User talk:Jytdog

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

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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)

COI and user:Patient 32[edit]

Could I assist here? This is a new user who does not understand the nuances of Wikipedia. I have been here a while and even I am having difficulty understanding your concern.

I have provided some training to this person to contribute to Wikipedia. I often work with community activists by providing Wikipedia training generally. It would be helpful to me if I knew how to better comply with Wikipedia community policy.

Which part of WP:COI applies in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

in the case of Cleveland Clinic specifically, that user's intensity about negative ratings led me to wonder if he had some relationship with the clinic that was negative. I asked him on his talk page, and he said he did. quite strongly too. Per WP:COI, the essence of a COI is an external relationship that may cause bias when you edit WP. I think it is reasonable to say that he has an external relationship with the clinic that may cause him to be biased when writing about the Clinic. Does that make sense? To the extent that he wants to work on patient safety issues in other articles, he is going to have to be mindful of his intensity on these issues or he is going to get into all kinds of trouble (WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NPOV primarily) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand you.
I fail to see the connection between this person's personal life and passion and the concept of COI. I also fail to see the part of WP:COI which applies to this case. I think you would agree with me that a typical COI involves money, and I think you would agree that money is not a concern in this instance. How would you feel about adding the following statement to WP:COI to make this more clear? Perhaps put this as a subsection in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Other_categories_of_conflict_of_interest -
===COI due to passion===
If you have strong emotions about a topic then you have a COI regarding that topic. Strong emotions can be a result of an extremely positive or negative experience, and may encourage you to share information on Wikipedia as a form of activism. The Wikipedia community discourages this, and says that people who do this have a COI.
Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know when the last was, that you read WP:ADVOCACY but it makes it clear that there is a thin line between COI and Advocacy. They are hard to tell apart when just looking at edits. I wouldn't agree to that draft language you propose... but i have been thinking that it might make sense to have language about being in a real world dispute with someone or something, as negative passion - disputes - are somehow weightier.... but let's put that on hold for a minute.
SlimVirgin thinks a lot about COI issues, and in ways that I don't sometimes. She would be a good independent voice here. Slim, briefly -- there is a new editor who was at a meeting where Bluerasberry was teaching folks about WP and who got interested in getting involved with WP. The new editor is retired and works with a patient safety advocacy organization. He was a patient at the Cleveland Clinic and was badly hurt there, which is what led him to work with that organization. And sure enough, the Cleveland Clinic article is the first article he went for here, and went right for their patient safety ratings, with passion. In my view, this editor has an external relationship with the Clinic that constitutes a COI, because that is the place that hurt him. That editor will have Advocacy (not COI) issues on articles about other clinics and about articles that touch on patient safety issues. So it is only on the Cleveland Clinic article that I would want him to restrict himself to the Talk page. I understand that others might see that differently. What are your thoughts on this, SV? thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on that SlimVirgin. Please see Bluerasberry's suggestion above for a tweak to COI. What do you think about that, or perhaps something more specific about "negative passion" or better "real world disputes" that are not necessarily financial? We already discuss litigation (which is clearly a dispute and clearly financial) but i mean something that would address situations like the farmers at [Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Sugar_Mountain_Farm|the Sugar Mountain Farm COIN case]] who just hate each other in the RW, or the andrew west COIN case where it turned out that the editor who brought the case had a RW beef with andrew west and was using COIN to attack him; the guy who brought the case realized his COI when we brought that to his attention. what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't support the language about strong feelings, because that takes us back to POV. COI is a separate concept. There needn't be any strong emotion. It is about roles and relationships that give rise to a tendency to bias and/or the perception thereof. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I agree with that. Let me ask a different way. Where in WP:COI to find you find an explanation of why Patient32 has a COI? I pointed to "external relationship" but that was as much as I could do, and bluerasberry, whom I respect a lot, didn't see it. But you and I did. How do we make that easier for folks? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog Yes, this is my biggest concern. SlimVirgin I would appreciate your continued thoughts in this direction. My chief worry here is that both of you are coming to the same conclusion, yet I see no basis for that conclusion in WP:COI. I would like for a statement to be in COI such that whenever this issue arises (and I am assuming that this arises frequently) then rather than rely on a personal explanation users can be WP:LINKED to the explanation.
Whenever possible I wish to prevent misunderstanding rather than correct it. I still feel that this person is in a grey area - he is getting a lot of scrutiny for posting editing discussion on the talk page and I had hoped that the talk page would be a safe place to begin a practical discussion for developing the article without him first having to go through a lot of policy discussion, and certainly not for him to have to learn nuance of ambiguous or incompletely written policies. After seeing what Jytdog says I have a new perspective on this but still I would like to go forward showing a rule in Wikipedia space and not a special interpretation for this common and routine case.
My expectation is that my views will match yours but still, I would like to see an applicable rule written in a policy page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Lane, I like Michael Davis's description of COI as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Imagine you have a piece of measuring equipment, and you need to make not only an accurate measurement, but a reliable one, one that other people can trust (say, a court or a scientific study). Then you find that a small stone has fallen into the machine. Is the stone affecting the measurements? Perhaps not, but it is clear that the equipment is no longer reliable. To continue using it, we would constantly have to check its results against other machines.

