User talk:Jytdog

Impella

What is the problem here? Why was it removed? I will try to fix it and re-post it again. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.146.137 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2017‎

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Your edits on Cannabis edible

Hi Jytdog, thanks for your contributions on the Cannabis edible page. I appreciate most of your edits, as I was having trouble being concise, but I am confused why this source - Possible hepatotoxicity of chronic marijuana usage Sao Paulo Med. J. vol.122 no.3 São Paulo May 2004. - does not qualify as a medical source, in your mind. Why does it not qualify? I got that from the 11-hydroxy-THC page, so if you have valid reasons for your removal of that reference, you probably want to remove it from that page. To be clear, the blood-brain barrier is referred to as the hematoencephalic barrier, so if you searched "blood-brain barrier", it would not have shown up for that reason. Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

it is a primary source. Please see WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Then do you plan to remove it from the 11-Hydroxy-THC article, as well? —Michipedian (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt med & cancer risks

A few interesting articles:

• Herbal remedies embraced by naturopaths, alt med widely linked to liver cancers
• “Alternative” medicine’s toll on cancer patients: Death rate up to 5X higher

Also:

• A Dying Doctor, Peter Thiel, and a Rogue Herpes Vaccine Trial Gone Wrong

Enjoy. Or not. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

oh... not. So much suffering. But thanks for the info. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neal D. Barnard. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I understand that you feel strongly on this topic, but that is all the more reason to relax before getting into edit-warring about your preferred version of the wording. I was actually adding a better wording when it turned out that I could not do so because you had already reverted me. So desperate to revert? Take a long look and just relax more. MPS1992 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a section on the Talk page where you have said nothing. Please discuss there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't kept track, but I think that you might be the world record holder for being the victim of don't template the regulars. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind being templated. I do mind that person who did this, did that after I pinged them at the talk page and has not responded there. Hard to resolve a content dispute without discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Level of math in medicine as a field based on biochemistry and biophysics

Hi, Jytdog! In the context of the discussion at Talk:Partial_derivative#Use_of_this_notion_in_the_context_of_math-based_sciences_or_applied_math which mentions the term math-based sciences, what have you observed as a professional having some involvement with medicine, about the level of math used in medical practice, considering the use of math in biochem/biophys? Thanks! Your input is very useful!--82.137.15.37 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

An additional question arises in this context: Could we include in Partial derivative a subsection about medicine and medical R&D based on what you've said at its talk page? I think the 2-3 sentences said by you are pretty obvious, therefore need not to be sourced. What do you say about this aspect?--82.137.13.115 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything goes better with sources. They are applications; there is an applications section and would go there if anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course it would be better with sources. Then what sources have you encountered or have in mind from where you have extracted and formulated those 3 sentences?--82.137.12.162 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Creation of userbox

Hi Jytdog, could you direct me to a place that explains how to create userboxes, particularly for existent WikiProjects that do not yet have userboxes. (In this case, I want to create a userbox for WikiProject Objectivism.) Thanks. —Michipedian (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. —Michipedian (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Michipedian: Wikipedia:Userboxes has the information. I find it useful to find an existing box that I like, and then modify it rather than starting from scratch, because the details can get a bit complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish! —Michipedian (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

having read your response I made every effort to find the strongest sources, and after, an additional proof came to light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:23h112e#the_addition_I_made_at_11:02.2C_27_October_2017 23h112e (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the words of encouragement. I guess what put me off is the double standard DocJames was putting on me, citing that the rule was to strictly use only reference articles when (a) the guidelines dictate that this is best, but not mandatory; and (b) over 75% of the references cited in the article that DocJames mostly wrote contain non-review non-book references. Hypocritical I would say. That is what put me off. 45.73.149.250 (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rheumatoid arthritis and EGCG - yes, too soon

I added my two cents to Talk on why I concur that it is too soon to present EGCG or GTE research on rheumatoid arthritis. In passing, want to note that I have yet to be accused of being part of a cabal, or being templated (did not know that was a verb). Feeling more thankful than jealous. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Your time will come! :) Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

CBOE

Why did you remove my content on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange Wiki page? I cited my source, and all the information I posted from the website was of public domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbedits (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I should have left you the copyright notice when I removed the content. I've done so now - pls see your talk page. You can reply there if any you have any questions, but you should talk with your instructor. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Between cutting through the jungles of prose for Death of Savita Halappanavar and your attempts to help in the most recent section you started at ANI, you show a great willingness to take on some exhaustively negative situations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ELs

Often an author gets the right to host a copy of their work on their university webpage.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been looking at these and most often it is a preprint. It really varies from publisher to publisher. The paper that OAbot suggested a link for was published by Liebert and their policy is here and says authors can post preprints but says in bold: "The final published article (version of record) can never be archived in a repository, preprint server, or research network." The link was to the final published version. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay. Complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Complicated indeed, even for legal scholars. They have an entire wiki on how to get contracts which make sense: http://wiki.law.miami.edu/commons/ --Nemo 07:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have spent some time working with publishers to expose their permissions in a machine-readable format[2] and one of the chief conclusions of the exercise was that in many cases this couldn't be done because the written documents were ultimately incoherent! Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know about that one, I've added a mention in OAD so I don't lose it. Some publishers however manage to do better, e.g. OUP has standard options A through R which cover most cases. --Nemo 08:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Liraglutide/insulin degludec

Hello, Here is the source for my editing Liraglutide/insulin degludec. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/208583s000lbl.pdf This is the drug label from FDA.

Best regards Rli255 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Which you mostly copy/pasted. Please do look at WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDHOW. Thanks for wanting to improve it, though! Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

IORT

Carl Zeiss AG, Germany, initiated a clinical trial for early stage breast cancer in Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg. In order to serve patient with accurate intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), the company sponsored a project in Mannheim Medical Center to measure RBE of this radiation source from Intrabeam compared to high energy x-rays from conventional LINAC. This work has been published by Liu et al. on the highly reputed radiation oncology journal in 2013 (see the reference below). The company Zeiss indeed cited the reference in their website for IORT (see the link below). As a high quality work carried out by IORT clinicians, physicists and scientists, it is appropriate to be cited for "IORT". Furthermore, the low-energy x-rays reviewed in the cited article have very different spectrum, which is an improper reference for Intrabeam with a unique spherical dose distribution, x-ray spectrum and other physical properties designed for IORT.

