User talk:Jytdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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:

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)


Welcome back![edit]

hi, for the Ensure page, I can understand the removal of the categories. Good call. Looks like I didn't understand how that worked. Anyway, quick question. What was the reasoning for removing Isn't it part of an official website since it's from the brand? Thanks. Weijiasi (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad to see that all of that is over with! You have been missed. I trust that now you'll stay out of conflict, and I look forward to seeing you around again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh yay and I can edit my page and everything. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Hope you still can find something you think is interesting to edit. Is it an "indefinite-can-ask-for-unban-in-a-year" topic-ban? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - I asked for clarification above. I am travelling this week but will get back to editing my usual health/medicine related topics when I return. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)¨
Glad to hear it. Wikipedia is better with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Can't wait :-) Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to see that you're back. I'm sorry to hear that you're topic banned from anything COI-related, but hopefully you'll find working in other areas just as fulfilling. Altamel (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that you are back after I clicked on your contributions in the edit history of the Physical attractiveness article. I was checking up on that article after spotting a recent edit to it on my watchlist. Your userpage is also on my watchlist, but I was absent from the site for two days and missed this section. Anyway, welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saw you on a page I'm watching. A hearty welcome back! Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, welcome back! I was truly conflicted by the RfC, so I didn't respond there. But I am delighted that ArbCom lifted your block because losing you would have been a major loss to the project. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but it's good to see you back in action again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 :) Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Woah, I had recently watch-listed the fringe theories noticeboard and the last edit showed "Jytdog"! :) Welcome back! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks lemongirl! Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't know me, but I too am very glad you are back. When I see your name in the edit log of some article that has been infested by vandals and COIs, I get that "here comes the cavalry" feeling. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That is super kind of you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad you are back as well (for the medical pseudoscience-patrolling work, not the COI-patroling stuff, which I hadn't watched much). We may argue about one particular line of a certain page, but you're a major benefit to the project, the block was wrong-headed, and that one OTRS admin's "OUTING means what my selective blindness says it means, not what it actually says" position was indefensible.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Didn't know you were away! But Glad to see you are back. Not sure if you can recall our communications before. Anyhow, best wishes - Audit Guy (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

very nice of you! sure i do back on Institute of Financial Accountants.  :) Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Seconding, thirding, fourthing everything said above, I saw the name by chance and thought 'hooray'. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"in 1970" or "in the 1970s"[edit]

Hi! The third sentence of Immunodiagnostics is a bit weird: "A second test was developed in 1970 as a test for thyroxine in the 1970s." Do you know if this should be improved (and, if so, how)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I never really got a reply; or did I miss something? Maybe the text is correct, I am not a native reader. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry this fell through the cracks. I redirected that article to Immunoassay where the topic is much better covered; the immunodiagnostics article was entirely unsourced and you are correct; that sentence made no sense. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Hey Jyt. Most of our articles use "cite template". Wondering if for consistency you could use them also? This page explains some simply ways of generating them WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hm, why does that matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I always cite the complete source so it is findable, and include links to full texts where they are available. I find the templates clunky and time wasting... I can adapt but.. why does the format matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yah I guess it is not a big deal. I find it easier reviewing when the article references have a consistent format that is all. And also having consistent formatting is useful for translation. But outside the lead that is less important as all we are translating are leads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
hm. OK. i found that the templates slowed me down and were just, i don't know, finicky, when i tried them. i like my simple method. but i will try again. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever used the Wikipedia:RefToolbar? It has auto fill functions for urls, pmids, dois, and ISBNs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
that is what I tried. it just opens up an awful dialog box where i am supposed to type all the parameters. tremendous waste of time. some kind of autofill would make this much better but that is not here by default. i looked at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0#Autofilling and this is gobbledegook to me... did you load some javascript into your settings to make autofill work? Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC) [1]
OH you have to click on the little magnifying glass. I get it! that is not bad at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Saxena, D; et al. (2016). "Drug-Based Lead Discovery: The Novel Ablative Antiretroviral Profile of Deferiprone in HIV-1-Infected Cells and in HIV-Infected Treatment-Naive Subjects of a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Exploratory Trial.". PloS one. 11 (5): e0154842. PMID 27191165. 
I can do that. I will start doing that. Thanks for leading me to work it through. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes the little magnifying glass is amazing :-) It works about 95% of the time in my experience. You still need to add the page number for books. I find the url from Google books works better than the ISBN.
For example if you add "" it will fill all the meta data but the page and the year of publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 :) The above article is crazy interesting btw. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, a trick you can use is to install User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. It works (moderately) well at automatically changing plain citations into cite template ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The PMID autofill works great (though it would be better if it included the PMC code when there was one) - the website autofill really stinks tho.... I will check that tool out! Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Linked to the wrong source[edit]

In this discussion [1] it seems to me that you linked to an incorrect source here: [2]. It may be that statement by this source is NOT the example of BLP support you were looking for and trying to demonstrate. Regards - Steve Quinn (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Link #6, this, is a diff to a comment by WordSmith, an admin, where Wordsmith directly addresses BLP concerns about the information and comes to a different conclusion from MastCell. That was the point of the diff. What diff do you see? I don't know why you are shouting. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I redacted here to try to alleviate confusion. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to appear to be shouting. I was trying emphasize the word "not". I can see now that it wasn't necessary. Regarding the diff, I misunderstood your point in the discussion in the first place - which is my fault, not yours. I probably need to slow down a little for awhile on Wikipedia. I think this is the first time I have been involved in this much controversy regarding a single article, and even several articles that were plagued by single disagreeable editors. Compared to this, those were easy, being only concerned with mostly WP:RS issues (and I thought those were difficult at the time). I never would have thought this was possible. Really Smile.png. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 :) Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Talk:Epinephrine_autoinjector[edit]

Please read over WP:NPOV. You have introduced a bias as you deemed that a peer-reviewed, published article is not to be included since you have alluded to the author having a conflict of interest with a drug company. This is not a neutral point of view. Your response "Discuss content, not contributors." is unacceptable in this case. Before you continue to edit please review this policy. Good references are not to be excluded because of your own bias towards authors who have disclosed conflicts of interest. EditorDownUnder (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on contributors is bad form on article Talk pages. I choose to use high quality sources that nobody from any side of issues will argue with. You can try to use it if you like - it will lead to drama (not from me - you should note that what I wrote, was "I won't use it"). Once you have been around for a while (you have 23 edits) you will understand better how to work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemtrails revertion[edit]

Hello... today you reverted a citation addition I made to the Chemtrails page stating I did not use a reliable source. I was anxious to get this new study included here as it seems very pertinent. This is the first time I have attempted to add a citation to anything on WP and I am clearly not well enough informed on the rules in this matter. Can you explain why this was not a RS? Is there a WP list of such things (rather than general guidance). Would this (; be a reliable source for this same material? RobP (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks so much for talking! Yes in this dif you added content based on this source. That source looked pretty dicey to me and in general we don't cite popular media stories about science papers. The journal in which the paper published, Environmental Research Letters is pretty good. However the scientific paper is what we call a "primary" source, in which the research that was done is reported by the people who did it. In general, it is way, way better to use what we call "secondary sources" - for science, a literature review paper in which other scientists put the primary source in its larger context. Sometimes we use primary sources, most times not.
Tell you what, I will post on the chemtrails Talk page on your behalf, and let's see what editors who watch that page say... Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds like a good plan. And got it... avoid primary sources for science topics. RobP (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Done, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

hypoglycemia section was removed from Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults[edit]

The Hypoglycemia section was taken out of Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It was general content about hypoglycemia that was already covered in our Hypoglycemia article. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


I have paraphrased your addition to the above article, as the material was directly quoted without any indication that you were using a quotation. Wherever possible, content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ack, thank you! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Re phobias[edit]

This popped up in my GScholaring: Listomania: The List as Popular Culture Icon. I am amused. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 : :) Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack London (businessman)[edit]

Hey, Jytdog!