So it is with a conflicted editor. Their edits may be fine, but it's hard to tell with a complex issue. What matters is that they can't be relied upon to make neutral edits. People with a COI tend to think their judgment is not impaired, and they are much less likely than other editors to change their minds about an issue, especially when the COI is financial.

As for which part of COI to direct that editor to, the section about campaigning might be appropriate, depending on his circumstances: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest." But we don't address the issue of people who have had bad experiences with organizations. We have something like that in BLP, but there has always been resistance to extending it to groups, because of the danger of it being abused. If we were to add something to COI it would have to be worded extremely carefully. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Here are some reasons why I object to this:
  • In practically all contexts except Wikipedia and philosophy, "conflict of interest" is a technical term and it is reserved for use in financial contexts. Many people sign COI statements with their employers, and many people have questions, but so far as I know, the precedent everywhere is to report ties to money and not personal interest.
  • Even Wikipedia itself does not revise this definition of conflict of interest and say that it is something more than finance.
  • I am not sure that COI policies should apply so strongly in this case anyway. We have a new user presenting plausible sources to cite on the talk page and asking how content can be integrated into the article. This seems like WP:BRIGHTLINE, which even though that is not a fully supported policy, I thought it was enough in most cases to begin a conversation. I want to follow the rules because COI is being discussed regarding this editor then I myself have a COI as I am paid to give wiki-training to this sort of editor, and particularly so because they requested it through my organization.
I am still thinking this through. Some part of this seems unusual to me. Modifying the below text to change COI policy might be a good way to address this case and resolve future problems.
Thanks for talking this through with me - I want to teach best practices to everyone I encounter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lane, COI involving personal or other non-financial connections is not uncommon. For example, there was a fuss in the UK last year [1] when the government appointed a judge to head an inquiry into a child-abuse scandal involving former civil servants and politicians. The judge had to stand down because of COI when newspapers reported that her brother had been the attorney general during the period in which a decision had been made not to prosecute the individuals. She might have done a fine job chairing the inquiry, but public confidence in it would have been undermined by her close personal connection.
Similarly, Patient 32 wouldn't want the WP article about the Cleveland Clinic to be written by the CEO's daughter. People understand why COI is objectionable when they're negatively affected by it, but when they have a COI themselves they often can't see it, or they're convinced that it won't affect their judgment.
Patient 32's edits may be fine, but he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved. I see some primary sources in his contribs, for example, so that would have to be sorted out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
SlimVirgin "he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved" This is what I want also, and this is what I will direct this person to do. If COI editors can post suggestions to the talk page then I am happy. I think I misunderstood something here, because I think we are in agreement that posting to the talk page is the norm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Break[edit]

Here is WP:BLPCOI, very lightly edited and with the footnote defining COI left off.