https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/us/products/intraoperative-radiotherapy.html Liu, Q., Schneider, F., Ma, L., Wenz, F., & Herskind, C. (2013). Relative Biologic Effectiveness (RBE) of 50 kV X-rays Measured in a Phantom for Intraoperative Tumor-Bed Irradiation. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 85(4), 1127-1133. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamBux (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears you are talking about this revert. Please post this note at the talk page of that article, at Talk:Intraoperative radiation therapy, and I will reply here. Please also see the note I just left at your talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Food, rivers and research

• If you follow university matters or scholarly publishing, you may want to join mail:openaccess. I saw you looked for some background, so you may be interested e.g. in mailarchive:openaccess/2017-August/000226.html.
• On the analogy of rivers, I noticed some articles on the commons are a bit lacking, e.g. Elinor Ostrom. I'm not sure when I'll manage to study her main book carefully though.
• If you found the answer to the question on bread, I'd like to read it. I noticed we still miss a lot of basic information on how our food and everyday products are made, e.g. I just recently added Baker's yeast#Industrial production. I'm not sure I managed to extract all the main well-sourced information while removing the fluff or local-specific details. Ah, by the way I believe one earlier version was closely inspired by a toll-access paper.

--Nemo 08:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. that email is great. I would recommend toning down the "n most cases you can also share the "post-print," which is not true. But most importantly please use more care in deciding what papers to link to in Wikipedia. Open access is a great thing but copyright is what it is and a 40% error rate is way too high. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Broke 1RR

You have broke 1RR on a scholars articles please please revert yourself.--Shrike (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 October 2017(UTC)

AE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jytdog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#HSE_recommendations

As I do not wish to accidently give anyone the notion that I'm edit-warring again, can you clarify what agreed wording achieved consensus?

Was it (1) '...recommended legal clarity, training of clinicians on the law and if needed, further review of the law

Or was it (2)recommended changes to the legal situation and training of doctors about the law.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit you made here, where you added The HSE also recommended changes to the legal situation and training of doctors about the law., after our discussion. That was fine. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not add that sentence, instead I made non-controversial edits on a separate issue. Which simply pushed that controversial sentence down the page. Are you genuinely assuming I agreed with that sentence, to remain unchanged? I didn't agree to that, nor was consensus reached.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks for explaining. I will reopen the talk section. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel

Don't know if you'll find it of any use, but I created User:Primefac/revdel to assist with requesting revdel. Doesn't do much more than put the prompts into a popup (instead of just typing it all out) but it was requested. I am working on a version that will show the actual diffs, but that's probably a ways out. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ed Gillespie

I believe I addressed the concerns brought up on the talk page. WP:BRD doesn't work if one party discusses the matter and makes the changes per talk, but then another party just reverts everything and won't discuss. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Bold (again). Thanks, Instaurare (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep discussing at the talk page, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bible and Violence

Could you tell me what you think you might like to call your three primary headings: what is it, what is it's context, and what is its impact? I am reorganizing everything in my sandbox around this and need to know what headings to use. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss content at the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Kindly avoid spamming my talk page.

I won't bother to address the inaccurate accusations of sockpuppetry or edit warring, but frankly your wall of "help" and vague threats was patronizing and a little cringeworthy. Don't repeat it. Thanks.

DreamingSea (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

hi Jytdog, i don't know about spamming but you are welcome to send me a trout anytime (munch, munch). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

COI - Monero and other cryptocurrencies

Hi, Thanks for highlighting Wikipedia COI rules. I hold a fairly diverse portfolio of cryptocoins. Can you have a look at my user page to see if I declared them correctly? Investanto (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's very nicely done, thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Monero Sources

Hello.

First of all I admit that you quoted my reddit post in the COI Noticeboard - apparently no matter how obvious is your irony, someone on the internet will take you seriously...

I have been trying to call the community to order a little here. I hope we won't have a repeat when the TEC lock is lifted.

I also want to make things easier for others to source their additions correctly. To this extent I put a list of sources on the talk page. Can you chip in with your opinion on them and to how they can be used? [3]

Fireice (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are correct that I took the remark at face value. I apologize, as you meant it ironically. I will look. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I added some suggestions as to how we might use the more reliable, peer-reviewed sources. Can you review them? Fireice (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you have a look at RSN? I posted a proposed edit there Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Monero_.28cryptocurrency.29 Fireice (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion and edit summary at Israel

Israel Hayom is not (as you wrote) "some shitty blog in hebrew". It is part of the newspaper with the highest circulation in Israel where, yes, they read and write in Hebrew.

Word to the wise: If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you shouldn't crow about it so loudly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You are completely correct.Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You have got an article written about you....

Posting this here since I much rather prefer this to you finding out yourself - https://themerkle.com/monero-wikipedia-page-is-vandalized-by-unknown-entity/ This is essentially a mouthpiece of the Monero Core team, and since they tend to behave like grown up toddlers, the article is what it is... Fireice (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

lovely. Thanks for the heads up! Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So, you´re a "pendant", huh? Well, I guess you could wear it like a badge of honor... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That "pendant" malapropism is actually pretty hilarious! On top of that, you are also an "unknown entity". Anyhoo, now I'm totally won over to regarding cryptocurrency stuff as being a COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Hi no wish in getting into an edit war. But you have made several factual errors.

I have stated them. Thanks Historicalchild (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Concurring with above

I note other editors have suggested to you that continuing to intervene in KDS's edits is having diminishing returns, and I would respectfully add myself to those who share that opinion and suggest turning your attention to the other worthy work needed on the encyclopedia. I bring this up because in the most recent instance I happened upon (just because it's on my watchlist), you've twice reverted changes (KDS's and mine) to something that has no more weight than an essay (that is, edits which do not inappropriately interfere with policy--a community-wide RfC, and all the scrutiny that entails, would be required to create consensus and make that page policy). If I may be candid, my view is that choosing to tangle over such non-issues is becoming more disruptive than constructive to the project of encyclopedia building. As others have also pointed out, KDS has become the object of a great deal of attention, including from numerous experienced administrators, so the issue may be safely left in their capable hands, and I would recommend that as the best way you can help the functioning of the encyclopedia going forward. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Innisfree987 -- About people who edit for pay directly editing essays/guidelines related to paid editing and notability, see prior discussion with KDS444 here and the links there where we indefinitely blocked someone for doing just that, and also see this note further up this page from user:Kudpung.

