraph relating to the number of visitors and its open/close dates for lack of reliable sources or something like that. Im not on wikipedia much so I dont confess to be an expert. In this case, I am the reliable source for this information. I am the training officer of the agency that staffs Boucher Hill and High Point Lookouts for the US Forest Service and am a fire lookout at Boucher Hill.That is why I am the source of this information. We keep a daily tally of visitors throughout the fire season, which are confirmed in the tower log books. Also the opening and close dates are also correct. In 2016 we opened on May 1st and we closed on December 3rd. This is pretty much constant each fire season.

So I guess my question is this: If a source is a published article, such as an external website or a piece of literature then obviously you can link to that. How do you provide a reliable source, if that source is a person with expert knowledge on the subject, such as myself? Im not trying to rile you up or anything, Im seriously asking the question so my edit can stay in there.

Also, hoping I've signed this correctly. Kiwicalifornia (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! You cannot be a reliable source of information - see WP:V and this -- Jytdog (talk)

04:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision

Jytdog, I am addressing your criticisms of my editing on Thromboxane receptor. My efforts cover from the start to through the section on TP activating ligands. Before going further, I would like you to review and criticize this revised area.

joflaher (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	i have to appreciate your honesty i have not ever seen anyone do a self investigation that is awesome thank you for your service on wikipedia Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, Hayek79 has retired that account and activated his alternative account, User:L.R. Wormwood. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Vipul Group

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.

---

Hi. So, knowing everything that we do now, what are your suggestions on how to proceed? How about a dedicated subpage that we can link to ANI, to start with? Thanks. El_C 06:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Been thinking about that. What in your view do we actually know now? Am very interested to see your response (it is a real question). Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahah! I was actually hoping you could update me with specific answers that would serve as a sort of blueprint. I have lots of open-ended questions:

1. Was there astroturfing?
2. And what to do with the List of articles?
3. In what ways was the m:ToU contravened?
4. In what ways were FCC rules breached?
5. Was there really a pyramid scheme facet to the Group?
6. Did Vipul himself benefit in anyway from the venture?
7. Did anyone make the Foundation aware of all this?
8. Would indeffing the Group be a dis/proportional measure?

I think you've followed the thread more closely than I, so I'm interested in your prospective answers to those questions. I think once we deal with the specifics of the Vipul Group, we should ensure that paid edits are, in general, restricted according to the limitation you set out earlier (2c), and that each paid edit should also have its own individual tag identifying it as such. But I agree with you that this is a separate discussion, best had once we resolve the specific outstanding Vipul Group issues. El_C 06:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Answers.

1) Don't know. If there was this would not be classic astroturfing. There are (valid in my view) concerns about SEO. This is kind of unanswerable even framed as a question about SEO.

2) The company Timelines have all been put up for AfD so the community will decide them one by one. The bigger question is whether a TBAN on the topic in the future is warranted due to a) bad quality editing' b) risk that SEO is what is driving bad editing.

3) The ToU was not contravened as far as I can tell. Everything was disclosed, in one of the three places actually required. (there was talk about requiring some kind of additional disclosure but those kinds of discussions have no place in this specific incident)

4) FCC rules - I am unwilling to engage in a discussion about this - it is beyond the scope of this incident and not addressed in any existing policy or guideline.

5) There was a pyramid scheme. No doubt.

6) See 1.

7 WMF is not relevant to this intra en-WP matter as far as I can see.

8. Some people called for this. I saw (I think) two comments with valid bases in the policies and guidelines as they exist today, and the rest were pitchfork waving without a basis in PAG.

Here is what we know (provable with diffs)

a) Around 250 articles were created or worked on by about 20 editors who were paid, some of whom were recruited by others in a pyramid scheme. Several of these editors are high school kids.

b) this was all disclosed per the ToU. Disclosed paid editing itself is not against policy.

c) the COI guideline was not followed with respect to peer review, and the editors did not believe that they should follow the COI guideline

d) The topics worked on ranged from very typical paid editing ones (executive bios, tech company articles) and some were very noncommercial (timeline of cholera).

e) Some of the content was OK. Some of the content a) violated OR (especially in the timeline articles); b) violated UNDUE (especially about philanthropies); c) violated PROMO (especially about AE philanthropies, tech companies, and executives); d) was very badly sourced (especially in the timeline articles and articles about AE philanthropies)

f) There was disruptive behavior. Edit warring, TEAM.

g) Vipul's response to the recommendations I made here, is here.

h) The ANI was remarkably poorly attended, in my view. I think my OP was too long.