Using Wikipedia BLPs to continue disputes
<span id="WP:COIDISP BLPCOI">Policy shortcut:
  • [[:WP:COIDISP BLPCOI ]]

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization individual, should not edit that organization's article person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Would you support the change of this text as a step in the right direction? If Jytdog made the changes and you supported it then I think that would help to match current written policy with the actual practices which are probably enacted on Wikipedia.
I do not follow the omission of "political, social, literary, scholarly", unless it is just to make the statement more concise. It seems to me that those kinds of disputes could apply with organizations as well as BLPs.
Treating organizations with BLP policy seems to me to be what the Wikipedia community does anyway, and I like the idea of combining policies so that the basic idea applies in all comparable situations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
removed the strike. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I can't tell what the text says; some of the striking seems to leave part of it dangling. Can you post it without the striking, i.e. as you're proposing it? Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
clean version below. just a draft of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Parts of it won't work because copied from the BLP policy. So "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki ..." The passage would mean that a company need only arrive and declare a dispute to force editors to stop editing its article.
I could perhaps support something like: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a dispute with an organization off-wiki should not edit material about that organization, given the conflict of interest."
But we would have to build in something to make clear that it's off-wiki only, to stop the scenario above. And even then I'm not sure. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
how is this?
Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talkcontribs) June 9 2015


This is fine with me if it can actually be incorporated somewhere. This strikes me as unlikely to pass because of "other material about that organization" seems like an injunction against editing the talk page, and I thought that was a safe space for people with a COI to edit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talkcontribs) June 9 2015


revised to address Bluerasberry's comment above - yes editors with a COI can discuss on Talk pages! SlimVirgin your thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

here is another example of an editor whom I would say has a COI with respect to perceived harm from an organization. Right? Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Comment: I got here via the Cleveland Clinic Talk page, following the thought thread, and reviewed things here. Here is a brief comment -
The background situation engenders my sympathy.
The proposed language uses the present verbal tense only, but I would have thought given human nature that inclusion of previous significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization should be considered for inclusion. Previous conflict (only - because all present situations are always problematic, not least for the editor themselves viz-a-viz the situation's outcome, while previous situations may sometimes take on a less significant shade over time for both/all parties) might be qualified as pertaining to "significant". So I suggest:
Using Wikipedia to continue disputes
Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is presently involved in any off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who has previously had a significant controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest.
If both changes makes things too layered, the mention of "previous" is the mainstay of what I'd suggest (and "significant" could I suppose be acceptable for both present and past). FeatherPluma (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. 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:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Potential COI issues[edit]

Thank you for your comments. Everything said was strictly neutral POV, cited to peer review journal, and without any self advertisement. The WP articles you cited appear to recognize that as OK. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please abide by the spirit and letter of COI, and please make sure you abide by the spirit and letter of our core content polices that forbid Original research, require verification with reliable sources, and require that content be appropriately contextualized to present views according to their weight and use in a given field. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to argue your POV - that is what law journals and blogs are for. We love experts, but please be mindful of our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Information icon At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS. Seriously, WT? THIS is blatant policy violation and disruptive, and subsequent edits mean I can't undo it easily. Elvey(tc) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Had to roll back 8 of your edits to undo your edit to my comment. Seriously, STOP with this revert warring and engage in discussion.--Elvey(tc) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
this was an accident and i thought i self-reverted that right away. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
For note, Elvey it was unnecessary to rollback those edits like that. A copy-paste was all it took to restore it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Addressed here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kaiser_Permanente. --Elvey(tc) 08:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Sent per the discussion on my talk page. Risker (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actavis/Allergan[edit]

Jytdog,

I am reaching out because you have recently edited the Actavis, Allergan or a similar company’s page, and would like your help. Actavis made the announcement this morning that they are transitioning to the Allergan name effective today.

See the press release here http://www.allergan.com/news/news/thomson-reuters/actavis-plc-is-now-allergan-plc.