And about your reference to the note just above, if you want to support the actions and claims of a person who has likely been socking here for over 10 years to add promotional content and remove negative content in a BLP article, again that is your choice. Not a wise one, but hey that is your deal

In general I suggest you investigate more carefully before you judge. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take care with assumptions. You're mistaken to suggest I commented without reading the (voluminous) text on this topic; please consider that it might have been precisely because I have been following this that I elected to comment with the above, my best-faith advice on how you can best serve the encyclopedia at this point. Meanwhile, if you feel nevertheless you must continue to involve yourself on this matter and you have a founded sockpuppet concern, please take it to SPI with diffs, lest it verge into aspersions territory. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You are again writing things without doing your homework. I do not tolerate bullshit here, and you are no longer welcome to post here. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) (strike per below Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC))

Per this explanation "concurring with above" was not about the post directly above. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is actually nothing on this talk page "above" chiding me about KDS4444. I believe that what was being referenced was this at KDS4444's talk page and this ensuing discussion at Sphilbrick's TP. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Marfan syndrome

Hello, Jytdog – I was reading Pleiotropy a little while ago, and I saw this sentence in the section Pleiotropy#Marfan syndrome:

• Marfan syndrome (MFS) is an autosomal dominant disorder which affects 1 in 5–10,000 people.

Then, I glanced at the article Marfan syndrome, and, in the third paragraph of the lead, I read this sentence:

• About 1 in 3,000 to 10,000 individuals have Marfan syndrome.

Shouldn't these sentences give the same ratio? Also, I'm just curious as to why the range is so large and why a more precise range is not known.  – Corinne (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I will check. Not sure why this one is range-y - may be because it is rare but am not sure. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, harmonized it. the Marfan article was using a ref from 2014. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for calling out the inconsistency :) Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cogmed

Editors like you give Wikipedia a bad name. You have no clue what Cogmed is and clearly have zero professional knowledge in neuropsychology or neuroscience. Cogmed helped thousands of ADHD patients to get off medication. Research studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals in 2010-11 found that effects of Cogmed training overweigh the effect of ADHD medication and this triggered shadow investments by Big Pharma to kill Cogmed - they sponsored questionable studies by 3rd rate universities (such as University of Oslo) as well as intense media campaign (re "memory training is bogus"). I am surprised that Wikipedia article is so biased, you can ask any reputable neuropsychologist or practicing psychologist and they swear by Cogmed. This is the ONLY non medical treatment for ADHD approved by APA... It is ironic that all reputable research by Harvard, Yale, etc. is disregarded due to some questionable publications sponsored by Big Pharma :( 135.23.134.146 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Content is driven by sources. The APA does not appear to have a current guideline for ADHD per this, and the AACAP's guideline is apparently in development per this. So I am not sure what guideline you are referring to. If you are aware of reviews in the literature or other guidelines per WP:MEDRS that are not cited and are newer than the ones cited now, please post them at the talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with sources in Wikipedia is that it relies on information published in layperson media rather than research papers that Wikipedia calls "primary sources" and which are forbidden to quote. There are over 100 research papers on Cogmed published in most respected scientific magazines - these papers fully supporting Cogmed claims, and there is a only a handful of papers questioning these claims. Yet for obvious reasons stated above the layperson media picks negative sources, as a result Wikipedia totally misrepresents what Cogmed is. It's just one of many examples when "collective editing" in Wikipedia serves the purpose of misinforming the readers. I used to be a Wikipedia editor for years but I quit when realized that Wikipedia now is all about paid editing and fulfilling ambitions of rogue editors and Wikipedia admins. Wikipedia already lost its standing in Google search results and if current tendencies continue I am sure it will disappear from the first page. Too bad, it was such a big promise when it started... 135.23.134.146 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In the "epistemology" of Wikipedia, we find "accepted knowledge" in high quality review papers. If we relied on primary sources we would have editors squabbling over exactly which primary source was more important and should be given the most emphasis, and exactly how to interpret them.

And btw if you followed the editing closely you will have noticed that I also removed the primary sources that showed no effect, including one that was a replication study. "Duelling primary sources" is a tremendous waste of time that the community steered clear of ages ago. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you got discouraged and quit. It is depressing how much promotional editing goes on. (btw, are you aware that about half the sources in the Cogmed article were from the company or people affiliated with it? here is how it stood when I started. Gah.) We need more people attuned to high quality articles and editing - who listen to and follow high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

University Hospital Galway

The article could definitely do with a look-over... it's definitely seeing the same sort of editing pattern as the other article you identified in the AN/I report. Six-year-old negative newspaper report? Included! Response from the HSE available in the same article? Excluded. Etc... Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that stuff over. I just haven't had time... Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Forest Bathing

I had a good experience doing forest bathing in the UK and wanted to share this. Yet you have removed it twice. I even went to the trouble of finding external references - at least one of which is a respected British newspaper - which back up the statement.

I am confused why you are intent on deleting this? It is factual, referenced and of interest to people reading the page.

Please can you revert back to the one you edited?

I am confused why you'd want to keep deleting something that's correct and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:401C:BC00:D81:DB8D:D311:FEDA (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss content at the article talk page. In general, please do keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are meant to provide the public with "accepted knowledge"; they are not vehicles for promotion. We keep articles what we call "neutral" by summarizing what high quality sources say about the topic. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't bathing a forest just rain? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As best I understand, getting wet is not required, in fact not even expected. One is 'bathing' in the experience of being in nature without bothering to pretend one is hiking. David notMD (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I grew up in logging country and live on the fringe of an ancient forest—presumably if PMID 17903349 is correct I must be the healthiest person in the world by now. I'd love to know how the researchers did the blind testing on this. ‑ Iridescent 00:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerns with proposed issues with Nature Exposure Sufficiency and Insufficiency

Hello,

I have reviewed your concerns with Nature Exposure Sufficiency and Nature Exposure Insufficiency Continuum. You mention that there is only "one source" for the text, which is primarily the first proposal of the continuum. You have overlooked the several references for the continuum in the reference section which support the proposed continuum. An argument could be made for the deletion of Nature Deficit Disorder since (given your reason) has some questionable support and comes from mainly a book publication with no peer review.

You mention also that Medical Hypotheses is not peer-reviewed when in fact it is peer-reviewed. The main paper was reviwed. The paper was also authored by Dr. John R. Reddon a well respected researcher who has published well over 130 articles.

The article is useful for the other wikipages such as Seasonal Affective Disorder, and Louv's Nature Deficit Disorder to name a few. The NES/NEI continuum provides a new understanding and treatment plan for these suspect disorders.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdurante07 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss the deletion rationale at the deletion discussion, and the article at the article's talk page. If you post there I will reply there.

