User talk:Jytdog/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

link spamming justification request

Hello Jytdog (talk), I'm new to Wikipedia editing and had initially added that link to other similar articles pertaining to this topic. The other links have already been deleted and I have no intention of adding the link to other than this topic, so consider that. Request you to read the article content provided at the link provided before simply treating a new link as spam.

Also consider that content in context with the content redirects made by other 'Existing External Links' for this topic (for their relevance to the topic) i.e- CME Group futures contracts product codes ; Futures Data - free, historical data in CSV, Excel, JSON or XML format ; Futures Contract Specifications and Tick Values at ExcelTradingModels.com ; Real-Time Stock Indices Futures at Investing.com

Regards Bsk11 (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply at Talk:Futures contract where you posted the same thing. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Uptonandherdoggate

I noticed the WW-discussions, interesting! It made me remember a somewhat similar but different "thing" I encountered earlier.

There is something called Web of Stories. They post fairly long video-interviews with people. I noticed it here[1] and read more about it here.[2] It has some WP-presence: [3] and I added it as an EL to Stan Lee.

It doesn´t seem to be demanding swift and brutal action, but perhaps it´s slightly interesting in the context of the Upton-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!! the header made me laugh, which is lovely :) Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I´m hoping it will stick and will aggressively promote it!!!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

web of stories sounds cool, like StoryCorps; I love oral history insider stuff. The Moth too. None of that is celebrity mill money making malarky. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok , now we have to create WP:CMMMM... or at least redirect it to something... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia controversies -Roxy the dog. bark 06:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If it gets any attention, sure. I´ve noticed that Wikipediocracy and something called wikipediasucks have noted the existence of Wiki What. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that. I assumed since it was linked at §"Wiki What?" that linking to it was okay and not controversial. Perhaps it should be removed?--Auric talk 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to Streisand this; i warned people there to be more careful and some people amended their statements. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Varicocele

I see your reversion of my edit. The removed material concerned risk factors for infertility, not the subject of the article, varicocele:

Tobacco smoking and mutations in the gene expressing glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 both put men at risk for infertility; these factors may also exacerbate the risk that varicocele will affect fertility.

Do you disagree with my assessment, and would you like to revert your reversion if you do agree?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please post your message at the article talk page; I will reply there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my change in the article "ketogenic diet"

Your rollback resulted in the restoration of a misleading concept. The page now states that a nerve impulse is relayed from one neuron's synapse to another's. However, in fact, the synapse is the single shared space between two neurons. The charge is propagated across this space from one to another(s). Note, I already posted this concern on the article's talk page, but that seems to have been ignored.

Neuron A Neuron B
>------O >------O
                 ^
                 |
    Synapse, or synaptic gap

The age of fable (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page, and I or somebody else will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany

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.

---

Why da hell u didnt accept and reverted my edit by removing leftliberal propaganda slogan "populist" from AFD description? I bet that u will remove immediately "populist" addition to CDU/CSU and SPD description in same manner.. when they do populists talk and actions, so they also easily can be called populists, as, actually, most of politic parties and so on. But u place that "populist" slogan only to rightwing parties... .................. Well, I know answer.. cause I bet u are or leftliberal or payed by leftliberals to haul down, bite AFD and other right parties...

term is obuse&propa-da 4m leftliberals to haul down opponent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquitozzz (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article Talk page - if you post your message above there, I will reply there. (btw about this, User:The Quixotic Potato are noticing a pattern here? :) ) Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is same as u write in description of CDU/CSU and SPD word lyers.. "CDU/CSU and SPD are leftlibheral lying parties... CDU/CSU and SPD are populists parties..." That termin is obusements and propaganda from 1 side to bite and insult other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquitozzz (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not OK to change your comment after someone has responded to it. Please read and follow the talk page guidelines which provide instruction on this. Also please sign your posts by typing four (not three and not five) tildas after it - this provides a date stamp and a link to your user page and talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, just do not know all moments in editing wikipedia

Just as i have written, about AFD this term is insult, and u understand that, and that insult, as u clearly can see if u walk around sphere of politics, is directed always only to right parties, when leftliberal parties depicted as "puffy and pure and angels".. and all insult words are removing from their descriptions immediately..

That is not how wikipedia should work.. It is not right to do offending propaganda and insult against 1s, while whitewash others...Mosquitozzz (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's OK, everybody has to learn when they first come here. We also "thread" comments by indenting - adding a colon at the front of your comment adds one indent, adding two colons adds two indents, etc. This is how we know what people are replying to. (someone might come here and indent one time below here, showing that they were responding to your first post! Lots of little complications.

About the content, again please post at the article talk page which is here: Talk:Alternative for Germany. New comments go at the bottom (if you click the "new section" tab at the top of the page, it will open a new section at the bottom for you)

Please be aware that nobody here cares about anybody else's views on things -- discussion is based on what most "reliable sources" say. See WP:RS for what a "reliable source" is, and when I say "most reliable sources" I am describing the neutral point of view policy. That doesn't mean "balanced", it means that we listen to reliable sources and summarize what they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

understood, i will go there, but before - Yes, word "populist" has some meanings, but most major of those are insulting 1, it mean like emptymeaning talker, tub-thumper, ranter, like emptywords without deads talker. It is insult. Only to rightwings..

"Reliable sources", who used that insulting termin usually are leftliberals or their mass media... who specially call rightwings or other their oppnents with those words, u should understand that. Leftliberals has much more money then conservators and rights, so those leftliberals own a lot of "reliable sources" .. u should understand that. it is politic. About that termin "populist" we should go to it basic definition, and Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Do u understand? So that termin to AFd is Pejorative. Specially. By their opponents on the ground of politics.