We would like to redirect the current Actavis page to the Allergan page, and merge the content found on both.

We’d appreciate your help in vetting the edits we submit and ensuring that our changes meet Wikipedia community guidelines and standards. We plan to start the migration today.

Appreciate your help.

LANEYC (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)LaneyC

I'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gastroschisis[edit]

Hey Jytdog-- I'm new to the wiki editing process. I am a current medical student working at Children's Hospital of Illinois. My supervisor is Dr. Edmund Yang, a highly respected voice on gastroschisis. I have attempted to add a snippet to the article about the correlations between spontaneous onset of labor and length of stay. I am aware that this info does not come from a review article, but the editing rules also allow for highly respected opinions outside of review articles, which I believe is a category Dr. Yang falls into. Let me know what I am missing here. Illini0910 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article Talk page. You also have a conflict of interest here. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie[edit]

Can't remember the exact process by which I just ended up reading through talk pages from WikiProject Food and drink and two now-blanked user talk pages from back in April. I know it didn't end well, but you did an amazing job all around. Have two, they're small.

Choco chip cookie.png
Choco chip cookie.png

valereee (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an awkward and kind of sad situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Total Reverting[edit]

Jyt, if you feel there is a problem, why don't you just {Cn} and, if necessary, send a message that you'll delete if not Cn within a few days? Why just shoot from the hip or nuke? Almost all of the deleted material is in the WP article on the case or in US Reports for the case. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not about me "feeling" there is a problem. The content you added violated two fundamental content policies - WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Unverified original research has no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not OR. It is just repeating what the S Ct said in US Reports. The current ref cites support ( verify) every statement. How can you say it is unverified OR? PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
your edit had no sources. now that another editor has added refs and it has been further worked over, it is fine. Please be careful to source everything you add to WP - ideally to secondary, independent sources. That is what we do here. Again, please read WP:EXPERT - you don't seem to understand what we are about here. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It was fine to begin with, the problem started when you reverted sourced material. He did in fact source it, to the SCOTUS case, which is allowed, and then you took it all out. GregJackP Boomer! 18:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The content is fine now.Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
btw GregJackP you seem to have taken some kind of personal disliking to me. People feel how they feel, but please don't be disruptive. Thanks. (I would have written this on your Talk page but I believe you barred me) Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss content, not contributors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
User Talk pages are places to discuss contributors. I am sorry you are holding a grudge against me. We managed to work things out on that article about resisting arrest. I forgot all about it. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor[edit]

Is putting us through hell. Looking at his talk page I see you have already warned him about policy and disregard of it and he does not respond positively. Any help you can give to reign that guy in is appreciated because nothing is working on this talk page Zeitgeist film series an example [2]. He does not seem to take positive or critical feedback in a good way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you are going through a difficult time. I am not interested in getting involved. Please remember to use WP:DR - when you bring things to the community these kinds of tangles can untangle some. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard[edit]

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In use template[edit]

Is there a reason that you ignored the "In use" template that was in place while I was adding material and references to Bowman v. Monsanto Co.? It was in place 10 minutes prior to your edit and caused an edit conflict. Can you give me a reason that I should not take you to AN/I for disruptive editing? GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Amir Alexander[edit]

So, the weirdest thing. I put a PROD tag at Amir Alexander (entirely unref'd BLP). A new user Amiralexander removed the tag and has been editing it like crazy for several hours. That's not the weird thing though. His talk page says that he is a sockpuppet ?!? Take a look. [[3]] Definitely COI, but also a sock? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It was an IP that posted the sockpuppet accusation, not Amir himself. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that [[4]] either is Amir, or is the sockpuppet, or knows Amir well. The PROD notification went only to Tkuvho yet the immediate response was from Amir. Capitalismojo (talk)
(talk page stalker)Have asked Amiralexander to clarify his identity. We can go from there with either COI procedure or shutting the account down as an impersonator. Let's remember to AGF and the guy hasn't even been welcomed yet or informed of basic policies. — Brianhe (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, he posted to his userpage, it does appear to be Mr. Alexander, the UCLA historian and author. Jytdog, could you send him one of your special tailored expert-retention welcome COI messages? — Brianhe (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

thanks!