You really should read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), especially the common mistakes section where we specifically warn people against using their editing privileges for Promoting your medical theories, approaches, or inventions Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

regarding DTTR (essay)

I mentioned a thread which you started, regarding this essay, which I think is subject to misuse. You might want to take a look at the discussion. Edaham (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Beware of Tigers

@Jytdog: I just looked at it, and appreciated it, and I wanted to thank you for this reference. I especially appreciated this comment: "Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. It is inescapably true that, on occasion, all of us fall prey to that particular conceit." That is unarguable, I agree. I accept that it applies to me. I hope you can do the same. At least, perhaps you can see that, in the face of that, I genuinely care about learning and working to be neutral and present balanced views. I have not yet presented one side of anything I don't think, though often that seems to be what you most dislike in my writing. Whenever you tell me what would be better, I cooperate. Fairness will give me that. I am trying to be neutral--fair to all sides of the discussion on this topic using both for and against--and I hope there is some small awareness of that effort on my part. It does also seem fair to say that, just because I am new here--or even because I am passionate, doesn't automatically make me wrong about everything all the time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

To give you some friendly advice: Wikipedia is severely biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. That's the kind of bias we want and we appreciate. For the kind of balance we seek among diverse viewpoints, see WP:DUE (meaning rendering those views according to the support they have in contemporary academia, or WP:SOURCES). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jenhawk. The "live tiger" here is meaning-making from a Christian perspective - that is live tiger stuff. WP is not the place to do that work. All we want to do here is describe the tiger. Describe "violence in the bible" - the bible itself, and sure, what everybody (including Christians) has done with those texts. But the Christian meaning-making does not belong at the center of the whole thing. Not here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no argument with that! I don't think I am including any live tigers--where they don't belong, which now that we have it set off specifically for that, is in the section for live tigers--the theology section, right? That section wasn't designated like that when I first started working on the article. Which means I think, that you agree--that we do actually agree--on the material being necessary for the fair disclosure of all that secondary sources say on this subject--and that we just didn't agree on where it should be in the article. If it's set off in a section by itself you're okay with it! It just can't be included in the main body of the article. See--I have no problem with that! I was putting theology and sociology and history all mixed up together with the biblical event they were about. Now, we are putting all those biblical events together and separating out the different kinds of commentary on them. If that was always your intent--it makes a lot more sense than what I was doing! It is more orderly, and I like it better! I wish you would have explained though! I will move some of that theological material into the zoo where we are keeping live tigers!!!--neutrally stated I hope! And please, if I am so blind I can't see if or when I am placing live tigers around outside their cages, I will need help seeing exactly how and what I am saying that conveys that, because it is not only done unintentionally, but with the opposite intent, so I am not going to see it unless you take the time to tell me. I will try to be not only gracious but grateful for your instruction. Please don't get so exasperated that you throw everything--including me--out! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. This is what i have been saying from the beginning, trying in different ways to express it.

You are getting closer but please keep in mind, we don't want any live tigers here. Even the Christian theology section should be dispassionate, and sourced from people who are not doing theology but rather surveying the kinds of things that Christians have done with these texts. (Ditto for jewish and muslim traditions as well as popular culture)

Content is driven by sources. Always. Being self-aware about what ~kind~ of source one is using for what ~kind~ of content is helpful to remaining aligned with the mission, namely to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. Stuffed tigers and placards describing them; no live ones, please. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Got that part down--no problem--content driven by sources--except please help me be clear--are you saying I can't access any theologians about theology? How is it possible to find anyone who talks about theology without doing theology. I am not getting that distinction. Actually--I am completely at sea! What Christians have done is either history or sociology isn't it? Not theology??? If I have to be dispassionate in order to write here I may be a constant failure--I'm passionate if the weather's nice!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay--went and tried--added two things to theology. See how much you hate them!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

May I add the discussion of women into the theology section as well? It's interpretive so it can't go in the main article but it should be somewhere. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog--go look at it! It is starting to look good! It is starting to look like a real article. I'm so excited I can hardly stand it! No dispassion here! Sorry! There is still more to do--someone needs to cover the prophets too, and Hell--which is certainly a violent concept--but it looks to me like we are over the worst and making some honest progress--with almost all of my contributions in the theology section... Thank you for persevering with me and not giving up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

You seem to be reverting my edit without apparent reason - exacerbated by the fact my edit is the result of this discussion on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you could explain the reasons for your edit in the discussion I provided. ^Ol^Ja 22:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: ). Thank you. ^Ol^Ja 22:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I will trout you if you respond at the dramah board. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I like pickled fish personally. -Roxy the dog. bark 00:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, i did any way, trout away! Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Did Roxy just threaten to pickle me? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

But I thought you were a cryptid? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a new word for me, so I went and checked List of cryptids, and didn't find myself there. Isn't WP great? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, yes indeed. I have read so much good stuff. None of it on my watchlist either. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oranjelo1000

Can you please check this editor's edits? Especially on genetics and related articles. In his last edit he deleted a sourced info about Cro-Magnons with a misleading edit summary. Pinging @Doug Weller:. Thanks. 173.177.192.148 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not leave further threatening messages, or any messages at all, on my talk page, ever again

Or you can apologize. Your choice.

GliderMaven (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You can take those messages as "threats" or you can listen to what I am saying and change what you are doing. As you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dilidor (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do discuss at the talk page - I opened a section there. thx.Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Samson.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dilidor (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, please continue talking at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I learnt a thing or two from the previous incident. You don't seem to have. ^Ol^Ja 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

POV

Hello Jytdog. A brand new account have filled all articles on haplogroups with a dubious map created by him[4]. Origins of those haplogroups are disputed and adding a map pushing a certain POV may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subject(s). Shouldn't those maps be removed from the LEAD? 85.174.59.101 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The description says " The distribution of Y-haplogroups in the Paleolithic. Reconstructed on the basis of the modern distribution of Y-haplogroups, ancient DNA data, sites of men in the Paleolithic, physical terrain, paleoclimate and suitability of areas for life in LGP." How can you get more OR? Doug Weller talk 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, i have just seen your comment. Thank you for your attention @Doug Weller:. I noticed that the account is edit warring with other editors to push their map on the lead sections of WP articles[5]. An admin intervention would be helpful, because it seems that he keep reverting others. The lead sections of almost all articles on haplogroups have been filled with the same disputed map right now. As i clarified above, it is POV and may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subjects. Thanks. 37.204.54.76 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Easy there

I'm pretty sure there's a consensus somewhere for no more than three "fucks" per edit summary. GMG^talk 14:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There must be, right? That kind of blatant hijacking makes me so mad. I toned many of those edit notes down. Should have toned them down all the way. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Just pops out on recent changes like a lighthouse on the rocks. GMG^talk 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleting peer-reviewed references

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnethicalSurgery (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Some courtesy would be appreciated

I've noticed that within minutes of my updating carefully-referenced pages written in a neutral tone (to the best of my ability), you've summarily deleted them, with comments that I can't help but perceive as inconsiderate and dismissive ("nope" and "spam", respectively - nothing more). I've spent many hours editing MiraDry and PRECICE, seeking high-quality secondary sources, and being mindful to keep a non-promotional tone. I have no affiliation with either. I'm happy to follow the spirit of Wikipedia and collaborate on making these articles meet its standards, but please help with something more substantive than a cursory dismissal of my work.