I am considering an RfC specifically about this (and not about changing any policy or guideline), in which I am thinking of proposing things along the following lines:

i) that all participants be indeffed (I expect this to fail) but some people will want to !vote on that

ii) That they all be TBANed from paid editing in the future (this one would be ... interesting, but I also doubt it would pass and to be frank I don't want it to)

iii) That they all be TBANed from paid editing on articles about companies, company executives, and charities aligned with the AE movement in the future (this one would be ... interesting, and i think it might pass. I would want this to pass)

iv) That they be obligated to put new edits through peer review per COI (I think this would pass)

v) That Vipul not hire any more high school kids, primarily due to behavior issues and poor content quality. (There is an ick factor to this as well, that I will not say but i reckon people will comment on)

That is what I am thinking. Not sure yet that an RfC is the right path and there is a (very very tiny) chance that an admin will close the ANI thread and provide a close that can guide next steps. Am happy to wait and see. Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for being comprehensive yet concise. I was about to suggest an RfC. I'm not sure there is an admin familiar enough with the entire Vipul Group saga—even I maybe read a third of everything that was written on it, and I think that puts me ahead of most of everyone. I could close the ANI thread (making it explicit that the pyramid scheme and hiring editors still in high school is prohibited—there's too many problems associated with each, so I don't think we need to RfC-that), then refer everyone to the RfC, which will be set out in a much more streamlined, less conversational fashion. So I urge you to create the RfC. El_C 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's always the option of placing all your suggestions into the close, but I fear that due to length issues, not enough in the community truly got to participate. Now that much of the evidence been gathered, though, we can put a lot of these matters up to a !vote and see what the consensus ends up being. El_C 07:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I closed the ANI thread, though I'm sorry if it's a bit short on guidance. Again, I urge you to create the RfC as that seems like the natural next step. El_C 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Jytdog's mishandling of this episode is already being commented on in external sites discussing this case, along with references to compromised admin accounts (including one by a notorious paid editor whose statement is confirmed by ICANN 'whois' processes). Because it is surprising that the FTC (not FCC) prominent disclosure requirements incorporated in ToU were so easily deflected by Jytdog (who seems to have negotiated an off-wiki arrangement with Vipul and who also hatted my points to that end with false reasons), the WMF will have to be involved, preferably sooner rather than later. Inlinetext (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• On what basis do you claim that Jytdog negotiated an off-wiki arrangement with Vipul?(!) That is a very serious accusation. If anything, he has acted as a voice of reason throughout this. Do you not agree that a more streamlined RfC is the logical conclusion for that ANI thread (which, due to length, was beginning to outlive its usefulness)? That said, by all means, feel free to contact the Foundation about this. El_C 10:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On or about 6 March 2017 Jytdog emailed Vipul. Vipul then called Jytdog. Thereafter for reasons best known to Jytdog he took it upon himself to open an ANI for this matter with palpably fuzzy proposals. Approaching the WMF now is premature, but I shall certainly contact the WMF in the event this community displays its collective incompetence and/or subverted nature. The WMF contact would be limited to ceeking clarification why the FTC prominent disclosure requirements and also the German Court directions against them (WMF was a defendant) are not implemented uniformlly by Mediawiki for the US / German wikipedias. FYI, I've heard of at least 2 German entities tracking this case emanating from the Orangemoody extortion attempts against them. Inlinetext (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know about this email & telephone exchange? Beyond that, wouldn't you consider any proposal falling short of indeffing to be fuzzy? El_C 16:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not at all. My limited objective is actually for paid editor disclosures featured prominently within COI articles. My distrust of Vipul's pack is that similar (smarter) units will sprout to act as cut-outs / shills for professionals - eg.(this). Which is probably why I wanted a few more indefs (beyond the rather unfortunate Wikisanchez). I do understand (& empathaise with) Jytdog's incremental approach, but the facts of this episode are useful for me to go to WMF with for far bigger things. Inlinetext (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

At COIN I wrote here in response to Vipuls' Statement, that I had emailed Vipul asking to talk. He then called me on skype and after we talked, I summarized the discussion there at COIN, here. I do this sometimes with conflicted editors who aren't getting it. Actually talking with the person, and walking them through the mission of WP and how the community views paid editing, and what the person has been doing wrong in light of those two things, often helps educate the person and resolves behavioral disputes that had been going on. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2017 (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.

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Rheumatoid arthritis 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. Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Approaching edit warring, you must stop

Jytdog, I undid the edit of Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), specifically telling him that this was still being discussed on the Talk Page and so any edits must be withheld. For the second time now, my removal of Doug's non-consensus edit has been undone, and by you. What is happening on Ai (Canaan) is obviously approaching edit warring, and you are violating Wikipedia's policies when you attempt to force an edit that is not agreed upon and still being discussed on the Talk Page. Please undo your own edit of Doug's content otherwise the current discussion on Ai will become an online 14-year old screaming forum. I see that the very last addition to your Talk Page was an Edit Warring warning, and so I hope you do not fall into this again -- please undo your own edit until a consensus can be made.Korvex (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)