I'm currently in the midst of a good-faith attempt to cooperate with a paid editor to flesh out Jack London (businessman), tackling a section at a time, trying to get it beyond the stubbiest of stubs that it is now. I'd appreciate if you could undo your recent re-squishing of the article; I'll then put up one of the under-construction templates. I'm not sure that this article survives long-term, but there should be a chance to put at least a little meat on its bones before that decision gets made. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ok, i will stand back! Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


I was in the middle of editing. Do not do that again. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single citation that I added specifically names chaetophobia or fear of hair. Please read the sources. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You are using sources that are not valid for content about health. See WP:MEDRS. btw if you want elbow room please use the "under construction" tag. I didn't see that you were in the middle of editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(→‎Television: WP is not part of the internet echo chamber of rumors)[edit]

What does this mean, please? The Washington Post is a reliable source. Do you have better Wiki wording for the statements in the article? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are asking about this revert I take it. Our mission is to provide the public with accepted knowledge, not with rumors. See WP:NOT, really. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (one more in a deservedly continuing series)[edit]

Jytdog, your timely addition of high-quality material regarding epinephrine injectors is one of the latest examples of your dedication, which is much-appreciated!

Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For a long history of informed, neutral, nuanced, and well-sourced edits, particularly relating to science & technology, business, and ethics, and where these areas overlap. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Middle 8! Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Philippe Cousteau Jr.[edit]

Your edits to this environmentalist were of concern to me. I returned the "Awards" section you deleted - how many ways are there to list awards? IMO this is not what our copy vio regulations are about at all. The editor that added this info is apparently a newbie - how long would it have taken you to change a few words in the "Books" section? I cut it back a little and put it back in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

HMB FAC[edit]

Hey Jytdog. I know that you've already indicated your support for this FAC nomination in your review section, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to indicate this with a comment that includes the word Support in boldface; the summary of each nomination at WP:FAC is automatically updated with the total count of bolded "Support" and "Oppose" statements on the nomination page. It's also generally easier for FAC coordinators to determine the stance of a reviewer when this is done.

Thanks again for doing a review of the article; I appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

does this work? Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, thanks again! Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that again please[edit]

This is against WP:TPO, and I would hope you do not repeat the action. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My action was correct. Your message was uncivil not to mention futile (the first step in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is to bring arguments to persuade the closer to change what they did, and there was no way that message was going to persuade anyone). You just vented, and that is uncivil. You are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars. I am sorry for you. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars" And you try to lecture me on civility? You were wrong to delete and you are uncivil and wrong to comment on me here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Last time I suggested you were getting too involved was regarding policing COI. This time I'm suggesting you should keep clear of the infobox wars unless you do a lot of reading first, and certainly do not assume the role of civility guardian. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Schrocat I am not going to engage with you; I let you know your message was uncivil; you chose to restore it. There you go. Thanks Johnuniq for your advice. Jytdog (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL, are you another person commenting on the situation without knowing that it concerns Noël Coward? Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq - I was aware of the RfC close at Noel Coward before I saw the note from SchroCat. My removal per NPA and giving the notice was because this was not a good faith WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; it was just expressing anger. If Schrocat chose to repeat that message at AN to formally challenge the close it would go precisely no where on the basis of what was presented there. It was just attacking an admin who had the guts to close a very toxic RfC. It is not OK behavior, and being a participant in a toxic, longrunning dispute doesn't make it OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleged link spam for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin articles[edit]

Hi Jytdog. I am writing this comment as you suggested I could do on my talk page.

First of all, thanks for your interest, but according to the guidelines, I think my contributions are legit and should not have been marked as spam.

"from [...] What can be normally linked [...] Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. [...]"

I honestly think the PDFs on material safety datasheet for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin all meet these guidelines. It's neutral, it's accurate, it's relevant to an encyclopedic understanding, etc.

There were no sections within the wikipedia articles that related to material safety, which I think is quite important (esp. regarding the controversy levels of these additives in mainstream media). This is why I didn't simply suplement the section with the information contained and added the PDF as source/reference. Do you think adding such a section would be better?

Also the PDFs provide phyisical properties and other facts that are otherwise not available in the article. I was wondering if this would qualify as too detailed for the article. This is why I didn't add them and cite the PDF as a reference (e.g. Melting point is not provided in Cyclamate or Cyclamic Acid articles but it's present in the PDFs).

I ask you to reconsider the spam classification of those PDFs and/or at least provide suggestions on how to include that relevant information in the article. Thanks. Sr.Bernat (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr.Bernat (talkcontribs) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources for technical specifications and MSDS and yes there is good information in them. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So your suggestion is that I add similar external links but from another source? If so, which source(s) do you suggest (I don't want to be accused of spamming again...)? Or are you suggesting that I should try to extract the relevant information/contents from the MSDSs and place it in the article with a reference? Thanks! Sr.Bernat (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Before you embark on a project like this it is usually a good idea to get input from the relevant WIkiProject. How about asking the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry how they like the idea of adding a bunch of MSDS and tech specs to ELs of articles? And if so, where they think the best source would be? That would probably be the best place to ask. (I just took a quick look through their archives and found some past discussions - see here - you may want to review those before you ask.) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into that, thanks for your help! Sr.Bernat (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it seems that the correct thing to do is to create a _(data_page) for the main Wikipedia article (e.g. ) and then add the MSDS information there. Thanks for the tip! I think I'll do that (unless you disagree) Sr.Bernat (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
~Maybe~. That is a discussion from ten years ago and things might have changed since then. Really the best thing to do would be to ask the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry what they are doing these days. I am sure they will be happy that somebody is interested in updating chemical data. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Philippe Cousteau Jr..

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss content disputes on the talk page. You appear to be engaged in an edit war and have reached the 3RR threshold. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

--Lurker response-- Jytdog's actions fall under the BLP exemption of 3RR, in that he is trying to correct the addition of promotional, unsourced materials to a BLP page. BLP was mentioned on the article's talk page. Therefore this warning is wholly unjustified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thank you for the thoughtful reversion and helpful message on my talk page. You are a true gentleperson. Cheers! —Verbistheword (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Momina Mustehsan[edit]

Hello The correct D.O.B of Momina Mustehsan is September 5, 1993. She told me on instagram via direct message. Shall i put up a screenshot of our chat as a reference? Immu01 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No. That is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and also WP:BLP - the latter is a very important policy in Wikipedia and you must follow it. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of other Users[edit]

copied here from message left on my userpage in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please review the text of for more information on why your recent behavior related to Centers for Disease Control is inappropriate. Taking five actions in response to an edit, including multiple edits to my user page, is harassment. Any further attempts at intimidation or threats will be treated as further harassment and escalated as necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talkcontribs) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

oy Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

I thought you had been indeffed, for an offence supposedly so heinous that it couldn't even be described. So I was very pleased to find (at Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich) that you are with us again. You do excellent work, particularly on medical articles that actually matter to people unlike the claptrap that most of us waste our time on. I hope you long continue to contribute. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Momina Mustehsan.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If u think my citations are not reliable then how come u keep on adding stuff that make no sense at all on the article Momina Mustehsan? u don't either provide reliable sources. Immu 01 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talkcontribs)

this is off-base, and your post above is incorrect. You need to use reliable sources for content about living people, Immu. It is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Immu 01 --lurker response-- Immu 01, your edits are in violation of WP:BLP's requirement for no original research. Until you can make edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies, you are the only one making disruptive edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: “Please see Talk”.[edit]

I do not see anything in the talk page that is relevant to your revert. Please clarify and highlight my user name on response. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

It is there and you were pinged; was working on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated welcome back[edit]

I saw the drama surrounding your COI work and the claims of outing. I'm glad to see you're back, and appalled that there was actually anyone who didn't see that you were doing your usual COI work in good faith. You are owed an apology from both ArbCom for instituting a topic ban, and from whomever made the call to block in the first place, in my opinion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary revertion in “empathogen-entactogen”[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Empathogen-entactogen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Reverting without justification is not acceptable. Neither are editors in general, required to obtain consensus prior to any edit per WP:BOLD. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

As you know this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_format_of_linking_articles and currently there is no consensus for what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikiprojects have no power to make any binding decision on article-space content per WP:Local consensus. Content that affects Empathogen-entactogen must be discussed on its talk page or a WP:dispute resolution noticeboard approved by Wikipedia-wide consensus. Quoting:
“For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.”
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
Of course WikiProjects don't do that, and no one is claiming that WP:MED per se is claiming jurisdiction. What is happening is that several editors who are interested in this new approach you are taking have started discussing it and there is strong disagreement; the conversation happens to be taking place at the WT:MED page. When you do a new thing like this across a bunch of articles, it is appropriate to pause to gain consensus when people start objecting. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Please comment[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Help_needed_at_Judaism_and_violence.2Fwarfare. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice 2[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) @Mario Castelán Castro: assuming you mean this thread, it's already been closed. This second notice was unnecessary -- samtar talk or stalk 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
He does, but it was his second thread, so the notice was necessary. I just closed it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So it is, my apologies Mario Castelán Castro -- samtar talk or stalk 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

Better, much better -- conforms to the ref you cited, to wit:<ref>According to tax records obtained by, an investigative watchdog group run by the Center for Media and Democracy, in recent years hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to Project Veritas have come through a fund in Alexandria, Virginia, called Donors Trust, which specializes in hiding the money trails of conservative philanthropists. In its promotional materials, Donors Trust says that it will “keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues.”</ref> The ref you cited also states that O'Keefe calls himself “an investigative journalist and a leading practitioner of modern political warfare” and that "Given O’Keefe's track record, it would be a mistake to take his grand statements too seriously"-- stuff to consider adding I guess to the article. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, you seem satisfied now. I am not interested in elaborating content further from that source, but please feel free! Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talkcontribs) 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, am aware of them. Thanks. Please remember to sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh and sorry with regard to signature. I am happy to not use those templates too often. Polentarion Talk 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mylan 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 article's 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.