Thank you, Dandv 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

I was just in the process of leaving you a note on your TP. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Erythropoietin

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and probably do not know the right way to enter references. I was trying to indicate that Deflandre was a graduate student of Carnot's and enter the reference to the original paper. I have her thesis that verifies the receipt of her Ph.D. If you could help with this, I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratoga15 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I understand that you are trying to write about Deflandre but that content is not about the subject of the article. In addition that that the edit you have made hsa broken formatting. There is lots of guidance about citing sources - see Help:citing sources or for a shorter description you can see the advice at WP:MEDHOW. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guy, maybe let someone else have a say?

Hi! It seems like you feel like you are on the right side of science. You may be right. Perhaps though you could let all the relevant information be presented so that people can decide what they think is right for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychfollower (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reply at the article talk page - I opened a section there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please stop edit warring on the Posttraumatic stress disorder and discuss on the talk page.

Thanks in advance, PolarYukon (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss at the section I had already opened at the Talk page: Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Circumcision_and_PTSD, where you have not participated yet. Please also review WP:MEDRS. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Power posing edit war

Please stop removing my well sourced content. Please stop adding defamatory content regarding p-hacking that is not in source material.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Power posing, you may be blocked from editing.

Please use the talk page and discuss the edits. This is all work-out-able. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

EJustice

FYI, I left them this note since they seem interested in appealing the community imposed indefinite block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's what they were after -- I replied there. Thanks for the headsup. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

not spam

Your characterisation of the provision of an additional source as 'spam' is inappropriate. Whether the additional source is necessary is probably debatable, but it is directly relevant to the cited material. You may apologise here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the content, happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. I'll reply there if you post there. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably as close to an apology as one is likely to get on Wikipedia. It wasn't spam as falsely attributed, but I'm not overly concerned with the exclusion of the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you removed information from "Frontiers in" simply because you "feel" that it is too weak?

This seems ONLY your opinion, but I understand that scientific quality should not be based on opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychsci79 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination review underway for Vitamin C

The reviewer - who has brought more than 160 articles to GA status (but few in the medical arena) - has a slew of comments that I am working through. I am inviting you (and Doc James and Zefr) to contribute to the process, either with comments at the review or directly to the article. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what i can do! Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Banzernax (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: people with privileges who edited for pay

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.

---

A current admin edits for pay as Salvidrim! (paid) (talk · contribs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No secret there, and Jytdog knows already. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, just figured you posted here not to tell Jytdog "hey check this new information out" but more as a "you might want to consider adding Salv to the the list you're compiling". Sorry for butting in. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here @JJMC89:. If I knew about Salvidrim! editing for pay I had forgotten (with apologies for that, @Salvidrim! (paid):). Either of you please feel free to add to the list, which is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#History_-_people_with_privileges_who_edited_for_pay for now anyway. As I noted there I started generating it because people had asked in the thread above about examples, and getting a full picture is good for everybody. And it would be good if it were everybody's list, not just mine. :)

Salvidrim! I would be very, very interested to have a general conversation about paid editing with you, to hear your thoughts about it. We can do that voice-only via google hangouts or skype (i have a jytdog account for both), or we can do that on-wiki if you prefer. That is general. Separate from that, I would like to have a conversation about what you have actually done so far on Wikipedia as a paid editor. That should happen on Wikipedia, and if it is OK I would like to do that after the first one. Are you open to that?

I am making a couple of comments on the two on-going AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Weinstein (business executive) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad), just to get clarification on them and I made a couple of edits to the Studio71 article but don't intend to get involved beyond that for now. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer written conversations to spoken ones but I'd be happy to chat with you about my thoughts on paid editing over e-mail, FB or Discord or on-wiki. However, much of what I could say has already been said in my answers Doc James' question in the 2016 ArbCom elections. As for the specifics of what I've done, I've similarly ensured that the details are indicated on each entry on that account's userpage, so that should answer your question, but I'm happy to provide any additional requested details on that user talk page if you want. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm! I offered to talk, specifically because written communication is less rich, and more prone to misunderstandings, and this is a topic where people have a lot of strong emotions which make it hard for people to really hear each other. But we can do this in writing as that is what you prefer, and we do it on-wiki too.

Thanks for pointing to the answer you gave to Doc James at the arbcom election page. I hear that. That was pretty short but gives me the general idea.

So I guess we can just do it here and now.

So in general, in all fields, the very widely held view on conflict of interest, is that it is a problem that needs to be managed in some situations and eliminated in others, because a) (intrinsic) the conflict in interests affects the judgement of the person with the COI, often without them even being aware of the ways it is doing so; and b) (extrinsic) to avoid damage to the reputation of the institution/company/organization. Is that something that you disagree with? Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I see COI and PE as related (and often intermingled) topics, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other. If one allows their judgement or principles to be influenced by the expectation of remuneration, they're doing edits for the wrong reason. Of all the things I have been asked to do on-wiki against payment, I've turned down over 75%, always with clear explanations & guidance as to why the request couldn't be accepted within policy. The proposals I've agreed to were ones that were within policy, which is to say that I would have done as a volunteer regardless. I wouldn't do or say anything against payment that I would not do as a volunteer. As for "avoiding damaging Wikipedia's reputation", I think it is generally preferable that companies ask & pay experienced editors for counseling and editing instead of doing it themselves or with PR contractors who are external to Wikipedia. Reputation-wise, "companies only edit Wikipedia through experienced, established Wikipedia editors" sounds a thousand times better than "companies often edit Wikipedia themselves with little oversight". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

hm. Your reply goes into a lot of different things and levels. I don't think this conversation is going to work for me, if it doesn't go carefully and step by step. There are way too many issues, and levels of issues, and if we don't arrive at shared assumptions then discussions about specific situations aren't going to make sense to either of us. But if you don't want to do that, that's fine Jytdog (talk)20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim! I will ask three specific questions about your actual paid editing activities, however.