Drjobrout (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center[edit]

How on earth can a list of award winners be considered "promotional" ???? Virtually all lists of award winners come from the websites of the awarding organisations.Plucas58 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been a boatload of COI editing on that article, so we scrutinize it more. In general for something to be noteworthy enough to be given weight in WP there should be independent sources discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Clade diagrams[edit]

Hi, the sources are in the above prose on each section - do the cladograms still need them? Only it seems like useless repetition... XyZAn (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my note. XyZAn. It isn't true that all the companies you list are in the narrative. Your adding the clade to the Allergan article is the one I saw, and working from the top of the diagram, the article does not describe the acquisitions of Auden Mckenzie. Durata, Furiex or Aptalis, or Galen.. it does describe Forest. I didn't look further, but do you see what I mean? I haven't checked other ones yet either.... Thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No Problem, I'll add refs for those companies which aren't in the above prose in now. I think the clades easily describe how confusing the Allergan/Actavis situation can get! XyZAn (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added a reference for Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited. I've clarified that Galen was the previous name of Warner Chilcott (so it doesn't need another ref) and also clarified that both Aptalis Pharma and Furiex Pharmaceuticals Inc were previously acquired by Forest, so again, don't need a reference as they're in the respective sub pages. XyZAn (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thanks. pfizer, gsk, sanofi, BMS... those should be the real circus! Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem, yeah I've looked at pfizer, can't get my head round the code of the clade diagrams yet so I put it off!! GSK would be a good one to do, especially if they get bought out by Pfizer et al as rumour suggests! Great working with you XyZAn (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Here you go:


GlaxoSmithKline
SmithKline Beecham plc
(renamed 1989)[1]
SmithKline Beckman
(renamed 1982)
SmithKline-RIT
(renamed 1968)
Smith, Kline & French
(reorganized 1929 into
Smith Kline and French Laboratories)

French, Richards and Company
(Acq 1891)



Smith, Kline and Company
(Founded 1830)





Recherche et Industrie Thérapeutiques
(Acq 1968)




Beckman Instruments, Inc.
(Merged 1982, Sold 1989)

Specialized Instruments Corp.
(Acq 1954)



Offner Electronics
(Acq 1961)





Allergan
(Acq 1982, Sold 1989)



International Clinical Laboratories
(Acq 1989)




Beecham Group Plc
(merged 1989)

Norcliff Thayer
(Acq 1986)


Beecham Group Ltd

S. E. Massengill Company
(Acq 1971)


Beecham Group Ltd
(Renamed 1945)

C.L. Bencard
(Acq 1953)




County Chemicals
(Acq 1929)







Glaxo Wellcome
(Renamed 1995)
Glaxo
(Merged 1995)




Glaxo
(Founded 1850)



Joseph Nathan
(Acq 1947)




Allen & Hanburys
(Acq 1958)




Meyer Laboratories
(Acq 1978)




Affymax
(Acq 1995)



Burroughs Wellcome
(Merged 1995)

McDougall & Robertson Inc
(Acq 1959)



Burroughs Wellcome & Company
(Founded 1880)





References

  1. ^ Leslie Berkman for the Los Angeles Times. July 27, 1989 Shareholders OK SmithKline Deal Spinning Off Beckman, Allergan

XyZAn (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wow. it is so great to see it laid out like that. i like how you are keeping it clean, but I would prefer refs at each merger. do you really think that would be too cluttered? also you note that beckman was spun back out in 1989 but allergan was too. (source) ....i took the liberty of adding "Sold 1989: to allergan and just adding a ref to see what it looks like... not so bad? Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it looks OK, might get a bit messy with companies who have lots of branches. I've done one for Pfizer, it's mental, still needs some work doing to it, but all the acquisitions are documented on their relevant page or parent companies page.