Now you have reverted me 3 times. That's enough of this nonsense. My judgement on what belongs in the article is at least as good as yours. You have a very bad habit of trying to own articles, and if memory serves have been taken to arbcom about this several times. Please try to behave better while you are editing. You have no right to order me about.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

--lurker response-- Smallbones, your edits violate the well-established WP:NOTNEWS policy on investigations that have not yet concluded. Jytdog was correct to revert your edits in order to enforce the policy. Your actions make you guilty of WP:3RR, and you have no grounds. You need to read WP:NOTNEWS to understand why Jytdog's actions were correct, and yours were not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Stop icon

 :Hi Jytdog, I'm notifying you I reported you at ANI for your verbal abuse toward me. Sorry about not using the correct template. Still learning. But I just wanted to make sure you were notified. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[edit]


Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from sending me further unsolicited e-mails[edit]

Thank you. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Epi-pen Suggestion[edit]


I changed the phrasing on the epi-pen article to give a more descriptive phrasing of Mylans market share and how it "dominates" the market, which you revered. Do you have a source of the Mylan 90% figure? I think the sentence you reverted would read better and be more descriptive by actually showing the reader the figure, rather than the ambiguous statement of "dominates". Thoughts? Peter.Ctalkcontribs 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ~90% market share, which it has had pretty consistently since 2007 when it acquired the product, is very far from "majority". Everything in the article is very carefully sourced. You can check the refs yourself. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments.[edit]

SageRad asked, I answered, he hasn't responded and he a) didn't revert it and b) further edited his own comment so there is no going back anyway. Opinions are mixed as to whether I ~should have~ done it, and I probably shouldn't have. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Please refrain from editing my comments. What policy justifies this action of yours? SageRad (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm just going to say "Whatever..." and let it go. I am not the punitive or litigious type. However, i do note this action and ask for your supposed justification for it, and urge you to be civil in the future in your dialog with me as well as to refrain from editing my comments, which i think is not kosher. Also, this is not the first time that you have edited or deleted comments of mine, so it seems to be a pattern of behavior. SageRad (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps we could use this moment for some good dialog. Would you please explain to me in what exact way you found my comment to be "personal attacks"? And in what way you found the comments above mine to not be "personal attacks"? I would truly like to understand, Jytdog, what is the reasoning behind your redaction. Also, how is dialog about the nature of the source that is being discussed off topic? What if i had solely stated that the Hall source itself appears to be an ideological axe grinding to my reading, but said nothing about an apparent pattern of pushing such a piece into the article? I ask these as clarifying questions, and i hope you will answer them genuinely and with civil language. Thanks in advance if you choose to do so. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

While I applaud you for seeking dialog, SageRad, and agree generally speaking that personal attacks of any kind do not belong on WP - and also acknowledging that I tend to align ideologically with Jytdog on most scientific topics even if I don't from a personality perspective - I agree that his removal of your comments was correct, for several reasons. Your comments egregiously violated WP:TPG, specifically "Comment on content, not the contributor", "Stay objective", "Be positive", "Deal with facts", "No personal attacks", and several more. Have other authors, including Jytdog, violated in the past without repercussion? Certainly. But we are looking at this specific conversation, with its diffs, in isolation. I sincerely believe you're the only one who went over the line here, especially with the "you're stalking or marking me" and "intimidation and chilling effect" comments. It strays very far off topic and off policy, which I don't see any of the others doing. Even JzG's "inappropriately edited his article" comment, which you take umbrage with, is on topic and is objectively verifiable, excepting the "inappropriately" article. Frankly, your redacted comment could easily have caused a temporary ban, if JzG or one of the others had chosen to pursue it, and so you should be thanking them.
If you still disagree, feel free to ask any unbiased editor or admin for their opinion...I sincerely believe you'll get the same response. So please take this as a learning opportunity...we all need to keep our emotions in check, keep on topic, work to build WP constructively, and recognize our own biases and shortcomings even when we're calling out others'. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Jtrevor. SageRad... hm. Talk pages are for getting work done on the article. In WP "work" means building content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, and working out disagreements over how to apply the policies and guidelines to sources and contents. We do that work on article Talk pags. That is what they are for. They aren't a place for people to discuss their feelings or personal perspectives about pretty much anything.
The RfC is dealing with a longstanding tension in WP between the two policies, BLP and PSCI. which is often exacerbated by the lack of reliable sources in the scientific literature about fringey notions. Discussions that spring from that tension are often made yet more difficult by passion.
All work in WP requires self-restraint and self-awareness. Me, for example. Rigor is really important to me generally, and here in WP with regard to editing per the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit). In addition, I have a bad temper. I can't tell you how often I write a first note and then revise it five or six times before I hit save... and I often redact even after I save - fighting off my passion and striving for rigor, expressed simply, and to limit myself in that to discussing content and sources based on the policies and guidelines. Sometimes I fail (infamously so) to restrain my frustration. It is a struggle for me.
I imagine you at your key board reading the RfC question and responses, with your history with the SBM site and your current focus on skeptics overtaking WP. Did you reflect on what is appropriate to write on a Wikipedia Talk page? Did you seek to limit yourself to getting the work done on the Michael Greger article?
It seems to me that you didn't, but rather let yourself go, first with the attack on the SBM source in your !vote (not grounded on or referencing any policy or guideline), and then after you were called on the justification for your !vote, in your response, most of which was about your bigger picture issue. That note was almost all un-self-restrained soapboxing of your frustration with what you see as (to frame it in Wikipedianese) systemic bias.
When I read that, I thought a few minutes about how to respond, in light of policies and guidelines. I ended up redacting the beginning, which had nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, and left the end, which a) noted that you had redacted your !vote, and b) basically repeated what you had redacted. I left b) (which was inappropriate for a talk page), throwing you a bone to avoid complete drama. I debated doing nothing. Maybe I should have. If you insist that what you wrote was correct, I will self-revert - I am uninterested in drama.
So there you go.
Oh - the relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM and the relevant guideline is WP:TPO: some relevant bits of that: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" .... " It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above" Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at what happened, and I think that you (Jytdog) should not have redacted that part of Sage's comments. All it does is make you look (again) like the self-appointed wiki-police. That does not mean that Sage was right and you were wrong on the underlying content issues. It just was needlessly adversarial. If you think that another editor is in the wrong, one of the best ways to deal with it is to let their comments remain visible for all to see. It seems to me that the response, from multiple editors, to Sage's initial RfC response was needlessly personalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; as I said, maybe I shouldn't have. SageRad has further edited his 2nd comment now. Also User:Tryptofish I don't know if you are aware of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia.2C_we_still_have_a_problem. and the earlier thread it was following up on .... Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of all that. Well, welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. A privilege extended to all that is retained by each user as long as he or she abides by our policies. This is not a platform to use anyway you like..... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm mostly with Trypto on this one, Jytdog. Technically right or wrong you shouldn't be the one removing comments simply due to the optics. I think you know there's no shortage of editors waiting to pounce on any slip up to drag you to a drama board and drag up the past. Stay cool. You do a lot of good work around here but if you keep giving people ammo they're going to shoot you in foot themselves. If there's some kind of obvious issue then it will be obvious to other editors too. The edit war that blew up a couple days ago on Mylan for example. I obviously agreed it wasn't a good edit too hence my revert and comment on the TP but I wasn't going to go further than that one revert. It wasn't an egregious edit just one I viewed as needless so it wasn't worth it. I thought Smallbone's response to your first revert was horribly antagonistic and unwarranted but that's the kind of shit you're going to get. The same argument we presented, that there's no rush, applies to most edits too. If you think it's really bad use the tools WP provides. Start an RFC, post on relevant notice boards, etc. Capeo (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, very much. Will keep that all in mind. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you've persuaded me as well Trypto. SageRad's comments clearly crossed the line but the best way to handle this would have been to urge them to self-redact instead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The polemic removed was typical of the sort of crap Sage is posting when not blocked, (and on his talk page when he is blocked). It is quite normal for off topic crap to be removed from article talk pages, which are supposed to be about improving the related article. I agree that it doesn't happen a lot, but that is because generally experienced editors know how they are supposed to behave. Sage knows this, and frankly I'm surprised than many more of his rants haven't been removed. Somebody whose only purpose is to complain that he isn't allowed to write what he wants in article space, must expect this sort of thing. It is also worth noting that the serial complaining is merely a continuation of his pre-wikipedia experiences with the evidence based internet, where he was justifiably given short shrift. I'm frankly very surprised it hasn't happened more frequently, and to other anti-science editors too. meh. -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Roxy, that's not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is turning into drama. There are various perspectives on what SageRad did there and what I did there. I have heard what everybody has said. The issue is moot as SageRad a) isn't responding here and b) didn't revert my redaction, and c) as noted above, has further edited his own comment, so there is no going back in any case. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Your narrative on AT[edit]