1. You are working through Mister Wiki per your disclosure. When you put the Weinstein article through AfC, the person who moved it to mainspace in this diff with no changes, also works for Mister Wiki per their userpage. Would you please comment on this?
2. You added the "paid contributor" tag for the other editor to the talk pages of Talk:Studio71, Talk:Reza Izad, and Talk:Dan Weinstein (business executive), but not for yourself. Why is that?
3. The COI guideline is very clear that editors with a COI should not edit directly. You do edit directly for your clients. Why is that?

These are real questions, not rhetorical ones; I don't presume to know your answers but I do assume that these are intentional things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Nothing to add to what you've said.
2. Read that account's userpage: any non-minor content change will come with a "connected contributor (paid)" template. I haven't made such contributions in either of these cases.
3. Read what I just said above about the difference between COI and PE. In any case, "should not" doesn't exclude "can with disclosure". If, as you seem to think, every COI edit was disallowed, PE was allowed with disclosure, and COI must equal PE, there would be a fatal logic error, but fortunately that is not the case.Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The optics on the first thing are terrible. I do not find it heartening that you have no comment. Please comment. If it was a fuckup it was a fuckup. If that is how you all intend to operate intentionally, that is a serious problem. This is exactly the kind of thing that harms Wikipedia's reputation, not to mention Mister Wiki's. So please clarify.

With regard to the third thing, I did read what you wrote, and nothing there actually says "edit directly". I very much disagree with your distinction between PE and COI; you may evaluate your clients carefully before taking them on, but once you take them on, you have a COI. COI distorts judgement, generally, which is why we have a process to manage it - disclosure and prior peer review (which means not editing directly).

I have been considering an RfC to add the prior peer review step to the PAID policy and apparently that is needed. I believe that this actually has broad consensus, but we'll see. That will be the only way to resolve this, I believe. I believe that someone with your reputation will abide by community consensus once (if!) it is made clear on this issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course whatever I personally think means nothing against community consensus, I'd never dream of intentionally violating policy. I've made clear in the past that there are several policies with which I disagree but still abide by. :p But FWIW, "don't edit directly if you have COI or are being paid" is not something that I believe will find community consensus considering the "anybody can edit" pillar. I'm sure many people would rather have transparent disclosures than people trying to hide their status to edit directly. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on the third thing. Everybody "can" edit as long as they follow the policies and guidelines, which puts restraints on the kinds of things that everyone can do. Putting articles through AfC and offering suggestions on the talk page, only where one has a COI, is still "editing".

Please comment on the first thing. This is very serious to me, and something that I will escalate for community resolution if we cannot resolve simply by talking. Soeterman actually moved the articles about both executives to mainspace, which puts this well outside the scope of coincidence. The community does not like drama over paid editing and it is better for everyone if we can resolve this simply.

To give you a heads up I am going to note the conflicted AfC "review" at both AfDs. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I just have no idea what to respond at all, sorry. FWIW I don't see how the AfC thing has any bearing on the notability of the article subjects, which is what is being discused at AfD, but feel free to mention it if you feel it is relevant to the discussion.. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

At both of the AfDs you wrote (diff at Weinstein; diff at Izad): but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" and such maintenance clean up is desirable overall for the project -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags..

You wrote that at the AfD, and the nature of what actually happened in the AfC process should be noted at the AfD which I have now done. (diff at Weinstein; diff at Izad).

What I am asking you to respond to, is whether it is appropriate or not, to have one editor who does work for Mister Wiki submitting an article for AfC, and another who does work for Mister Wiki approving it and moving it to mainspace. I understand that Mister Wiki is kind of new. Maybe it was a fuckup. Fuckups happen. But if this was perfectly fine to you, we have a serious problem. Please address this directly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who "accepted" it, signed up for AfC only a few hours before they accepted it. So this appears intentional but is perhaps something that upon reflection you understand is not OK.

Please think carefully before replying this time. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You all did it the other way around on Datari Turner, where Soertermans fixed up a failed AfC submission and then you moved it mainspace. While Soetermans discloses Turner as a client of Mister Wiki, you have no such disclosure on your page. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was not paid for any edits to Datari Turner nor had I even ever spoken to anyone at MisterWiki at that moment. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been around a long time and you must realize that this statement is difficult to believe in light of what has happened at Izad and Weinstein articles. I am not saying you are lying. It is just difficult to believe. It also doesn't make clear if there was any other relationship at that point (like just helping a friend or something). This just looks dirty, especially in light of your continued silence on what happened with the Izad and Weinstein articles. So please clarify already. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

For all I know it's possible the contact with MisterWiki resulted from my them noticing my uninvolved approval of Datari Turner's draft, I can't speculate. As for the other matter I literally have no idea what to say and will await Soetermans' post just as much as you. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Man you are not helping. The two of you have done this three times that I have found so far, all related to Mister Wiki clients.

I am not looking for blood. I realize this is all awkwardy but what I want is to get this clarified and set on the right path. There should be disclosure of everybody involved, and there should not be direct editing in mainspace or any kind of collusion (or even the appearance of collusion - indeed there should be rigorous "I am not touching that as it might look like collusion") in reviewing submissions. That is how paid editing and COI can actually work in WP without getting into this kind of "this looks filthy" kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mister Wiki website, like too many of these paid editing websites, is not transparent about "who we are". You and Soutermans are the only people who have disclosed being involved with them on Wikipedia according to this search (there used to be a user called "Mister Wiki" as well as a MisterWiki that were associated with Diego Grez who is community banned.... but those seem (?) unrelated to this venture which appears to be new - the website was only registered this year.)

In any case, the website says that people working for it follow the TOU, so apparently it is just you two. You have made a serious decision to associate yourself with this company; things related to it are going to end up associated with you. You will not be able to just shake that off. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've responded to the concerns of the similarity to an old vandal's previous username on my talk page -- the name "MisterWiki" is clearly not a unique construction like Salvidrim or Jytdog. As for the AfC review, I maintain that I have no idea what to say and am unwilling to say more until we know more (he's on European time and this is the weekend, not everybody checks Wikipedia every hour like you and me!). As for the identity of the person behind the MisterWiki website, one of the first things I did was research because I did not wish to associate with unknown parties of uncertain trustworthiness. I won't WP:OUT the guy but he's a an experienced PR guy working mostly (but not only) in the music industry who decided to seek help from experienced Wikipedia editors to help respond to his clients' inevitable Wikipedia-related requests. I wish more PR firms would do the same instead of believing themselves imbued by some ultimate truth and trying to edit Wikipedia themselves, not knowing Wikipedia's purpose and policies. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You keep distracting from the point here. You knew that Souterman was working with Mister Wiki well before he accepted the two AfCs that you submitted. (and what the is up with that revert on their user page?) You are looking filthier every time I scratch this. You actually cited your integrity at both AfDs (diff, diff) and I am looking for that to come through.

That revert happened at 03:24, 20 October 2017.

You accepted the Turner article at 03:27, 20 October 2017

The more you write here and try to distract me from your own accountability here, the deeper a hole you are digging. Please account for your actions. Yours. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Misclicked reverts are the least of concerns here XD -- I'm not trying to dig a hole, I'm just reiterating -- you're trying to understand what happened, that's fine, and right now we're both waiting on more information. You've made it abundantly clear that this is no about my actions or my integrity but about the AfC review. Not everybody edits Wikipedia on a Monday in the middle of the night. Let's give some time for clarification. I'd rather be thorough than rush to judgement. You can see here I've not been avoiding engaging in discussion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No this has come to be very much about your integrity. You are an admin here which we means we all trust you very, very much, but you are giving very un-straight answers here.

You already knew that Soutermans was working for the same outfit as you.

So you ~might~ have known that Soutermans was going to accept them via a pre-made plan (and him joining AfC a few hours before he accepted the drafts sure makes it ~look~ like planning, especially given the prior Turner interaction). I don't want to go too heavy on that, as that is speculation. But you definitely knew when they accepted it, that they worked for the same outfit as you.

Yet you did nothing about the very, very bad appearance of Soutermans in particular accepting both - and only -- these two drafts, and even cited the AfCs at the AfDs as though they meant something under your "paid" hat, citing your integrity as a WP editor generally.

I don't see any way for you to be looking good under either hat, at this point, and nothing you have written here -- not a single thing -- is helping. Instead there is one distraction after another. I am still looking for you to say "yes I (or we) fucked up here big time" or something meaningful about your actual actions and your lack of actions. You, the whole person - the paid guy and the admin guy. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And I'll be happy to address that whenever he's back online and responds to your post and we have all the info. Once again, I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't want to rush into anything without being thorough. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You are still ducking the issue of why you took no action on the 15th about Soetermans, but you were very diligent with respect to your paid client with asking JJMC89 not just once on the 17th, but again on the 18th, about removing the tags which was the paid task per your description.

Where was your diligence as an admin with respect to protecting the integrity of the AfC process? I had plans for today, but instead I have gone down this rabbit hole digging up stuff that you already knew. You could have posed the question I put to Soetermans on the 15th, or even asked him to self-revert and let someone truly unconnected do the AfC review. You did nothing. Why?

This is the only question that matters in this conversation, and you can answer that now. If you do not respond to this directly, I have to let you that know I am considering bringing this to Arbcom next, to see you if you should remain an admin. (an answer, "I completely fucked up" will resolve this, btw) Continuing to duck and trying to point at anything about Soetermans, will not resolve this. Soetermans has nothing to do with your lack of action here. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's almost midnight, I work Monday morning and I'm already in bed. Hopefully by the time I log back in tomorrow we'll all have more information as to what happened with and once the what and the why have been explained I'll be able to respond definitely with my thoughts on the whole thing. Once again, there is no rush or time limit put pressure or threaten as you are doing is not conducive to positive resolution. I don't wanna say "I fucked up" or "he fucked up" or point any fingers because I believe that Soetermans is owed respect like any other member of the community and we don't usually do things in absentia', without hearing everyone out. Give a bit more reasonable time for thoroughness' sake. Thanks! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he can say has anything to do with what you did and did not do. Conflict of interest tends to skew judgement. Yours went completely out the window. When you write back here tomorrow, please don't write anything about what Soetermans did. AfC had the very blatant appearance of corruption directly in front of you, twice, and you apparently didn't even see it. You apparently cannot even see that in yourself even now, when I am showing it to you so plainly. This is terrible ....and I will add very human. Which is why community is so important. Please, please see that your judgement went completely astray here. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I ended up getting up in the middle of the night because this nagging issue was literally keeping me awake (I hate looking like I'm avoiding being accoutable and people thinking I'm somehow being dishonest), and fortruitously I received the info I was lacking. Let's be clear: the reason I was so reluctant to speak my mind before speaking to Soetermans was because I did not know if he had spoken to or been asked by MisterWiki to approve these AfC drafts. Only knowing my end of things and not his, I couldn't provide a honest and thorough assessment. Now I can. Here is the timeline for clarity:

Soetermans, with whom I was friends due to years of WPVG collaborations, asked me privately if I had some time to do an AfC review (approval or denial or whatever else, just get it reviewed). I was happy to help, and approved Datari Turner.

Some time later, contact with MisterWiki was established, likely as a result of my involvement with Datari Turner's draft, and he asked for help with a few things -- fixing the Studio71 article title & logo, getting Pierce Fulton's, Reza Izad's and Dan Weinstein's pictures freely-licensed, and most importantly what could be done to have the maintenance tags on the latter two articles removed. Immediately I informed MisterWiki that the reason these tags were there was because they were created by what looks like a paid editor who has not disclosed that fact. I got in touch with WolvesS, had them confirm their status and convinced them to properly disclose it on-wiki as per policy. I thought at that time that the best way to get the maintenance tags off the article was to get it reviewed (I couldn't really do it myself since any appearance of neutrality flies out the window the moment payment is disclosed), and the best way to get it reviewed IMO was via AfC (which it had not gone through when being created) as a first step (and COIN was a last resort). So, I draftified and submitted.

A few days later, I inboxed Soetermans complaining about the long wait at AfC -- not with a request for help, but as a "let's gripe together, friend" thing. He asked if I wanted him to review the drafts, I told him it probably wasn't the best idea for all the reasons Jytdog outlined above. Soetermans said the drafts looked good and reiterated his good-faith offer to put them through. This is where I fucked up by giving in and not sticking to by gut feeling and principles. I should have known better and turned down the offer definitively. I thought since the article was likely to be approved at AfC anyways eventually, what harm can it do whether it's "this reviewer now" or "another reviewer later"? I just figured everything was fine, we were all acting in good-faith, nothing to worry about. This carelessness and optimism was my mistake and I apologize to Soetermans for allowing him to put himself in this situation instead of turning down his good-faith but ill-advised offer. I still think the review was done in good faith, however, and not as a favor without regards to article content.

Hopefully this answers all of your questions, Jytdog. Once again, apologies for keeping you waiting, but first I had to make sure Soeterman hadn't been asked by MisterWiki to approve these drafts without my knowledge before taking on the blame as I did above. Lastly, you probably know my neverending and all-powerful commitment to transparency, so here is the chatlog of my talk with Soetermans about the AfC drafts (released with his consent of course), which proves that everything I have said above is the truth. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

The two of you gamed the system three times - all for money and "wiki-friendship". You helped your wiki-friend serve his client more quickly, then he helped you serve your clients more quickly, all utlimately on behalf of Mister Wiki and its clients. I say that even taking as true that neither of you were paid to do the receiving.

AfC is a process meant to protect the integrity of Wikipedia and meant to be fair to everybody, and the two of you turned it into a farce. Appearances matter. What do we say to the next paid editor who is complaining that AfC is taking too long? Heck what should we say to the next volunteer who wants to see their work published already? "Gee too bad you don't have a wiki-friend who can prioritize you" is not a good answer to either of them.

And I am not even getting into how badly your judgement about the quality of the content may have been compromised, as you appear to be acknowledging here and here.

This is what "conflict of interest" means, what it does to people's judgement, and what it does to the integrity of Wikipedia and the fairness of its processes.

Your response does not fully recognize the actual problem and you appear to still have only a glimmer of insight into how badly you have compromised yourself, your admin office, and the AfC process as you and Soetermans got involved with Mister Wiki. You are still dancing around that.

And what is worse, you bullshitted me all day yesterday yet you come here touting "transparency". Your first response to item #1 was actually Nothing to add to what you've said. when you knew the extent of the backroom dealing here between you and Soetermans, with Mister Wiki and its clients standing behind first one of you then the other, the whole time. (Granted you didn't know if Soetermans got paid for accepting the articles or not, but that is just icing or no icing on the shitcake and you could have left that small part open) Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you please read the WP:COI guideline - I mean actually read it with open eyes and an open heart -- with this experience in mind, before you reply again? I am really asking. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Although everything was done in good-faith and with an "everything is fine" optimism, obviously no amount of good faith can wash the appearance of untowardness and corruption that has tainted the AfC reviews that were done. I don't appreciate your characterization of anything I've said as "bullshit" but I understand why this would frustrate you and apologize for taking things with perhaps too much optimist levity and not enough of the serious thoroughness that handling such complex situations requires. I am keeping a watchful eye on the discussions/RfCs surrounding this and will of course abide by any consensus and pre-existing policy that arises. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You do not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation nor how you much have compromised your integrity and reputation, and you are making it worse with each diff in which you do not engage with what you did here. COI tends to skew judgement and you will not see that this has happened to you, as you continue to repeat this "good faith" stuff. I am considering my next steps as I mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say to meet whatever your expectations are. Yes, I fucked up by allowing a fellow paid editor to review the AfC drafts that another paid editor had created and which I was paid to clean up. No, an editor being paid to accept a draft (or accepting the draft of a fellow editor paid by the same outfit even if they are not paid themselves) is not okay and constitutes a perversion of the AfC process, whether the intent was truly to deceive and bypass policy or not -- as you say, what matters is appearance, and there is no way that what transpired here can appear proper. I "appreciate the seriousness of the mistake". I fucked up. How much more contrition and apology do you expect of me? I don't make a habit of grovelling or begging for forgiveness. I fucked up, but prefer to learn from my mistake and move forward positively instead of lamenting on what happened and what could have been. I know your opinion on paid editing and I know I won't change your mind on the topic, thus I'm not sure what constructive outcome can possibly emerge from continuing this one-on-one back-and-forth. You asked me to recognize I fucked up - I do. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to separate the matter of your wrongdoing from my anger at you wasting my time extravagantly yesterday dancing around the issues (which was pure bullshit - I had content I wanted to work on yesterday and instead I ended up wasting my time digging through your sordid history while you danced around the issues).

I am not looking for you to grovel.

I have been looking for something that is simply clean so that it is clear you understand how corruptly you behaved on both sides of the AfC, so that we don't ever repeat this drama. Every response you have given before now was slathered with distracting, ass-covering, self-righteous bullshit. I have no tolerance for bullshit and I have bitten my tongue, hard, more than once in our interaction so far.

You do not know my opinion of paid editing. I think paid editing can be totally fine when people rigorously follow the policies and guidelines and are self-aware that they are conflicted. Humans being human they very often fuck up, and I understand that, and I do everything I can to give people room to learn and improve. But some people are so arrogant that they think they are "above it all". And those kinds of people in particular tend to double down and make things even more messy when problems emerge and they extravagantly waste other people's time - all for their ego and efforts to keep making money. But people who have CLUE and are resilient and self-aware can actually pull it off and things can work smoothly with no drama. It happens every day. I write about this on my user page, here.

Your last reply is clean enough that I will not seek further action. I cannot say what others will do. But you have completely exhausted my patience, that is for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 20 November 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.

Stock manipulation - bearish articles

Today I reported Wikipedia to the SEC and the FCA for their part in this racket

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/instablog/2918951-g-hudson/1026551-how-the-big-players-manipulate-the-stock-market

You'll probably have guessed from my geographic location that I work for a share registrar, so you know I know the ins and outs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.152.40 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Not commenting on the "reporting" bit but the source there is one that I don't use and that I generally advise people to avoid when writing about biotech, since it is bloggy and often about penny stocks, and very open to the kinds of manipulation you are talking about. And since WP is WP:NOTNEWS we shouldn't be drilling down to the kinds of details that make stocks swing but rather should be focused on the fundamentals.

If you are aware of articles that you believe have been manipulated to be bearish or bullish please post at WP:COIN and identify them so we can fix them and see if we can figure out if anybody is doing that systematicaly, which would be a violation of the Wikipedia WP:PROMO policy at least. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Veganism Edit

Hi,

I was just wondering why you wanted to remove the edit I made to the Veganism page. I wasn't trying to spam the page. I understand if it was a legitimate issue I just was curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beccalordon (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! If you would please post this at Talk:Veganism I would be happy to reply there. Discussion about article content should be there, for a bunch of reasons. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if they just notified you when there isn't a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved? ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)