Pfizer
Pfizer







Pfizer



Warner–Lambert


Warner–Lambert
(Merged 1955)

William R. Warner
(Founded 1856)



Lambert Pharmacal Company




Parke-Davis
(Founded 1860, Acq 1976)




Wilkinson Sword
(Acq 1993)




Agouron
(Acq 1999)








Pharmacia
(Acq 2002)




Wyeth (Acq 2009)












American Home Products



Wyeth
(Acq 1931)




Chef Boyardee




S.M.A. Corporation




Ayerst Laboratories
(Acq 1943)




Fort Dodge Serum Company
(Acq 1945)




Bristol-Myers
(Animal Health div)



Parke-Davis
(Animal Health div)




A.H. Robins




Sherwood Medical
(Acq 1982)




American Cyanamid
(Acq 1994)



Lederle Laboratories




Solvay
(Acq 1995, Animal Health div)




Genetics Institute, Inc.
(Acq 1992)





King Pharmaceuticals
(Acq 2010)

Monarch Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc.



Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc.



Parkedale Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



King Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.



Monarch Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited






Innopharma
(Acq 2014)






Redvax
(Acq 2015)




Hospira
(Acq 2015)





Hospira
(Spun off from Abbott Laboratories, 2004)



Mayne Pharma Ltd
(Acq 2007)




Pliva-Croatia




Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(Acq 2009, Generics & Injectables div)




Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Acq 2010)




TheraDoc
(Acq 2010)




XyZAn (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wow. just had time to really look at that. amazing. thank you so much! Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem, i've added pfizers to their page and have done, shire, valeant, novartis, GSK, teva, allergan/actavis, celgene, might look at Sanofi now XyZAn (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your continuing good works! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Carbamazepine vs. Oxcarbazepine[edit]

(First off, if you truly believe they shouldn't mention each other, then I'm truly OK with that).

I believe that the comparison between Carbamazepine and Oxcarbazepine should be noted on their respective pages. First off, ANY doctor who prescribes Oxcarbazepine knows that it's a structural derivative of Carbamazepine. Second, they're both marketed by Novartis. Anybody involved in either the use or endorsement of Trileptal knows VERY well that it was designed as an improvement of Tegretol. That's all I've got to say about that. IAMGOOMBA (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

if found your edits to be so strange. why are you adding to content to articles about health, with no sourcing, much less lacking MEDRS sourcing? And so seriously too. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Kirshner[edit]

Hi,

Why did you flag Ben Kirshner's page for deletion? He is notable, I was also in the process of adding more references when your edits conflicted with mine.Tonyeny (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi I didn't flag it for deletion. Our messages to each crossed in the ether - please see the note I just left for you on your Talk page. You can reply there, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

COI[edit]

I thought you may have an interest in this discussion. I sympathise with the editor's position, but don't feel it is within policy for me to follow his suggestions for article-space editing. I think a middle-ground could probably be found that would make everyone comfortable. Seemed up your alley. CorporateM (Talk) 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indents[edit]

Indentation confusion strikes again: This was mostly in reply to another editor. I believe that you and I have very similar views about the problems with those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks! i think we do too. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M-150 (energy drink). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Message understood. From now on, I'll simply modify contributions and delete anything I don't like as you do. Any decent editor would have started a conversation and then waited a while given the slow traffic on the M-150 (energy drink) page. Rdavout (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you should refresh your memory with this: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule. We have both lost already a few minutes too many of our lives in what I believe is a lack of understanding of this policy and Wikipedia:Content_removal. Better understanding of Wikipedia is an investment in better editors on the long-term right? Rdavout (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

please do read WP:VERIFY. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Acenocoumarol[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed some of the brand name information in the lede paragraph of the drug Acenocoumarol. I also noticed that there are still redirects from these other brand names to this article, which seems appropriate, of course (since they are alternate names for the drug). I am a little concerned that people searching on these other terms will end up being redirected to this article but then will be like, "Woah, so is this the drug I mean? I don't see my search term here anywhere on this page!" This is one of the reasons that we often put alternate names for subjects in bold font in the lede paragraphs of their articles, so that people will know where they've ended up (and that where they've ended up is the right place). A link to an external site that lists all these names does not really do that. So I am curious as to your thinking here, and then as to your thoughts on the practicality of the redirects. Thoughts? KDS4444Talk 22:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

for generic drugs, names of drugs became spam-magnets. i generally remove them and just provide a link to drugs.com where the whole laundrylist of names can be found - when I remove the list i always include that link, exactly for the reason you say! if a drug is still on patent i think it makes sense to include the brand name, and i think it makes sense to keep the original brandname after it goes generic... but after that it seems to me we have no justification for barring any if we allow some.... that's my thinking anyway. if that doesn't make sense we discussion at WT:MED - others may think as you do and prefer to keep them. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And I am not at all certain what is best here myself. Some things about Wikipedia I do with great confidence! This particular thing is... not one of them. Maybe a discussion at WT:MED, as you mentioned, is a good idea. Care to join me in starting one? KDS4444Talk 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
done! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Hello, I thought you may have an interest in this col case of user Sedai2014 who admitted to be a supporter of this facebook campaign SEDIA see here diff. User created 3 pages related to the facebook campaign they are Discrimination in education in Norway, Hamideh Kaffash and Discrimination in education. a sockpuppet investigation is also going on see here. If you are interested please check them. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

my goodness, that is quite a mess. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fringe[edit]

I brought this here because I didn't want to repeat myself. Do you think I have some sort of ulterior motive here? The current definition says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."

Do you agree that this includes any theory that is significantly different from the leading theory? If so (and it seems quite obvious), why would you want to slap the fringe label on all but the leading theories? This seems like a very straightforward question. Do you think that addition of the words "and is insignificant or irrelevant according to the prevailing or mainstream view" makes the definition too narrow? You gave no indication in your edit summary. I can move these questions back to the other talk page, if you would like, but maybe it would be okay to have this side-conversation here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

no i do not think you have an ulterior motive. happy to keep talking with others at WT:FRINGE Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit - Matthias Hentze[edit]

Dear Jytdog, Just wanted to check with you if you had time to look at my updated references so that (hopefully, eventually) some of the disclaimers on the page may be removed. If you found time to take a look anytime this week, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you Princessella123 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphan drugs[edit]

Hi Jytdog, I have recently added orphan drugs to my list of topics I follow and contribute to in Wikipedia and will continue to do so. I have no problem with my content being edited removed if the team deems it to be someway inappropriate and there is a solid academic argument for its removal.

In regards to the material based on the 2014 Evaluate Pharma publication[1] any removal of the content would require a rebuttal with full citations for each point argued by Hadjivasiliou. If you do a very basic Google scholar search for orphan drugs you will find that the economic challenges mentioned above are listed as issues of concern to policy-makers globally and they will only become intensified. This deserves a space in a well-rounded Wikipedia article.


References

  1. ^ Hadjivasiliou, Andreas (October 2014), "Orphan Drug Report 2014" (PDF), EvaluatePharma, retrieved 28 June 2015 

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard post for life extension edit[edit]

Hello! We recently disagreed about the reliability of a source that I used on the life extension page. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, since I could not find any other Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of posts on Medium, which seems to use a unique model as a publishing tool. For this reason, I made a post on the notice-board about reliable sources. Feel free to contribute. Cheers. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks, there actually have been past discussions there. I will link them there. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Gloving[edit]

Despite the article being nominated for deletion a while back, and the result being delete, it still has not been deleted. The discussion is here. There article has no real merit and appears as an advert for a company selling a product involved in "Gloving" (all the refs point to them). Can you cast your eyes over it and see what you think please? I have messaged a couple of admins who were involved in the original debate, but they seem to be inactive on Wiki these days. 79616gr (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted in March 2014 and then was re-created in Dec 2014. That happens when there is someone paid or passionate about the article subject. I see it has already been speedied. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's gone now, and hopefully not to return. Thanks for checking. 79616gr (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested edits on Cerner talk page[edit]

Hi Jytdog, I have added some suggested updates to make the Cerner Wikipedia article current and more reflective of the company as it is today.