You created a narrative about my intentions and actions on the AT article which is false and which mischaracterizes me and my actions. I will assume your intentions were honest rather than a rather transparent way to railroad an editor into a bad situation. While I, as I said before on the article talk page, will not edit in an environment where this kind of mischaracterization takes place; I also feel its necessary to make my position clear on what you did.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

I just collected diffs on the discussion over the section header. Nothing about your "intentions" but only about what you have actually said and done. In my view any reasonable person will see your clear misrepresentations in the discussion about the section header. That in itself was a trivial thing (really it was) but the misrepresentations are something that have made the discussion at that article difficult in actually dealing with content. It is just one example that is ready to go should you continue to be disruptive there. If you want to make drama out of that set of diffs about the section header, that will probably not go well for you. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You heard what I said. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC))


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 Jytdog, I appreciate your efforts on the Ageing article, but your latest edit "People over 35 years old are at risk for developing presbyopia.[11]" is meaningless.

Think about it: Any human over the age of zero years old is at risk for developing presbyopia. Sooner or later..

What the reader really wants to know is at which age the probability becomes larger than 50-50, or indeed when presbyopia becomes a general phenomenon. According to the deleted Weale reference, the general onset of presbyopia is late 20s for Somalia, 36 for Philippines, late 40s for British, 48-50 for highland Bolivians. Surely this specific information is more useful than the present meaningless risk statement? (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content at the article Talk page. Please discuss there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, nooo, please not the Ageing Talk page. I have spent all day trying to reason with an editor there who cannot even write intelligible English. Once she joins the conversation, we are both stuffed. At least you seem to know what you are talking about. Therefore I prefer to use your Talk page specifically for this topic, then you can delete this section on your Talk page once we have agreement. Thanks in advance. (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Not an option. I do not have private discussions about content; I will be happy to discuss with you at the article Talk page. If there are content disagreements we will work them out on the Talk page and if that fails we will seek other WP:DR; if any editor behaves disruptively there are means for dealing with that as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not prepared to reason any further with that editor on the Talk page. She is incompetent at writing English rather than intentionally disruptive, so I doubt you can sanction her. So I leave the Presbyopia problem in your hands. I hope you have understood the statistical problem inherent in your sentence. Signing off now. Good night and good luck. (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@ hello ip one first I'm a guy, second I keep my grammar decent when editing. Also you were removing a ref I put in [1] for a one over 30 years old with out any reason from what I saw. finally you putting becomes apparent in British adults in their late 40s, but at earlier ages in warmer climates. Presbyopia can occur in adults as early as 40 or sooner but is much more common in older adults was redundant, I am also completely fine with Jytdog edits.


-- (Plmokg22345 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

Please see above. Closing Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

A good idea[edit]

I read what you wrote about engaging with BLP (on Seth Rich talk) and fleshing out you Ivote here [3], which you had already accomplished here [4]. So I decided to do the same because it is a good idea [5]. Ciao ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ok then! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Someone must have used without subst it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

that was me. I fixed it now. Sorry! Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About the other editor's talk page[edit]

What Laser brain said. I really mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am done there, as I noted there before you even wrote that. I would be interested to hear you flesh out your thoughts on this more, and will share mine, if you are interested. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing scientific skepticism, because I expect that my opinions are pretty similar to yours. My concern is like that of the unidentified Arb who reportedly said that you "need to calm the fuck down". I'm saying this for your own good. And by now, I really should not have to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I am done trying to talk with him for now, as I noted there. I was not asking you to comment on the other editor's issue (scientific skepticism, which I don't care about). I was asking you to comment further - to flesh out - your reaction to what I had been doing, which you have clearly found alarming. The strength of your reaction was surprising to me. I guess what I was doing looks ugly to you (and to laser brain too). I offered to explain what i was doing. If you are not interested in either, I understand. Just wanted to make sure you understood what I was asking you. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that you already said that you are done, and that's good. I don't know that it struck me as "alarming" so much as "oh, not again!". I've had vast numbers of content disputes where I found the other editor exasperating. It's almost never useful to issue a warning on that user's talk page, unless you are actually preparing to go to WP:3RRN or WP:AE, where prior notice (of 3RR and DS, respectively) is required. All you had to do was say what you wanted to say at the article talk page. It came across as very battleground-y when you wrote that warning, and I see that the administrator considered it to have elements of harassment. Why am I particularly concerned? You came out of your most recent interaction with ArbCom with them telling you that, if there is a next time, you are looking at a site-ban. There is no shortage of editors who would be delighted to use that warning you posted as a reason to start a complaint against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yes that last interaction was about OUTING and to put a fence around that, the TBAN was with regard to other editors' potential/actual COI. So OUTING and COI. I have stayed far away from that. I did not bring that up nor even come close to it, in anything I wrote to him. I see now (and thanks for taking the time to reply) that where you are coming from is that OUTING is part of the harassment policy and what I was doing has been perceived as harassment. I see now. Thanks!!!! Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Even more broadly, please be careful as not coming across as battleground-y or bossy. That's really the bottom line, more so than any details of those sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I can't speak for Trypto but I'm thinking that's not precisely what he's getting at, Jytdog. You know as well as I do the exact specifics of a prior warning have little bearing on how editors perceive it when it comes to applying a new sanction. Really, general antagonism is all anyone is going to see. I'm guilty of it too. I was literally going to post here to advise you to just leave it alone then I saw that last comment and unfortunately couldn't help myself. We should both take my advice above. Let other editors handle it. Capeo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, thanks, that does clarify what I was trying to say. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, same pages all around. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing Comments[edit]

You may not remove comments made by another editor accept in a few rare cases. Disagreeing with the message of the comment is not one of these cases. This is inexcusable. [[6]]. EditorDownUnder (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, EditorDownUnder started a thread about this at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


So far several editors have mentioned that you have a habit wherein you seem to treat wikipedia as if it is a medical journal. Its not a medical journal and we shouldn't treat it as such. Please stop that habit of yours. Its frankly quite annoying. Even topics completely unrelated to medicine end up reading as if you just stumbled upon complicated pharmacology or biochemistry once you start editing it. The primary audience of wikipedia readers are not sicence researchers, nor are they university professors who have a PHD in chemistry. Most wikipedia readers are laymen and as such wikipedia language should reflect that. If you do not alter your behavior from hence forward I will assume you lack competence in the ability to differentiate between science vs non-science topics, or the sufficient social acuity to allow yourself to extricate from health-related aspects of your occupation. Wikipedia is not medicinepedia so do not turn it into such. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With respect I disagree. It's surely in Wikipedia's interests to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, especially in the medical field, primarily because of its search engine ranking giving any article such a high placement - and that includes medical terminology where relevant (I agree that for complex terms not referenced earlier in an article these should be wikilinked where possible, primarily for the benefit of laypeople reading the article - and Jytdog does this 99% of the time). Both him and Doc James - amongst others - have put a lot of time and effort into keeping the medical articles here comprehensive but in a way that's relevant to both laypeople & professional, and I for one encourage them to continue doing so. Mike1901 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What specific article is this about? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mike1901 on comprehensiveness. However where me and mike1901 disagree is how formal our language should be and to what extent we should simplify language to allow our audience to understand the content. Also, since professionals already have other resources, they shouldn't be our primary focus. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pwolit iets you come here echoing Tomwsucler's misguided accusation at Talk:Coregasm. Not sure what to say, since you don't ask any questions of me, so I will just say: a) of course we are not medicinepedia - its a slick label but false claim (I edit lots of stuff that is not biomedical information); b) yes we are aimed at a general readership and I always try to write in WP:Plain English; c) our mission is to communicate accepted knowledge per WP:NOT - you seem to misunderstand this per your post here and at Jimbo's talk page here. What you and Tomwsulcer also don't seem to understand at the Coregasm article is that popular media is not a reliable place to find accepted knowledge about WP:Biomedical information, as well as what biomedical information is. The source guideline and the definition aren't my views - they have been established by the community. If you want to take issue with that, this is not the place to do it.
The exact boundaries of "biomedical information" can be tricky to find, and people can disagree in good faith. I have offered to discuss that here - as of last night neither you nor Tomwsulcer have responded or tried to actually discuss the specific content you would like to source from popular media nor why that is appropriate sourcing and content. I look forward to seeing your responses. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I was pinged. As the opener does not mention any diffs of concern there is not anything to follow up. But yes we should definitely be writing in easy to understand language per WP:MEDMOS. We should do this using the best avaliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctors[edit]