If u want to do some addition to righwing party, u can call them for example neutral not offending word like rightwing advocating party, or another neutral not insulting word, but i think it is no nead, it as already anderstood what is rightwing. And in German version it called just rightwing party. where those tildas..Mosquitozzz (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Things

Of course some people are incapable or unwilling to follow basic instructions. We will never be able to change that. And unless you use an editnotice with a blink tag and red text with a font-size of 172 pixels some people will simply not read your request. But we don't know how many times the request has been effective, and if has reached more than one person then it is probably worth it, right? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I am sure even neon wouldn't do too much to change it. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Please scroll down, check the confirmation box, answer the test question, sign your name then click on Proceed to continue."^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 23:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I can set up a giant red edit notice for ya, if you want. I did one for myself when I took a wikibreak. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind giving people little notes. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You had an editnotice page already. I moved the notice from this page to that one so it will show up when you edit this page. You might want to style it (or ask me to style it) to make it pop more if you really want people to notice, though. I bound the position of mine to the browser window, so even when you scrolled it stayed there because on every desktop monitor I've edited on, the "submit" button is below the bottom of the screen when the edit page loads. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the new edit notice, and I think you should remove the part where it says "Please click here to leave a new message", since by the time anyone sees the edit notice, they have already started to leave one. (And maybe, in the spirit of making it more idiot-proof, put "please post at the article Talk page" in bold font.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mesenchymal stem cell

Dear Jytdog, why do youk keep deleting texts i have written? I use only informations from good scientific articels and I am student of immunology. So I know what I am writing. Please, stop doing it, realise, that there are also informations you do not knouw about and let me do my job. Barbora— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bara.kovandova (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yay!! You are talking! OK, first things first -- you mention "your job". This might be an English issue ... but are you being paid to add this content to Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I deffinitly was not paid, I wrote this article, because I wanted to share my knowledge about this topic, that is what Wikipedia is for. So stop being a baby and let me help to edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bara.kovandova (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, just making sure. There are different things that people who are getting paid, need to do.

So please let me answer your question now.

One of the hardest things that scientists have to adjust to, when they come to Wikipedia, is understanding the genre here.

Many scientists want to write exactly the way that they would in an introduction to a paper where they describe the background, or like they would if they were writing a review article.

But neither of those is OK, here in Wikipedia.

What we do here, is summarize what existing review articles say.

Experts like you can do this pretty easily, but the problem is that experts have a hard time understanding that this is what they should do.

This is discussed in our essay to help guide newly arrived experts, like you. Please do read WP:EXPERT. And then let me know if this still doesn't make sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you even bordered to read what I wrote, it was not overly scientific, but clear enough for a normal user as so as for a biologist.

I do not care what you think, you are the one, who is bullying others and are not able to accept oppinion of anyone else, that yourself. But if you want to have wrong informations here on Wikipedia, so be it, I do not care. I just wanted to help people to understand what mesenchymal stem cells are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bara.kovandova (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2017(UTC)

It is great that you want to improve Wikipedia but every editor here is obligated to learn how Wikipedia works, and to follow that. I am trying to help you learn. If you don't want to learn, that is your choice, but you will just end up frustrated. Editing Wikipedia is a skill that needs to be learned, just like doing cell culture. Nobody can walk off the street and do it right at first. So please give yourself space to learn. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

and it is not hard -- all you have to do is get recent reviews and summarize what they say. That is what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

B - and to add to the discussion: no original research (meaning what you know or think you know that is not published); no adding content based on primary research (including articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals of good reputation, but are reporting on individual studies in vitro, pre-clinical or human trials); leaving as sources for content only secondary sources (reviews, systemic reviews, meta-analyses plus major organization and government position papers). For all purposes medical, Wikipedia is in effect a trailing indicator, not for new frontiers content. The clarity of your writing has nothing to do with it being reverted. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

FALSE. Primary content from reputable sources is EXPLICITLY permitted, both on Wikipedia generally and on Wikipedia medical pages. Please actually read and learn Wikipedia policy before trying to 'lay down the law'. WP:PRIMARY "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". WP:MEDSCI (how to "Summarize scientific consensus"): "Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed". WP:MEDRES "*should* not generally" and then give guidelines on HOW they should be used when they are, including to consider WP:WEIGHT. Please cease misleading and bullying other contributors. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Please read the Wikipedia policies on primary sourcing and medicine. Conveniently referenced here: Talk:Epigallocatechin_gallate#Primary_Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.91.233 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

replied there. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

I have entered a dispute asking for a second opinion on Multiverse edits. Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 02:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. This is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#multiverse. I have replied there. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lab Tests Online

Hi Jytdog, I have now disclosed the Agency as well. Please let me know the next steps. Thank you for your help! --Wcn.content (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply where Jytdog asked you to reply, then all the info can be kept in the same place. That would be on your talk page, where you haven't replied yet. Thanks, -Roxy the dog. bark 09:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy. They are being responsive, which is good. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I see progress. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For resisting the Wikidata infestation perpetrated by the WMF. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It has a place! It just needs to be done with care and consensus. Jytdog (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That place is where Wikipedians choose to put it, in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the specific Wikipedia. I have no problem at all with that. Just like with Commons. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Urine therapy

Hello,

Someone added Hinduism and Islam WITHOUT SOURCE in July 2017. Was this not "tendentious" edits? No one removed it for 3 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=790285097&oldid=789517381

But as soon as I removed it, you guys added it back

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=803309869&oldid=803308925

This source DOES NOT even say that it is a tradition in Hinduism. So, I added other religions using SAME author (Joseph S. Alter) and SAME publisher ( Princeton University Press)

Now you removed it all saying that "one-off is not a tradition".

How is one of not a tradition for Christianity, but it is a tradition for Hinduism? Is this not clear cut bias?