Would you mind reviewing my suggested edits and adding them to the article or giving me feedback on what could improve my suggested edits? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Comment Response[edit]

Dear jytdog,

Thank you for your very thoughtful suggestions as to how I might contribute more competently to Wikipedia articles. I have read your "Five Pillars" and can see that you have considered this matter in some detail, which I respect. As you suggest, I will go through the Wikipedia:Identification process to validate my RW identity. I am always grateful to receive constructive feedback on how I might improve my editing, and I fully acknowledge your comments pertaining to the Raymond Cattell article that I have been working on, and consequently, have gone back and re-checked every reference citation to make sure that the cited reference(s) actually support the particular assertion being made. As a result of that exercise, I have since removed 19 reference citations throughout the text, so that what remains should be highly accurate. I thank you for pointing this problem out to me, and I believe that as a result, the article is now more compelling and concise.

Also, I acknowledge that I am new to Wikipedia and need first to learn the principles within which to operate as a Wikipedia editor. There are many other articles within my area of academic expertise that I am eager to start working on, including articles on Hans Eysenck, the Five Factor Model, personality theory, personality assessment, intelligence testing, IQ scores, neuropsychology, schizotypal personality, depression, psychometrics, item homogeneity, factor analysis, meta analysis, social psychology, Australian psychology, British psychology, etc. Consequently, I will now turn my attention to some of these other articles.

Again, thank you for your informative and helpful advice. Gjboyle (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ketoconazole[edit]

Hello Jytdog, thanks for mentioning WP:MEDRS. However, since Ketoconazole was urgently withdrawn in 30 June, I doubt there could be any reliable english source for this. The news articled has been replaced with a official statement from China Food and Drug Administration, which I believe is reliable enough.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a much better source! Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In re Bilski citation style[edit]

I reverted your edit here on the talk page of the article. It appears that you followed PraeceptorIP to the article merely to revert his good faith and correct edit. He tagged the talk page to show that the article uses the Bluebook reference style, which it clearly does. It is not a violation of WP:CITEVAR to properly label what style the article is using. Please stop harassing that editor on articles where his edits are correct and made in good faith. If you are not sure of what citation style is being used, ask. I or any number of other editors are more than happy to help. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

nope, not accurate on any level. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
by the way, as I am not welcome on your Talk page, neither are you on mine. Do not comment here going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

tea and iron absorption[edit]

I think combining iron absorption with Aluminium and other metals may not be such a good idea. Iron is not toxic like Aluminium and Lead and is very essential to the body. Secondly are there any objections to the details I provided ? Why remove those details unless they are wrong ? Reference being old is not valid, IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talkcontribs) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, but let's do this at the article Talk page.... if you comment there, I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

COI?[edit]

[5][6] ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

yep, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I found the last bit of http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/jun2013_Young-for-Life_01.htm very interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola[edit]

Please stop the edit warring tactics on Joseph Mercola. You're attempting to have the article one-sided and that is very un-Wikipedia like. To the untrained eye it could appear that you may have some motivation in stopping info about mobile phones and the link to cancer. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you'll allow the Joseph Mercola page to evolve into a balanced article that it should be. Thankyou Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of this page, where it belongs. If you continue to use Wikipedia as you have been, you are going to get thrown out of here. You have been given warning of the discretionary sanctions we have in place for pseudoscience - be mindful of them. If you have not read WP:NPOV carefully (and I do not believe you have) please do so. Please especially pay attention to the section on pseudoscience. NPOV =/= "fair and balanced". And if you are not aware of it, please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia has a very deep commitment to science. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to your edit warring[edit]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

A couple of points Bill. Firstly, you forgot to sign, and secondly, do you know what edit warring is? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)