I love how each citations in the first paragraph is to one discussing the phenomenon in general, and to one discussing Dr. Oz. It made me laugh. While I know it's not synthesis, be wary of the celebriDoc fans, who will almost certainly scream "SYNTH!!!!!1!1!!!1!1oneoneone" as loud as they can when they see this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just getting started and not ready to be live. I need to go do stuff and wanted to save my work and invite others to work on it too, so it would be well vetted when we move it to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[edit]

I believe your revert was made in good faith but that you did not look carefully at the neutrality edits that were made.
1. The only content change was the following and it is referenced and it is more neutral:

OLD The origin of traces back to a single-title, online book discussion group which was created after the 1998 release of Stop Walking on Eggshells - one of the first books to help family members and romantic partners identify Borderline personality disorder traits in a loved one.

NEW The origin of traces back to the AOL online support groups that provided all the case studies used in the self-help book Stop Walking on Eggshells (1998). The AOL online support groups went on to become a single-title, online book discussion group for Stop Walking on Eggshells and in 2007, were spun off by the book's author to became an independent multi-national support group.[6][7]

2. Other neutrality edits included:

Changing medical establishment to medical providers (establishment is over reaching, specific medical providers are cited in the article)
Changing organization supports and members have participated to have been involved and referenced in (replace general with specific statement as the reference support this)

3. The rest was changing the order of paragraphs without content change.

4. The COI banner was removed as provided in WP:MTR referenced on the banner itself. If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.

We should assume good faith. I spent an hour looking this article. I'll hold off reverting so that you may double check the above.2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would put this message on the Talk page of the article, I would be happy to reply there. Thanks for being willing to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves are not ok?[edit]

As far as I can see unilateral page moves are perfectly okay by Wikipedia:Requested moves. That page is if there is a dispute over the move or some other reason it is difficult. Are you disputing the move of scientific skepticism to skeptical movement? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not OK. But see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It is okay. The senond sentence in the lead says
Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
You should have given a reason for objecting to he move. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Partially my fault. Already in 2014 I should have formally requested the move or just have done it, in line with WP:BRD. The move was in line with policy. But: I should have waited longer after stating "Lets do it then" on the talk page. Polentarion Talk 09:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Says published by Takeda Pharm[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

James, no it doesn't! It says copyright Takeda, and says the drug is distributed by Takeda. I don't what the "Publisher" field is supposed to be, but I take it as the owner of the site where the document appears (is published) and in the case of that ref, the publisher is the FDA. If we were citing the URL for the label hosted on Takeda's website, I would agree that the publisher would be Takeda. See what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dietary supplement page[edit]

Hey, I saw you edited the "Dietary supplement" page. It does make a lot more sense now. I think there is some room for improvement however (isn't that always the case ;D ).

The first part of the content of the subsection called "Use as food replacement" doesn't match the title of the subsection. It looks like this section is more about disease prevention than about replacing food. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this?

Furthermore the source for the first part of that subsection does not mention the terms "hope" or "iodine" and does talk about succeses in preventing vitamin deficiencies. This part of the article seems contain original research.

I have not looked at the other information in the subsection but it might have the same problems. Can you take a look at it again?

VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your note - addressed via editing. If you want to discuss please repost on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart[edit]

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Don't climb the Reichstag. You seem to be taking the "celebrity doctor" thing way too personally. As long as there's a solid source which explicitly identifies the person as a celebrity doctor, then fine, but I checked the Baer source and didn't see that term anywhere (feel free to point me to it); your revert was tetchy and basically invoked WP:ITSOBVIOUS. You know better than that. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you mean this revert i added a ref. If you mean Wakefield I did find your comment there dismissive. As I noted I am not going to argue to include it there but I did explain why i think it should be. No Reichstag climbing here! Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


We clashed, and no offence meant in my perhaps harsh edit summary. I was reading the talk in horror, and frankly commend your approach there. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not "perhaps" - very harsh. And wrong. That content was derived from the source and the source is right there. You can object on other grounds but your edit note is... bad on about every level. I have reverted again as your justification was invalid. If you feel the mention of the divorce is UNDUE or something, please raise the issue on the talk page. It is here or there for me - as I said it made sense out of he ended up in NY. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
My edit summary was based on fact, or rather, lack of on your part. Why are you so cranky about this - were innocuous initial edit, and now look how people are upset. Try harder to distinguish between friend and foe. If you want to make claims of divorce based ion <ref name talk> thats your business, but dont bulldose to do so. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
claiming it is unsourced was just wrong - now you seem to be saying that you find the source unreliable... is that issue? if so why? communication can be simple...  :) Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed it can...are we misunderstanding/ My initial edit was that there was a single "early life" para that said bla parents divorced, and the ref was <ref name talk>. Am I thick fucking stupid or what, that <ref name talk> is now RL. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
this edit made no sense. What you wrote above made no sense. I just removed it. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
ha ha you hubristic fool. You just restoted my earlier edit but are too conceited to realise. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I am very aware that I restored your initial edit. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

undid your reversion of my edit to Genentech[edit]

Your edit comment was not civil or appreciated ... not helpful to say an edit is "weird" at all - your opinion of "weirdness" is plain irrelevant. Quotes are there due to quoting the source ... not scare quotes. This is also not trivia ... in my opinion. Do not re-revert or I'll consider it an act of bad faith -- let someone else take it down, if anyone else is so sensitive. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

hm. pls see the talk page Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your edit[edit]

Jytdog, i hope you will not mind me posting here to say that i agree with your edit where you corrected my edit. I was mistaken to think that this source satisfies the WP:MEDRS requirement of being a secondary source (review article). I will be more careful in the future regarding this. SageRad (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving of article to draft space[edit]

I am responding regarding the article Transoral robotic surgery, which was moved to the draft space. I understand your concern. But i would like to know the problems please with the article on the talk page for the article. I would like to assure you that any problems with the article will be solved. I thank you for your contribution. Thank you.MissionX sbks (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note!
It seems that nobody from your class went through the tutorials on editing WP at Wikipedia:Training/For_students. The articles created by people in your class are full of content that is:
  • unsourced completely (See WP:VERIFY) or that
  • cites references that fail our guideline for sources about health, WP:MEDRS, or that
  • have citations that are incomplete and can't be used to verify the content.
In addition,
  • No one is following the manual of style for content about health, WP:MEDMOS, and
  • There is also some content that was copied from other sources and violates other people's copyright (see WP:COPYRIGHT which is really serious).
I and others have left notes on the Talk page of your class, Wikipedia talk:Education program/B K Shah Medical Institute, and no one has responded and the behavior has not changed.
You can work on the article as much as you want while it is in draft space, and you can be graded on that work. When you are done I (or your class ambassador) can show you how to submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it becomes part of the encyclopedia. But please don't move it back to mainspace until it has been reviewed by the community.
Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog for your response. I take note of all the above problems and assure you that they were just mistakes. I take responsibility on my part for any and assure you such will not be repeated. Wikipedia has been very valuable to me for gaining knowledge and i take this as a valuable lesson in learning to contribute back. And the aritcle will be reviewed before moving to the main space. Thank you.MissionX sbks (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome - please let me know if you want any help - and the folks at Wikiproject medicine are always glad to help too! Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


It seems I misunderstood and was plain wrong. I also spoke harsh. Sorry. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


I just looked at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You are exactly no. 500. Because illuminati, or something. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

spooky! Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Jytdog.