Please post this at the article talk page. I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OK

OK - give me a few hours - through today. MaynardClark (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Sorry for the trouble but policy is policy blah blah. It feels weird but it is wierd Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

yes. MaynardClark (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Adam Conover, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BrillLyle (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BrillLyle. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Adam Conover. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You are obviously following my edits and removing content when I add it to Wiki What? subjects. This constitutes harassment. BrillLyle (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. We are already talking on the talk page. Your claims about harassment are dead wrong; I am following the additions of Wiki What to WP. If you are doing them, then I am going to see those edits and react to them. It is not about you. I already wrote that at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrillLyle (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Morrison EC

Give me another 30 minutes to finish my whacks at that John Morrison article and then you can have at it. I agree there was too much cruft in it, but I think I can at least trim it down and you can have at it again from there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am done with that bit. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the stuff you added and put it back in. I'm done there too. Carry on... Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy! Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions

Hi, I saw that you asked if we could talk, and then took that out. I'm available for that if you want, just send me an email. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. -- Dane ^talk 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the other editor has proposed a compromise. Can you please review the compromise and respond with your thoughts? Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Jytdog. The other editor has accepted a proposed solution to start a formal RfC on this issue. Please comment at the DRN board if you agree to this resolution or if you disagree. Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

IoM

That Health in the Isle of Man page you merged has returned, with the WP:NOT#NEWS / WP:RECENTISM trivia in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Why WP:MEDRS exists

Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to pop in, say hello, and let you know that I am really enjoying your essay. I am going to assist the prof at Queen's tomorrow, giving an intro to WP:MEDRS for med students. You have done a great job with this essay (in my opinion). Do you mind if I share it with them?

Kind regards,

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It is still too long! Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just read/skimmed to the bottom. I am going to use some of your points in a short powerpoint presentation (if you do not mind). I am trying to demonstrate the difference between a publication in a medical journal, and Wikipedia. Your work sums this up nicely! I will provide them with the link to your essay if they are interested in reading further. Thanks again.

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad you find it useful. Please use however you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreskin

I semi'd it and #RR warned Anton.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

thx Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ourcampaigns.com

Hi there, I saw your message from early September about my use of ourcampaigns.com as a reference for election results. First, you're correct that if there was an alternate reference choice, I should have used it. I've gone back and adjusted some of my references to use websites such as actual vote reports archived at archive.org and from other official sources. However, as to the categorizing of ourcampaigns.com as spam, I would have fought this had I known about it. The website only permits users who have contributed multiple comments to correct certain things on the site to have any editing power. I work as a political analyst and have done a lot of work creating election result data sets, and in my experience, the election results at ourcampaigns.com very rarely contain errors. Best, GeoffreyVS 19:03, 4 October 2017 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyVS (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You do that by typing four tildas at the end - the wikipedia software converts the tildas (four, not three and not five) into links to your user and talk pages and the date stamp when you save your edit.

What made is "spamming" was the way you were using the source.

If you want to explore whether the community considers it reliable or WP:USERGENERATED, please ask at WP:RSN. Please be sure to provide an example of its use so that people can see the kind of content you were sourcing from it. If you have some connection with the site, please be sure you disclose that too. thx Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey Bards

Some while ago, I saw a band called The Whiskey Bards. I wanted to know more about the group. Wikipedia had nothing. I started researching the group. I got a little information. I hoped that if I created the page, someone else would flesh it out a little more. I had made some other pages, all of them accepted, but I made a mistake and used the Draft creation page for this one. The objections to my draft did not apply the actual guidelines set by Wikipedia. They added words to the guidelines when citing them, but when l checked the guidelines, those words were not there. I found some new reference sources, and went to try again. But my draft had been deleted. So I redid it in the way I created the other pages I'd made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybotik (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It is much better to work with the community than against it. If you would like we can move it to draft space and put it through AfC again. If you have more refs it could potentially fly now.... Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So my article is marked for deletion because the ego of the reviewer was hurt. It has nothing to do with the actual guidelines of Wikipedia. Fine. Move it to the draft space. Cybotik (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not about ego. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You said yourself it's about working with the community. That means it's not about the guidelines. It's not about the information provided. It's about the politics, flattering the reviewers, playing nice, appeasing hurt feelings. Cybotik (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You want to persist in misunderstanding me, knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Roche

Sorry Jytdog, I strongly disagree with your opinion. This is not a fair comment - in case of a pharmaceutical company it should be allowed to mention at least the product groups and field of activities of this companies. This is not promotion ! Not even product names have been mentioned by me. The information I added is of general interest.Giessauf A (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Giessauf A (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. I have opened a discussion there: Talk:Hoffmann-La_Roche#Pharmaceuticals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Jytdog, You cannot warn editors for "edit warring" when they've only reverted your edit one time on an article. Per bold, revert, discuss, ElKevbo reverted your edit so now you need to discuss. By you reverting his edits, you are the one engaging in an edit war (and looks like you've already been reported once where I've also left a note), not him. I will watch this page closely and if you continue, you'll be reported (again). I think you need to review these policies. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course I can. The template exists to warn the person to start using the talk page. - that is why it exists. And I gave it after their 2nd time making the change, not after the first one. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They haven't edited that page since May 2017 and his other reverts for that IP had nothing to do with rankings. Not sure how that is edit warring. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I reckoned they were the same person. If they were not then the warning was too soon. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Although if you are wrong, this wouldn't be the first instance of you misplacing a warning tag based on editor intuition.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AManchester_VA_Medical_Center&type=revision&diff=802429861&oldid=797603788} KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Formal request to desist

Hey, JYT, I get the sense that you believe that I need monitoring regarding the edits I now make to Wikipedia. I am letting you know, formally, that I would like you to allow others to do some of that instead of you. If, for example, the suggestions I make somewhere really are problematic, it would be great if you would allow other editors the chance to respond to those problems without having you adding commentary-- if the problem is real, surely you are not the only person who is capable of pointing it out. I feel like I am being babysat, and it has become more than a little uncomfortable. I am not a newbie here, and I respectfully request that you stop participating in discussions I have with other editors, frankly, on any topic-- not because your comments are never useful, but because they are unnecessary and because I have grown tired of it. Wikipedia will not rise of fall because of your monitoring of me, I assure you, and it will be okay even if you allow me to engage other editors without your assistance. Consider this a formal request from me you to no longer interact with me on sections of those pages (article, talk, policy, etc.) I decide to place an edit, and to do so because I am finding that interaction to be unhelpful to those involved, me in particular. I have done my full duty to disclose my acts as a paid editor on Wikipedia, and as a result you have (from my perspective/ experience) done little but harangue me by calling that disclosure inadequate and partial, and to describe my editing behavior to be beneath what you personally consider to be "best practices." By offering a disclosure, it seems I have made myself a bright red target for your "paid-COI" goggles, and I am tiring of the attention. At this point I get the sense you would rather have me crucified for my disclosure-- that is not what the policies there are meant to allow you to do, they are meant to punish those who have not made such disclosures. Worst of all, your constant attention has made me wonder about the wisdom of having disclosed in the first place... Because I suspect I am not the only editor who feels this way about you. This means that your behavior seems likely to drive paid editing underground once more, and if that is your goal, I can only tell you that it is likely to succeed! Sir, I am not your target, and am tired of you perceiving me as one. I have suggested this to you in the past, and I am frustrated that you still cannot see or understand it, so I must now ask you in no uncertain terms to desist-- politely-- as I see few other ways of ending this between us. These sentiments also go towards user:DocJames, who has joined you in this effort and whom I encourage to come here by mentioning him by name and tagging it (which is obviously important). Thank you (both) for considering my request. There is no need to respond-- in fact, your silence here could be your first step in meeting that request. At this point, I would much rather that than an attempt at justification/ explanation, Ok? Cheers! KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have watched you personalize this. I am not hounding you. I do hope that you will eventually understand this whole paid editing thing you have entered into so that your participation in that, can become drama-free for everyone. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Figgep and COI

Hey, Jytdog. Can we get your opinion on the following User talk:Figgep#Warning? A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New discussion at Donald Gary Young

Hey there, would you mind looking at the last several edits and the new talk page section over at Donald Gary Young and weighing in? I'm pinging you and bd2412 as you were the last two editors discussing the article. A Train^talk 23:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Any leeway on MEDRS?

Working on Egg allergy. At the moment, citations 19, 28 and 28 are primary. Which I recently added. Your opinion on those? If they gotta go, they will go. I think the rest are secondary or guidelines, but I have not completed my review/rewrite. Thanks. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The stuff about hydrolyzing egg protein is research, not treatment, so doesn't belong in that section. In general we avoid citing primary sources in research sections too, or those sections just end up being a compendium of X did Y in Z year. So this is one to leave out.

The two longitudinal studies in the prognosis section are more interesting. They line up with the review and with each other and are decently-sized. I could see how you would be tempted to use them there. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)::

I deleted the sentence and ref about hypoallergenic eggs. I also reverted your edit, because I believe in error you deleted Martin-Munoz and substituted Arik, which does not address the concept of egg and milk proteins showing up unlabeled in probiotic products. On Prognosis, I will keep an eye on the lit for when a newer review is in print. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The rest of this we can discuss at the article. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

rebranding of university of malta

Any particular reason for the removals of my additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.135.17 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

it is not PR! this is a significant change for the university, it has used the same logo for decades! I am not associated with any of the websites involved. I came to Wikipedia to check the details and when I found nothing decided to add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.135.17 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. If you post the message above there, i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

sorry I am new at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptormlt (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with MSK BLPs

Hey Jytdog, hope you're well. I've been working on improving the BLPs of a few Memorial Sloan Kettering doctors, and I was wondering if you had the time or interest in vetting my work. I appreciate the standard you hold me to, and you were a big help with making the MSKCC page what it is now.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:FacultiesIntact sure, where? Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I'm wrapping up work on a couple, but my sandbox for Joan Massagué is ready to go. It's mostly reorganizing the content in the Biography and Scientific contributions sections, and then consolidating his achievements into a separate section. Thanks for taking a look.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I've got another draft ready for review if you're still available. This one is for Craig B. Thompson and focused on streamlining and reorganizing the biography and scientific career sections. I also added in references that were missing from the current article where I could find them. Also, thank you for adding the US News ranking to the MSKCC article! Could I ask you for a small tweak so that it reads "2017-2018" instead of just 2017? The rankings are structured for the year range, not just the singular year.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you still have any time to take a look at these? I don't mean to pester you, I know you keep pretty busy around here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Cryonics

Would you mind explaining why you removed ALL of my recent work on cryonics? What exactly gives you the right to do so? Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you set out individual items that you would like to add to the article on the talk page for discussion, and obtain a consensus for inclusion of those items. bd2412 T 22:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

template 'Paid'

Why are we allowing paid editors, of all people, to mess with our templates. I think I have two choices here: either finally block them, or full protect the template if we can identify the last stable revision. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Kudpung Do you mean lobbying on the talk page or actually making changes? sorry i am not sure what you mean... 04:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacing the summary of content with info about copyrights in the ACIM lead

Hi Jytdog,

As I understand it, Wikipedia is meant to be a place where people who come to find out information on topics can find it out as quickly as possible. Apparently you believe that copyright information on a book is more important to our readers than an actual summary of the books contents, in a books article lead. Is that correct?

Scott P. (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Let me take a wild guess: no? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

Hello, belatedly noticed your comment in the September spam archive - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2017_Archive_Sep_1 - where would I start a discussion to establish consensus for adding links to open access repositories as suggested?— Preceding unsigned comment added by OAnick (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, and for being willing to seek consensus. I ~think~ WP:RSN would probably be the place to start - that is where people who think about sourcing hang out. They might direct you elsewhere, but that is a reasonable place to start. I suggest opening a new thread there, explaining briefly what the archive is and your relationship with it, and ask folks what they think about starting to add links to it throughout WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I've also come here because the WikiProject Spam thread is archived. In sum, User:OAnick, a user at a British university, has added links to open access versions of Nature papers—drafts deposited by the researchers themselves with their university library—to citations in Wikipedia articles. You've told that user to stop, treated their involvement in the repository as a conflict of interest, and told them to "build consensus" on an unspecified noticeboard. When pressed for a specific noticeboard, you've recommended the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with the proviso that it won't resolve the issue.

1. Please think about how this looks. We already have plenty of consensus that giving access to OA alternative links, through a legitimate gateway, improves the encyclopaedia. There's no Wikipedia principle that puts the interests of Nature Publishing Group (in getting paywall hits) above the interests of the readers of Wikipedia in getting access to reliable sources. Think about the work done by volunteers and WIRs to build these relationships with universities and libraries, that can be wasted if people on-wiki are careless. Think about the potential reputational damage to Wikipedia from these newbie-biting events.
2. Clearly, the official repository of a university library is not a spam site. Even if it initially "looked" like spam, that's no excuse once it became clear the spam result was a false positive. You even bring up that "The discussion should probably note that the White Rose people say here that White Rose Research Online will track views and downloads." There's no reason why this information matters: web sites track how much usage they get and this makes no difference to whether that site provides value to Wikipedia's readers.
3. It's fair to query a user's behaviour that might not be totally in accordance with our rules. You didn't just "query" OAnick's behaviour: you told him to stop. OAnick should have added the archive links as additional links, not replacing the official URL of the paper (and should have been advised to do this). I don't agree that the next step should involve the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That just passes OAnick on to them, who will tell him to start a discussion elsewhere, and the terrible newcomer experience continues. How about he does what he's been doing, which isn't a "widespread change", so long as he uses the template in the proper way? What he's doing is improving the encyclopedia, and something we want more university staff to do. We actively campaign for librarians to add citations to Wikipedia: it's not in that spirit to accuse them from the outset of a Conflict Of Interest because they are involved in Open Access.

After posting this comment, I will notify WikiProject Open Access of this discussion and the original thread. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, pleased to meet you. We have not interacted before.

You have made strong claims here. I reject all of them.

So that's that.

If you would on the other hand like to have a discussion that is open and doesn't mischaracterize what I have done and beg all the questions at the outset, I would be happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that WikiProject Open Access would be a good place for the discussion, we could notify other relevant places and noticeboards of it too... —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both, must admit that as a new user, I'm at a bit of a loss to appreciate how adding links to legal OA versions of journal articles can be an issue. Would it allay your concerns if I was to use - and advocate others to use - archiveurl / archivedate instead of replacing the Nature URI? My logic was that I had not removed or changed the DOI which points at the version of record (though there might be some argument for Wikipedia to adopts OADOI! https://oadoi.org/)

Thanks for your note. Making changes widely across WP is not a small thing. I had linked to a discussion we had at one of the "WikiProjects" here about another group that was going through articles and adding links to their archive - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_98#ISUM_.2F_Conflict_of_Interest. Probably more importantly, there have been four (yes four!) RfCs about using archive.is - see the first one (which links to the subsequent three): Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC - that one was spurred by folks from that archive being overbold and adding tons of links to their own site. Your site might be great, but it would be wise to get consensus to use it broadly. And as I said, if folks approve people might be willing to create a bot to add links to it all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Singapore -first sentence

Hi I've added more sources but your edit summary about mobiles-Wmf makes no sense until I saw a similar comment-edit you did for Mesopotamia. That first sentence still has 38 word count vs 29 in Singapore so I assume it's the main concern. Shall I move the IPA to etymology as well, maybe keeping the audio clip? -hardly anyone I know pronounce the name completely wrong anyway. Will be helpful for links to guides-discussions to learn more. In the meantime I will place the names in a separate sentence. Shiok (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Please see here which stemmed from this then this then this RfC which is still unresolved per the sprawling discussion happening at Wikidata/2017 State of affairs - if you want to review that you need to dig back into archives and start here, probably and work your way forwards: Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs/Archive_5#Wikipedia_descriptions_vs_Wikidata_descriptions. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page - antipsychotic

I'm taking a rest from my computer, for the remainder of the day (is 16:00 hrs), and won't reading the reply until tomorrow. 23h112e (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is possible to read the response ofc. 23h112e (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

is this source ok?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VRTniKE2liYC&pg=PA68&dq=glans+shape+semen+removal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwIuO5vbWAhWBWxoKHSa9C9AQ6AEISjAG#v=onepage&q=glans%20shape%20semen%20removal&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.90.68 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Developmental disability

Hello, Jytdog – I was just looking at the latest edit to Developmental disability, and I thought I'd ask you if this change was right.  – Corinne (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

its a good question. the edit wasn't bad. the article should have some sourced content about teams (it is usually a team) that does diagnosis and initial support for babies and kids, and that changes as the person gets older. There should probably be several specialities listed there. shall we move this to the talk page? Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Chitosan edit

Why is this a reference spam? A manuscript that’s been accepted by a journal with decent impact factor qualifies to be listed under research section as it helps to annotate the properties of chitosan. Here the paper describes about how different properties can be incorporated into the dental implants using chitosan and another biopolymer. Chitosan did retain the antibacterial activity even if it is mixed with oppositely charged polymer; this is an important finding as it still unclear as to how chitosan kills bacteria (there are a lot of theories, but no concrete evidence yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F220:41D:4425:0:0:0:27C (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - moved to article blog - looking forward to see your answer there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F220:41D:4425:0:0:0:27C (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PICSO)

Hi Jytdog, I noted that you filed this article for speedy deletion and RHaworth subsequently deleted it. This article was linked to from some other articles including Percutaneous coronary intervention. The latter has a section about Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion which was added by Kipepea. Perhaps this should be undone as well. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Embryonic recall should be likewise checked as its main purpose appears to link to PICSO and to add supporting statements (“PICSO induced substantial risk reduction”). The entire article was created by Kipepea and belongs to the complex around Werner Mohl. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gone Obsolete or not?

Is Clonidine#cite_note-clinp-2 considered an outdated citation? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Relax....

Some edits are added via mobile devices (with small screens) and made while "'mobile'", so with limited time as well. You want to fix them...? Great! But there is no need to be a tool about it. - Wolf 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

? Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maccoby Biography

Hello Jytdog, I recently viewed the Michael Maccoby biography as I was introducing a client to Dr. Maccoby. I asked Maccoby why this was so out of sync with his real work and contributions. He responded, "I have tried to make changes, but they have been deleted. Since Maccoby is writing about his own work contribution (primary source), I am confused as to why you would delete his additions. What does he need to do different? Thanks, Cliff Norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffnorman (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note. First, like the rest of the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog here. So we don't really believe anyone who says "I am George Bush and this fact about me is true!" Instead, things here have to be based on what we call "reliable sources" (think New York Times). Also, we have a conflict of interest guideline here, so nobody really should edit about themselves anyway. If you or Michael are aware of reliable sources that we are not currently use them, you can information about them at the article talk page, and we can look at them. That talk page is here: Talk:Michael Maccoby. OK? Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cancer immunotherapy

Dear Jytdog, I am adding the first paper who presents an anticancer CAR-T cell. http://www.pnas.org/content/86/24/10024.full.pdf You can look also at this patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US7741465 As I see I am not violating any policy as I am not doing promotion but I am recognizing the merit of the pioneers of the CAR. Whats would it be the way of claiming X was the first on Y date ? What more evidence should I bring ? I am showing a very very early journal publication https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2149517/. You will not find anyone from before. I assure you. I am also showing you here a patent from those dates. On that moment these team also developed the first ever ScFv. But this is another discussion. Please respond MjenikMjenik (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page, and I will reply there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Judson Note

Thanks for your suggestion. I have made the change you suggested. Please let me know if it's not correct.-- Bruce Judson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceJudson (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry to pester but I was surprised when I hit that redirect. I went to your userpage to find out about what you are up to here in WP! Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unitron Advertising

You have repeatedly reverted my edits in order to keep content that seemed right out of an advertisement, and then sent edit warning in order to keep the ads.

Your edits turned: "Unitron is another hearing aid producer owned by Sonova. Unitron was founded in 1964 and currently operates within 70 countries." into: "Founded in 1964, Unitron partners with hearing care professionals to provide support for successful clinical outcomes and to enhance the patient experience with optimized products, services, and resources. Unitron sees its role as an extension of its customers’ service teams and has carved out a niche for itself within the industry for its approachability and collaborative style."

Given this, I have to ask if you have and conflict of interest and if so please disclose. Either you have a conflict of interest or you just like hitting the undo button without reading. I would write to the admin noticeboard but I strongly suspect the latter is the case.

Did you know there is more than one way to edit Wikipedia? I suggest you try the visual editor for a change, BUT DONT ADVERTIZE ON THE PAGE!!!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. And no, I have no connection with that company. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

To pay or not to pay - aye, there's the rub

I think there's probably little to be gained now by continuing to engage with KDS4444. He doesn't appear to appreciate advice. Nobody forced him into the murky world of paid editing, which being abhorred by the community whether declared or not, is always going to be stigmatised. His mistake was not in declaring his paid work, it would have been 'tolerated' under the current ruling if he hadn't recklessly tried to publish pages that would not survive NPP and AfD - the '...price [he] pays for disclosing [his] paid edits' , is the price of having to refund his customers. But then he got noticed for even holding advanced rights that are not compatible with money-making on the back of our volunteer work. If it were not him, another declared editor would sooner or later have made the same errors, but KDS drew the short straw and has been well and truly hung out to dry (partly by me) as an example. His real mistake is in persisting to claim he feels helpless and passive in the face of misfortune where he is really a victim of his own device, and desperately attempting to salvage one particular article by any means. KDS's new articles, if he writes any more, will continue to attract high scrutiny - there's nothing you or I can do about that - but I think we can take the heat of him now. That said, keep up your excellent work supporting the suggestions for tightening the rules and smoking out the people who abuse the principles of our encyclopedia and their drafts - and do ping me when you come across anything I have missed or that needs a rapid admin intervention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My goal is not to put heat on him, though. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see my comment on Erielhonan talk page regarding the skin cell gun SD following his objection on my talk page. I've pinged you as an interested party. Two things.

I redacted part of your comment since it was nopinged. Do you wish it to be included?

You're the expert on this, is there a case for restoring the article in any form, eg your minimal version?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your ping. I am fine with the redaction, i did "noping" on purpose. To have a WP article it would need to be rewritten from scratch so I do not think it should be restored. He has a recent copy of the article in his sandbox so he doesn't need it as a starting point (although it is not a good starting point...) Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. I'll follow that up tomorrow, I have some other stuff to do before I log off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbolic modeling

FYI to you and any TPS that are familiar with MEDRS that this might need to be watchlisted so it has eyes on it. I came across it while doing copypatrol, and it went from having no efficacy (uncited) to having positive effects. I've revdel'd the content, but you can find the sources in my edit summary cleaning it. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks, will have a look. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced school lists

Usually lists of schools in a place aren't challenged - I think because the criteria for whether something needs to be sourced is whether the content's likely to be challenged and usually a list of schools is "self-evident". De facto IMO stuff that's likely to be challenged is 99% of material on WP, but anyway...

It's better IMO to mark the section as "refimprove" or "unsourced" so somebody will see that and add sources. If it's just removed somebody will come back and add another unsourced list of schools, or the material's gone and won't get unsourced (and not having an overview of the education in a city subdivision is a big omission).

Since it's not BLP it's not especially sensitive so one can be "soft" with it. In Andheri I sourced the Japanese school and threw up a refimprove for the rest: Andheri#Education WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Andheri#Unsourced Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Cannabis edible

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

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

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

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

Alt med & cancer risks

A few interesting articles:

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

Also:

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

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

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

October 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Rheumatoid arthritis and EGCG - yes, too soon

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

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

CBOE

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

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

Creation of userbox

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Liraglutide/insulin degludec

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

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

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

IORT

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

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

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

ELs

Often an author gets the right to host a copy of their work on their university webpage.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I have spent some time working with publishers to expose their permissions in a machine-readable format[5] and one of the chief conclusions of the exercise was that in many cases this couldn't be done because the written documents were ultimately incoherent! Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Food, rivers and research

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

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

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

Broke 1RR

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

AE

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

Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#HSE_recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revdel

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

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

Ed Gillespie

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

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

Bible and Violence

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

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

Kindly avoid spamming my talk page.

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

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

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

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

COI - Monero and other cryptocurrencies

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

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

Your reversion and edit summary at Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns with proposed issues with Nature Exposure Sufficiency and Insufficiency

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cogmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concurring with above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marfan syndrome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarding DTTR (essay)

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

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

University Hospital Galway

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

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

Answers in Genesis

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

Forest Bathing

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

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

Please can you revert back to the one you edited?

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

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

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

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

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

Monero Sources

Hello.

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

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

I also want to make things easier for others to source their additions correctly. To this extent I put a list of sources on the talk page. Can you chip in with your opinion on them and to how they can be used? [6]

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

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

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

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

Beware of Tigers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oranjelo1000

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

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

Or you can apologize. Your choice.

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

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

November 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

POV

Hello Jytdog. A brand new account have filled all articles on haplogroups with a dubious map created by him[7]. Origins of those haplogroups are disputed and adding a map pushing a certain POV may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subject(s). Shouldn't those maps be removed from the LEAD? 85.174.59.101 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorry for the late reply, i have just seen your comment. Thank you for your attention @Doug Weller:. I noticed that the account is edit warring with other editors to push their map on the lead sections of WP articles[8]. An admin intervention would be helpful, because it seems that he keep reverting others. The lead sections of almost all articles on haplogroups have been filled with the same disputed map right now. As i clarified above, it is POV and may mislead naive readers who do not have enough knowledge on the subjects. Thanks. 37.204.54.76 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Easy there

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

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

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

Stop deleting peer-reviewed references

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

Some courtesy would be appreciated

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion2

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

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

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

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

Hey guy, maybe let someone else have a say?

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

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

Erythropoietin

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

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

Power posing edit war

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

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

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

EJustice

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

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

not spam

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

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

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

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

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

Good Article Nomination review underway for Vitamin C

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

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

ANI

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

Stock manipulation - bearish articles

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

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

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

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

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

Veganism Edit

Hi,

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

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

Re: people with privileges who edited for pay

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for replying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not looking for you to grovel.

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

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

Your last reply is clean enough that I will not seek further action. I cannot say what others will do. But you have completely exhausted my patience, that is for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Notice of Incidents noticeboard discussion

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

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

:) Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Article talk page

I cannot find article talk page - it gives me either yours or mine... How do I respond or ask questions "If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolcevikasf (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dolcevikasf. Every article has a talk page, even if blank, which can be reached by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the menu of any article. Alternatively, you can find it through the search box. If you want to comment on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln, then enter Talk:Abraham Lincoln into the search box. So just add "Talk:" before the precise article name. I use the desktop site on an Android smartphone, because some of the apps/mobile sites do not provide good support to serious editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen.  :) User:Dolcevikafs, before we start discussing content, would you please reply at your own talk page, here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Imprudent to reply right now

Addressing the central point

Regarding the question for me at COIN, I don't think naming names is prudent "at this juncture" as they say. There's enough SHTF for one day. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Just to be clear I want to lift up white hat paid editors. It was not any kinda "lets get 'em". But i appreciate your desire to keep it outta that context. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Followup. Though I didn't want to go into ad-hominem stuff – even if only perceived or potentially perceived as ad-hominem – I do want to elevate it into a discussion about policy here. The central point I want to address is this: is WP:PAID just and good? Or in the vernacular, "how's that working out for you [us]?" No hard feelings, I hope. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

V.S. Ramachandran: pending edit war.

There appears to be an edit war developing on the V.S. Ramachandran entry. In particular, NeuroWIKI99 is doing quite a few reversions and using the edit summaries to attack me personally.Neurorel (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As you probably remember, I used to watch that page for that sort of thing (I no longer want to do so). It might be a good idea for you to post about it at WP:BLPN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

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

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

• Hi Jytdog, I'd be a bit more cautious with this and so I've reworded it and added another ref. I'd prefer to let the source speak for itself than to assert on the BLP. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons file deletion discussion

Jytdog hi. I nominated the Age of Consent - Global.svg file for deletion over at Commons [9]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Amos Yee

Hi, posting here as I did not get a reply on the article talk page or my own talk page which you posted the notification. My recent edit was actually in reply to your edit summary that Mythcon 2017 was not mentioned in any decent refs, hence the removal akin to a citarion needed rationale. The Independent has been used repeatedly thoughout the article, so I thought that was a qualified source, plus I was actually using a more updated report (my last addition was from a report on 15 Nov, while the previous ones were from 12 Nov. Just trying to understand where I went wrong here. If look at my edits the past few days on other articles, you will notice that most of the time I had been addressing citation needed, so I thought this is a similar issue? Please advice. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw the reply in the article talk page, thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My appreciation for what you do

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this for cleaning up the mess at Acamprosate today. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		...and I'm awarding you this for dealing with the user who created those problems – Campral1234 – on his talk page and then at WP:ANI. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I shamelessly jacked your edit notice and copied it here (with some minor revisions). Hope you don't mind. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hijack away! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, User:Seppi333, the GABA pharmacology stuff in that article needs sourcing and love... right down your alley kinda? Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the pharmacodynamics of pharmaceutical drugs is probably what I write about the most on Wikipedia, hehe. I'll take a look at it shortly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think

I think that most people will have an easier time figuring out if a source is "independent" than if it's "secondary", and for probably 90% of information being added by newbies, independence/non-self-promotionalism is IMO the factor that's more important. Even within our own favorite area, which is just a tiny fraction of articles, "please do not just cite the company's own press releases" would solve a lot of problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

May be of interest

In case you missed it: ArbCom motion on crosswiki issues —PaleoNeonate – 03:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes i saw that. gotta watch those DS! :) Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Boyle

Re this. Is there an SPI about them? I see that they're very ducky but none of them are blocked. They're also refspamming e.g. at Personality test. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. CU is done, needs adminning and closing. it is under HRS395. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. I would block and tag them all, but I disagree with Katie about moving it to the most recent confirmed sock so will wait for a clerk. I don't think there's any particular rush to block (correct me if I'm wrong). SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is somewhat severe disruption at the circumcision-related articles but nothing unfixable. I only noted that they had not been blocked as the CU wrote the standard "blocked awaiting tags" note, but has not actually blocked them. must have been called away in the midst or something. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound

No intention of being promotional. Intention is to provide unbiased information on the topic. Your harassment and over-reach have been noted before and you are continuing this behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex dj (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reply to the notes at your talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

NO COI - Unbelievable that a balanced sharing of information cannot exist

Especially on pages related to health, etc...Agreed Wikpedia is no place for promotion but what you appear to be doing discourages the open sharing of information that is cited in peer reviewed medical journals. Differences can exist and readers should be presented with all credible information that is available. Ex dj (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to a direct reply, at your talk page, to the questions posed at your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello,

I have noticed the revisions to my edits to the page. I thought they were balanced and neutral. I have left a note on the talk section of the article.

I am trying to raise the quality of the article as much as possible. As a patient of the condition I take a deep interest in the content of the page, I realise this can cause problems with Wikipedia pages but I think I have done the best I can to keep the content as neutral and balanced as possible.

I try to follow the rules of Wikipedia medical aritcles the best I can. Any help in being able to make this a better article would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I have provided you with the WP:MED welcome on your talk page, which has a bunch of information that will help you. The key pages linked from it are WP:MEDRS (sourcing); WP:MEDMOS (style); and WP:MEDHOW, which has a bunch of helpful tips to writing about health in Wikipedia. Because you are passionate about this, would you please also review Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), which is much broader than its name implies and talks about various kinds of mistakes that people make due to passion, financial conflict of interest, or for some people, writing about their own theories about medicine. Thanks very much for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you hate me?

Why did you decide to destroy my edit. What have I ever done to you. Do you hate me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minho007 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors do not hate vandals, who are not worthy of an emotional response. Experienced editors just clean up messes, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know

I'm getting notices from Wikipedia about donation time. I used to donate money as well as edits to wikipedia. I liked wikipedia. Still do. But not as much anymore. After some unsavory messages (later edited to be slightly less unsavory) from @jytdog and off-hand deletions of contributions, I no longer trust Wikipedia's reliability as an information source. I really don't want to spare the time to discuss it, but suffice it to say, I feel that genuine, valid, truthful contributions are being disrespectfully swept under the rug off hand without investigation or thought. Maybe some feedback will give you insight. --Synthopedia (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)w

I interacted with the Synthopedia account at Talk:Functional_medicine and at its talk page and I have written nothing "unsavory" to that account. I have never reverted an edit made by that account. Perhaps you have edited under other accounts here? Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, by sources

But why did you delete this source? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17485267 This is an excellent article, and is not the primary source. Can I return it to the article? According to it, the article will be completed. Путеец (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is too old per WP:MEDDATE and Frontiers is something to use gingerly in any case. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I will use it gingerly. Anyhow, there are no any recent studies on the matter, but this one is very comprehensive and has never been refuted. It's also been cited in many relevant works up to 2017. Путеец (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sleaze

- with its slightly different meanings in Ae/Be, is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the signatories of this list.

Your first hand experience with some of them clearly appears to demonstrate that they deliberately disregard the voluntary work that goes into building this encyclopedia and maintaining the quality of its contents; they are hell bent on making a career out of it one way or another. Dealing with commercial abusers of Wikipedia is a serious drain on our resources. In the light of recent events (KDS, Arbcom, etc), paid editing may not actually be on the increase, but it would appear so because we are getting more proficient at smoking it out. That 4 year old project and its signatories have become a joke. Or at least a recent anachronism. There's no reason why outdated agreements can't be revoked. I think it's time for it to be revisited, and from my opinion, with which you are well acquainted, with a view to banning paid editing altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of all the people who signed the statement. Some of them clearly did it for lip service only as they have no actual presence here, but some of them are good citizens. I object to the broad brush, very strongly.

I don't think it possible to "ban paid editing" in any meaningful way.

I don't there will ever be consensus here to "ban paid editing" so even getting it done symbolically is very unlikely in my view. Don't know if you read the several efforts made in 2013 to do that, and listened to what the community said. (I put links to them here, under the "historical" subheader. It is worth taking an hour to read them and really listen).

I do think there is broad consensus to manage COI and paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, of course it will never be possible to eradicate paid editing, but 'banning' it would at least be symbolic. I don't think I'm mischaracterising anyone when I state yet again that paid editing is totally antithetical to the concept of voluntary projects - which it is, and there can be no counter argument. Many of us volunteers have a right to feel exploited and abused, not only, but also for the work we have to put in to smoke out and block the miscreants and find solutions. