User talk:Let99

Welcome!

Hello, Let99, 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
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, Let99. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for signing on with the project! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog

Due to the volume of baseless complaints that have been made against Jytdog over the years, he is immune from Wikipedia sanctions, no matter how well-founded. This is especially true with regard to paid editing - his work in that area is such that he is above suspicion. Please withdraw your ANI request before you get blocked. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I haven't made any ANI requests. I'm just defending myself. Also, I don't know whether you are being serious or sarcastic. Based on Jytdog's behavior, I'm going to assume sarcasm, but let me know if I'm misinterpreting you. Let99 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're talking at ANI. Jytdog can play a little blunt at times but he's one of the very few editors keeping Wikipedia's health-related content at least not dangerously wrong. I've known him for years and can assure you that Twitter account is not him.

Regarding undisclosed paid editing: Somebody recently proposed we create a professional team dedicated to combating it at this email list. It remains to be seen whether anything comes of it.

That list, by the way, is where seasoned editors discuss Wikipedia's meta issues and you can sign up at the bottom of that linked page if you want. I (almost) never contribute but it's interesting to watch what's on the mind of the serious players. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks, I know that it's a fake account, but it was not clear upon first glance. Wikipedia is trying to make the site more friendly by adding a visual editor and things like that, but what would really get more people involved would be to cultivate a better culture among the editors. What Jytdog is doing should not be tolerated. I've seen it from at least four editors on this site, and they edit with the perspective of crushing whoever disagrees with them. Then they are given free passes because they are in The Clique and have an arsenal of obscure Wikipedia policies to hurl against people. My editing was rational and fair, yet I am the one being pulled up for review about possible banning. That's really terrible. Let99 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a similar experience in my early days here but wasn't nearly as civil as you've been. I ended up getting blocked ... twice. I'm sure you won't be very receptive to this now but, when I think of all (and there's lots) of the excellent work Jytdog has done here over the years, day after day - and I mean truly excellent - I've become a lot more sanguine about this shortcoming.

I think it's a product of the milieu in which he works. He spends a bit of time on fringe medicine and pseudoscience articles and there is a relentless stream of devious and infuriating folks trying to unscience those - often clearly pushing a commercial or ideological barrow. He and I and too few others here are especially sensitive about articles that may have a real effect on readers' health. That's not to excuse his occasional bouts of impatience and angry outbursts.

It is what it is, though, and I hope you're not too discouraged by this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let99, the content dispute was a run-of-the-mill content dispute that we could have solved any number of ways, per WP:DR. The subject of the ANI thread is not the content dispute itself -- it has nothing to do with whether the ref you wanted to add is OK or not.

Here is what the ANI thread is about -- it is about your unacceptable behavior at the article Talk page and at your talk page and mine - the way you tried to "win" the content dispute by trying to discredit me, by doing off-wiki research and citing it in WP. That is completely and explicitly out of line. The fact that what you "found" turned out to be a hoax that you fell for, only makes what you did more ugly (and provides a big win for the jerk who created the impersonating account, since what they wanted was to cause trouble). And the fact that you wanted to smear another human being that way, by so crassly using something you "glanced" at, is something you should reflect on.

I care about this for a bunch of reasons. Obviously I am offended and angry that you treated me this way, but in the bigger picture I care a lot about COI management, and people using accusations of COI the way you did, harms the overall effort to manage COI. I would be on you about this even if you had done this to someone else. Management of COI need to be handled carefully, untangled from content disputes; accusations of COI should never be used as a bludgeon like you did.

But back to this situation... As several people have told you, what the community is looking for, is for you to acknowledge that your approach to resolving the content dispute was completely wrong. You keep insisting that your behavior was fine, and if you keep doing that, you will very likely end up blocked, as the community will not risk you continuing to try to solve content disputes inappropriately. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, please stop with this whole thing. You are the one who is treating me badly. If you find that you are frequently getting into conflicts with a lot of other users here, the behavior problem might be largely with you. Maybe step back for a minute, and think before doing things that make Wikipedia unfriendly to other users. Instead of reverting someone's post as if you own the article or are the gatekeeper of information, bring it up on the talk page and try to approach communication from a collaborative rather than confrontational perspective. This edit of yours, where you went as far to remove the sentence that I was trying to cite, was especially petty. And stop talking down to people as if you are Wikipedia and the person you are debating is some other entity. This site is created by all of us. Let99 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, culture trickles down from the top, so I think that admins should take an active role in trying to encourage a culture of cooperation rather than confrontation. It would greatly reduce the number of long-time editors who are way too aggressive and who wield Wikipedia's policy gobbledygook as a weapon to try to crush anyone who disagrees with their opinions. The culture on this site is totally broken, and this incident is a perfect example. I understand that there is a lot of woo that needs combating, but ordinary Wikipedia editors should not have to suffer through this kind of treatment. People need to know when to use diplomacy rather than cannons. Let99 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)