I think you're the right person for this query. Could you take a look at this? I think that (at least) these conclusions (bold text) do not fit the references content.

The evidence suggests that spinal manipulation therapy is safe,[12] but the rate of adverse events is unknown[13] as they are under–reported.[14] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[13] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation.[15] It has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[16][17] but this is disputed by many chiropractors who believe it is unproven.[17]

Also, the type of ref number 12 (PMID 23069244) is Editorial / Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

What do you think?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chiros are in denial about this. They have no systematic reporting of adverse events, so they have absolutely no basis for their assertions of safety,and the evidence of adverse effects is compelling. Are they rare? Nobody knows. And if the chiros have their way, nobody ever will. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Johnson 2012 ref needs to go as it is an editorial. (it is the important kind by the editor of the journal as opposed to a letter to the editor) but it is still an editorial. The rest seems OK to me. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, JzG and Jytdog. Then, I think this is more accurate [8]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Sears[edit]

Greetings. You've been engaged in dubious and contentious editing at the Robert Sears article. I've restored the article to Wikipedia standards, and written something on the Talk page addressing your contributions and the editor you're jousting with. Please check it out and stop the disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I wil check out the talk page, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
And I did. Just some unhelpful chiding after the minor conflict had already passed. Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Celebrity doctor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celebrity doctor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity doctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. How exciting! Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multisystem proteinopathy[edit]

I notice that you removed a sentence relating to the coexistence of ALS with some other disorders. I don't know about the individual incidence of these disorders, nor whether "multisystem proteinopathy" is the co-existence of them at statistically significant levels or with a common genetic cause, but if this is the case, then I would think it warrants inclusion with clarification on how rare it is. And if it is a disputed link, then surely that would warrant inclusion to note that it is disputed? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

article content should be discussed on article Talk pages so that everybody who cares about the article can participate and so that it is part of the talk page history for future reference. if you would just copy your note there, i will respond there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: HDBuzz[edit]

Yes it is. See their Twitter feed. It seems like a rather idle suggestion (these guys really don't seem to be in it for the money) and Huntingdon's is a worthy cause to publicise, so I'm going to leave it, but I thought I'd just mention it so people are aware of it. Blythwood (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

hm, thanks. abusing WP to get PR is ugly. wrapping it the guise of "we are the good guys" is just self-deception. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation of sources and sources access[edit]

Hi, Jytdog! I've seen your edits and comments re citation of some sources re some equations at solvation shell and its talk page. I therefore ask you whether you can access the full text of the (following) source Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959 edited by W. J. Hamer and E. Glueckauf, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation additional info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. Also, can you access another source, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society to compare the details of the derivation(s)? Thanks.-- (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Are either of those the actual source for the equation or the background from which it was derived? Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes.-- (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's what it sounded like. As far as I know the actual equation needs a source. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen the formula which I've inserted mentioned in a book (I have not mentioned in the article) wihout to much detail regarding derivation which is referred to the source(s) by Glueckauf for more details of derivation that I want to add in activity coefficient article.-- (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Essay appreciation[edit]

Hi! I've seen your drafted essay on your user page and also in mainspace WP:Why MEDRS. I let you know that it is an interesting essay and I like it as reasoning line.-- (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I want to ask you about its starting point, how has the idea of writing it occured to you? (I have to mention in this context that I've recommend it for reading as a link to some friends who are medical professionals).-- (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
sure. the germ of it is from my experience editing here. People keep wanting to add content about health sourced to primary sources (research papers) or newspapers, and they really don't understand why that is not OK in light of WP's mission and values, and how things work in WP where content is so dependent on the sources that are allowable. A lot of times people who bring primary sources are unaware of MEDRS ....but even after they read it, they don't really understand why MEDRS calls for such sources - they view it as some arbitrary requirement being imposed on them. I understand where they are coming from -- in an era when the very rapid translation of materials science and computer science into technology has have made such huge changes in our lives, it is really hard for people to even imagine that biological science could be so different; they don't understand how hard experimental work is in biology is and how hard it is to develop useful hypotheses and theories that make sense of all the data - and how difficult and risky it is to generate technology (medicine) from that science. In other words, how unreliable the conclusions of any biomedical primary source are. I wanted to help people understand.
A very condensed version of it is on my userpage: User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I've read it. Is there perhaps a fourth bucket/category of people wanting use primary sources? I think it can be said that the most undesirable of the three buckets is that of clinical and marketing agenda-driven.
On the hand increasing awareness to the difficulties of scientific reasoning and unclear research areas in biology is very desirable. Of course claims to build effective treatment procedures and technology need to be treated with high cautiousness. Words like claimed, purported could serve well this purpose. If the perspective wanted to be shown in articles is a strictly scientific one with accents on biochemical and biophysical aspects and no claim of possible medical effectiveness, then all conceivable hypotheses even the false or falsifiable ones could be presented because they contribute to increasing awareness to meanders of scientific inference/method in which falsifiability holds a prominent role. A highlighted disentanglement of the scientific aspect from the medical applicative one should be followed as very desirable. How can this be achieved in an optimal way? Perhaps a new disclaimer tag could be created?-- (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:MED and WP:PHARM have developed a convention - with respect to purely pharmacological stuff about drugs, we do allow primary sources. So something like "Drug A binds to receptor X with Ki of X, IC50 of Y, Kd of Z" is OK to source to a primary source; however including a claim "and this causes side effect B" is not OK to say based on that primary source. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It is good to know this aspect. Indeed, categorical statements about side and therapeutic effects and are not allowable on primary sources.-- (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
How about the situation where the wording "and this can cause side effect B"? (Notice of the use of the word can to indicate a modal logic operator. I'll open below a section about Modal logic in medical statements.) -- (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


He is a paid editor for Aam Aadmi Party. I know him in real life.

You will need to contact another editor about this. As Jytdog's main page states, he currently is blocked from discussing COI of any editors. Even though the vast majority of editors aware of the situation consider that block wholly undeserved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jtrevor. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tapered (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy-vio on Stanislav Grof[edit]

My apologies; this was added by me, when rewriting the article on Ego death. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Alt-right transcludes navboxes like Template:Conservatism sidebar, which do not include links to that article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

please post that at the article talk page; i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Modal logic operators in medical statements[edit]

Hi again! How do you think about the use of non-categorical phrasings containing the word can (tag of modal logic phrasing) in wikipedia articles with medical content, such as the example mentioned above?-- (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

not meaningful to reply to a vague question and what I say here may change based on what you are actually looking at, but generally modal verbs are bad ideas - if there is enough data to know X then we say X; if there is not enough data to draw a good conclusion we write things like "there is insufficient data to draw conclusions" or the like. The middle ground covered by modals is generally useless.... on the toxicity side, everything is toxic at some dose (so "may be" toxic or "can be toxic" are meaningless without dose and route of administration) and likewise people like to take some undepowered positive result and write something "X might be useful for Y" which readers will take as way more positive than it is. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to DNA history of Egypt. Copts.[edit]

Thank you for the warm welcome. The information included hasn't been published yet due to the researchers' dearth of Coptic data. I can provide links to Yfull, ftDNA projects, forums discussing Coptic autosomal results. I can't cite articles because our data are way ahead of the scientific community. In fact some of the papers on Sudanese Copts quoted in Wiki are just false. The reason why I came to edit this page, precisely because I was asked by Coptic private researchers to enrich this wiki section. It simply doesn't reflect their reality. Please let me know if these are acceptable. If not it'd be pointless for me to edit the page again. Agathon888 (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for asking an authentic question! You cannot add original research to Wikipedia. All content must be cited to reliable sources per the policy, WP:VERIFY. This place would be a complete stinking garbage dump if people could just show up and add any words they wanted... I hope you can see the sense of that. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
But again I can cite actual evidence on Yfull, ftDNA and Coptic genomes genetic calculator results. This is not stinking garbage. Agathon888 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source (say an article published in a good journal) you have a leg to stand on. Unpublished research is "original research" and is not allowed here. Come on -- surely you can imagine all the people out there with Great Discoveries who would just love to use Wikipedia as a platform to publish..... can't you? Same thing applies all around. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of good research - we rely on the published scientific research. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Using an agency's web site[edit]

I wanted to define Epi-aids on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention page, because the term is used in multiple places. Getting the definition from the CDC seemed reasonable. The page already uses the CDC for many references. Are those references also objectionable?

I found another reference in a book, and added that to the article. Is this what is needed? You have more experience than I, so I respect your judgment. Please clarify. I will watch this spot, in case you decide to reply.

Thanks. Comfr (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It is really best to build Wikipedia articles based on what 'independent reliable sources say. If all we do is follow their website, we are not an encyclopedia but rather just a webhost for the subject of the article, and per policy Wikipedia is {{WP:NOTWEBHOST|not a webhost]]. The article could use a lot of building out as the CDC has done and does great work - so happy you are interested in doing it!! Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Requested mediation for Teledermatology dispute. Is there an issue with the following articles, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talkcontribs) 04:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of salesmanship[edit]

Surely we can have a civil discussion at Talk:Whole30 without you appearing to accuse me of trying to "sell" the product/program. I understand that you don't like my edits, but it's not necessary or productive to make such accusations against me. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was describing the edits, not you. I was very careful to describe the edits, in fact. Please do not mistake the two. Redacted to make that even more clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I have struck it, that was inappropriate. my next comment is what i meant. again my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Student template[edit]

You should be pretty ashamed of yourself for leaving that template in such a poor state. And now you have the gall to revert what an experienced professional editor (unlike you) says is needed. I don't think much of your actions; but at least the encouragement to cover a text with redundant ref numbers is gone. Tony (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you are unhappy. We have a lot of concrete problems with student editing on medical topics that are laid out there. Please do see Doc James' comment on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And see my reply. It's a big issue that has been allowed to sleep for a long time. Tony (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah we can talk there. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I was probably aggressive, when discussion and collaboration would have been much preferable. Please see James's thinking on a bot at that page. And maybe a compromise wording for the student template on that "every sentence" issue? Tony (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I was too. We do have very different approaches here. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Just to finish for the moment, I guess my take has a lot to do with the high priority I place on "the smooth read"; that underscored the moves to bring wikilinking under control in 2009–10. Reference tagging is an interesting and surprisingly complex technique. I don't discount the need for considered referencing in medical articles. Tony (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That was *fast*![edit]

Still, you gorra admit, my be-bold-shyeah-right point was not entirely without merit, no? ;-) Sleety Dribble (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

twas POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Jytdog Can we find a way to talk off the record? I'd like to discuss how you (and possibly others) could proceed in finding the knowledge that fills the gaps that you are exploring. MaynardClark (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

there is no need. We just need to find reliable sources that we can use. that is a fundamental policy of WP - bedrock fundamental - and one of the things that makes this entire project possible. We have to use reliable sources that anyone can use to verify content. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
My point in the Wigmore article is that we read online that the organizational name was changed, but the website doesn't have the BASE for making that observation. They, however, could talk about the use of the building. Hippocrates Health Institute continues; the sentence that you copied from the architectural website contradicts present observation, that HHI continues in a new location. Still-living observers and online documentation agree that AWF relocated to the West Coast within a relatively quick period of time after Ann Wigmore's death, but that it persisted in some organizationally continuous form. I'm not trying to author the article, but I am telling you based on my observation that the sentence that you copied is, in fact, contrary to what really happened (for whatever reason that website 'got it wrong'). MaynardClark (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss article content at the article Talk page, and please base what you say there on reliable sources. very happy to discuss on that basis. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and use of profanity[edit]

Dear Jytdog,

I'm concerned over your use of profanity and incivility around my edits. I have reported this language to ANI, and have included information around the validity of my edits for purpose of reference.

I'm happy to discuss content in civil discourse, but not with curse words.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CellbioPhD (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

HHI legacy[edit]

Why did you remove the sentence about the HHI legacy? It seemed to bring value to the article. MaynardClark (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Please discuss at the article Talk page, and explain in more detail what you mean there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Jytdog, Thanks for your help with content and promotional phrases for Rochester Regional Health, I see where I may have lacked with making content factual based. My intention was never to create promotional advertising material, just want to add informational content to the pages. Im new to Wikipedia and still learning my way. I live in Rochester and noticed that there wasnt a single article for any of the local hospitals, so i've made it my own prerogative to update the pages - Just a heads up as i will be going through each page to add content over the next couple of weeks. Once again, thank you. I've been reading your articles about COI and copyright, will try my best to fix problems. Tpierce09 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for striving to edit like a Wikipedian. Yes the second shot at writing the history was much better! To be clear, I never said you might have a COI; I actually am not allowed to discuss that. (evidence, see edit notes on article here, and not at Talk:Rochester_Regional_Health and not at your talk page. I did reference WP:PROMO with regard to your edits per se. With regard to COI, I take it you are referring to the stuff on my userpage (which I did not mention!!!!)  :) (sorry to belabor this but I take my TBAN seriously and there are people who would pounce should I breach it) Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I was only referring to the content on your userpage about COI, sorry about the confusion. But also, trying to add content and have it up to par with wiki standards. Please bare with me as I make edits to other pages for the network of hospitals in the Rochester area. Also do you know if it is possible to remove the deletion notice off United Memorial Medical Center?Tpierce09 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
no problem i am happy to help you and again thank you for learning graciously. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
the deletion discussion at United Memorial Medical Center cannot be stopped; it needs to run its course and then it will be closed, and the article will be kept, deleted, or redirected. Not every topic can have an article. The community created standards for inclusion - you can find them in WP:NOTABILITY, a Wikipedia policy. There is a specific application of that policy for organizations like hospitals, here: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) which is a "guideline". If someone questions whether an article meets the notability criteria, they can open a "deletion discussion", as is happening at that article. This is described in the policy, WP:DELETION. The process the article is now in, is described here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
These policies and guidelines that I have mentioned, were created by the community itself over the 15 years it has existed. They reflect widely held community consensus, and they get applied at any given article by a local consensus. This is all described in WP:CONSENSUS which is probably the foundational principle of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your time and knowledge to help me understand the standards here. Thanks again jytdog, have a good day! Tpierce09 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Friedmann[edit]

Seems WP:UNDUE as well. Who uses him as a source? And promotional. See his use in Jewish views on evolution and the archived peer review in Friedemann's article. He seems to have self published his books. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I've worked on his article, removed everything but his book from Jewish views... I see that Zaostao has been indeffed after a discussion at ANI about nazi dog whistles on his user page. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


for reverting my edit to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Was a slip of the scrolling big thumb on the iPad, not a deliberate vandal edit. Cheers Moriori (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

MiniMed 670G[edit]

Hello Jytdog! I have undone some of your edits on this page as it didn't look constructive to me. I request you to raise your concerns on the Talk page. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probrooks (talkcontribs) 09:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

someone requested a password change on my account[edit]

got an email from WM. wasn't me who requested it. weird. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone trying to hack you and impersonate you. You've certainly got quite the fan club! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
hm. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I need you to show me some ID, right now. (Joke, not serious. I figure we could both use a little levity now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 :) Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's contagious (perhaps because I responded to you here, or maybe it's someone doing this to a lot of users). I've gotten the same kind of email. The email that I got includes the IP address of the person who made the request (definitely nowhere near me), and I've geolocated it ([9]) to an Xplornet Communications broadband account in Ontario, Canada. Was your "request" from the same location? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

there have now been two; both were from Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's Charter Communications in Southbridge, MA. So either someone is using a proxy, or it's becoming a new passtime. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this isn't uncommon, but my impression is that it isn't a concern. I've collected a few of these myself (precise number depending whether you assume requests made on the same day are from the same person) and nothing's ever come from them. Following this reasoning, I think of these as being in the same category as user page vandalism and such, and treat them as sources of self-esteem. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I reckoned they were not uncommon; part of my reason for noting it here was to check that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Sunrise. It's reassuring that this is no big deal. I figure there's no way for the requesters to actually gain access, because they don't get the email with the information, so they are just wasting their time. I also think that pointing out how easy it is to track the IP address, as I did just above on the assumption that they are watching, takes a bit of the fun out of it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I would also check any old email accounts you had if you can. A lot of times these aren’t personally related, but bots instead mass request passwords at any site requiring log in. At the same time, whoever is running the bot tries to snap up old expired email accounts in the hopes they get an email address that matches with a current account. I’ve seen it happen at other sites, but as long as you aren’t letting your currently registered email expire, it’s more an issue of making sure accounts associated with your old email aren’t used to impersonate you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Please don't delete items from pages that are clearly under active revision, especially by people who have been very active contributers to the genus and its species. I always leave a note on the talk page before reverting. Possibly you did not see it. This is not spam but an important place in the history of the genus. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply there Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
And please stop adding tags to an article that is under active editing - it just creates edit conflicts and wastes everyone's time. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not clear after each edit if you are continuing - if you want elbow room please use template:under construction. thanks! you are doing nice work btw Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractor, the profession[edit]

(Apologies in advance if I'm not using your talk page correctly. I've never tried doing this before. I noticed you undid a rudimentary change to the wiki page on "Chiropractor", a topic that I would think so basic that I could not believe had no article on wikipedia when I looked it up. In fact, it seemed so silly that it didn't exist that it prompted me to login and make my first edit in over four years. Is there a particular reason for your change? Chiropractor now redirects to "Chiropractic education." Are there any other examples of wikipedia articles on a given profession redirecting to articles about the education of that profession instead? (e.g., doctor, lawyer, engineer) For an encyclopedia that documents the most trivial of things worldwide, it's seems almost absurd that an article on a major medical profession wouldn't exist. No?

Disclaimer: I make no profession whether the chiropractic practice is "real" science, "real" medicine, or any of that. I've had personal opinions on both sides of the fence at different times of life. I'm coming at this from the perspective of the completeness of Wikipedia as an online reference. Dan McCarty (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC))

It was discussed for a long time at Talk:Chiropractic education and Talk:Chiropractor; there is nothing that would go in that article that isn't discussed at Chiropractic education or Chiropractic. If you really believe that there is some content that would uniquely go into "Chiropractor" I suggest you open a discussion at Talk:Chiropractic education or probably better, Talk:Chiropractic. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Read through some of the comments, most of which seem like petty differences between online adversaries. At the end of the day Wikipedia doesn't have an article for a profession practiced by hundreds of thousands of medical personnel worldwide. That doesn't make sense to me as a Wikipedia long-time reader. But I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Dan McCarty (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of professions for which we do not have stand-alone articles. Acupuncturist, Homeopath, Naturopath, Physiotherapist and so on. Doctor is a disambiguation page. I thing separate articles on a profession might even be a minority case - Physician is one, but clearly this is entirely different as a cursory read of the article will readily show. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
You forgot Masseuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia AfD[edit]

Good job with the list of refs and critique of them! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


ENGVAR says stay consistent within an article (both spellings of "diarrh(o)ea" are used at the moment, several times each), and if there is no established spelling, use that of the first post-stub revision (which is British). Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

OK then. I will self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Your manual of style reference makes sense, however, does that then mean that every court page for the United States has to be amended to read the same? All 94 district courts, 13 Appeals Courts, Tax Court, Claims Court, etc...they all seem to maintain the "2016-present" style in regards to years of service and lifespan. Seems like a lot of unnecessary work versus just amending a few pages to fit in with the norm. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

well if that is the style, far by it from me to try to change it. please feel free to re-revert me. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

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.

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth, you screamed your opinion to other editors, and used the following words and phrases: "Jesus fucking christ"; "bullshit" (seven times); "who the fuck knows"; and "shitty sources". This isn't Twitter, and I'm not your BFF. Please take a moment to read avoiding incivility. Sorry for adding a newcomers tag, but your behavior warrants it. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you are offended. This is indeed not social media nor a tea parlour - I am very clear on that. We are working to build a high quality encyclopedia. Not a gossip rag. Please review the basic policies and guidelines for content, as well as the mission, described in WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I looked at that, and no matter who may be right on the merits, I think that your way of saying things was unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This editor has been cautioned before about their obscene language, but he/she doesn't appear to be getting it. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
In the minutes I was away i was redacting among other things. Closing. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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


Hello jytdog a new member of wikipedia ...i just want to know about the topic " love and country" ..its an ethics subject ..can you give me some image of it ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanyanwiki (talkcontribs) 11:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

do you maybe mean patriotism or maybe nationalism or maybe chauvanism? Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Do they mean "Homework"? -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by no soruce ? What do you look for ?[edit]

-- (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ziprasidone.-- (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please ask at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

CRISPR interence[edit]

The CRISPR article curremtly has the statement: "The CRISPR interference technique has many potential applications, including altering the germline of humans, animals, and food crops." That statement is incorrect but you seemed to have read it and acted upon it. You can look in the article history for an attempt that was made to get it right and to clarify the nomenclature.-- (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Osho - Move review[edit]

are you seeing consensus for that move request? I'm not. I have proposed a review. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

move review is now open if you care to comment. Pandroid (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

genetic testing[edit]

If it were me, there would be a separate article [[genetics testing (medicine)]], because this page shouldn't almost cry out for a sentence of self-description in the first place. But mine was just a drive by edit, so I won't wade in any further. — MaxEnt 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Random belated snark. Deciphered from some clay tablet, Sumeria, circa 1000 BCE. "Algebra is a way to determine who owns what after the annual flood. This article focuses on delta floodplains." — MaxEnt 18:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence on Energy medicine (sic) [edit]

Hello Jytdog. As you know better than I, those pushing fringe theories about the efficacy of quack treatments often rely on anecdotal evidence. It seems to me that anecdotal evidence from either side should not be allowed. Those who (quite properly) rely on scientific evidence should have nothing to fear.

Having said that, I have no intention to edit war with you, and therefore will not revert your edit. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

pls do look at WP:PARITY Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory Kablammo (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proof steps and formulae interconversion at solvation shell[edit]

Hi! I've inserted another formula on talk:solvation shell and I shall also insert the just checked proof steps for the first formula inserted in August. It remains to find and add there the steps for interconversion of these two formulae. The steps of the interconversion are harder to find without further details from the momentarily unavailable Russian source mentioned there. It seems that there is some wikirule for chain citation WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.Your input on these procedural aspects is wellcomed!-- (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Greetings! I removed the category "Alternative Medicine" from the Rebirhing-Breathwork section. Did you put it back? If so, I'd like you to know that the purpose of this breathing technique is to heal suppressed feelings in the body, such as fear, anger, etc. It may be true (I'm not sure right now, and I will investigate this further) if Leonard Orr once claimed that rebirthing-breathwork can help with health issues, but that is missing the prime goal of the technique, which is psychological healing. For example, see the book "Rebirthing: The Science of Enjoying All of Your Life" by Jim Leonard and Phil Laut. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss on the article Talk page. Please raise this there and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

‎Humanitarian work on Donald Gary Young[edit]

I agree with your deletion for WP:UNDUE. I was just tidying up the section since I saw it in disarray. AlexEng(TALK) 03:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

International American University[edit]

Sock blocked and tagged. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

committed one, that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your advice on the page I recently just tried to edit. Was your only problem with the edits the links to the sandbox page? I can go back and fix those to link properly, but I believe they are all from reputable sources, most of them being NIH funded studies. Please let me know what I should do to make the edits viable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyahn95 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please do read the welcome message I left you carefully. "NIH funded" is not a relevant criterion. If you don't understand WP:MEDRS after you read it (please read it!) ask me anything. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Diabetic Reinopathy[edit]

A section was moved from research into treatment. This is not justified as the treatment is being used by many patients worldwide for their day to day treatment, not on a research project. Hence it is incorrect to have this solely in research. Yes there is some research still being carried out but with a treatment available to anyone should we still consider it research only? I'd like to move this but I'm concerned you'd just move it back. Happy to move this discussion to the diabetic retinopathy talk page but its more likely you'll see it and respond here.

I understand your need to remove links to the medical device as you consider it spam and I can understand your reasoning (WP:SPAM) but the use of the word "horrible"? Although I've been editing since 2007 I've not been very active on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if this comment can be removed? (I'm not suggesting putting the links back in).

Thank you kindly in advance Northernalex (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please raise this at the article Talk page and I will reply there. Please read WP:MEDRS before you do. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS has been read, discussion moved to talk page Northernalex (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

quick question - on Vitamin D source[edit]


Thanks again for helping me out yesterday. I was wondering if you think this article (PMID 15989379) would be appropriate to use on WP? I know it's from 2005, a little old, but it seems pretty comprehensive. If I used it as a source, do you think you or others would delete it? I know that the WP:MEDRs guideline says we should try to find sources that are 5 or less years old. But it's been difficult finding something newer than this that is as comprehensive. --Sarahcunningham87 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Jytdog, thank you for taking care of this! I've been busy all day and hadn't got the chance to reply to them. I appreciate the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg You must be exhausted after this, so take a moment to rest and know there are people out here who appreciate it. In the words of the great sports commentator: "You done good". Gronk Oz (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. it is not a happy thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)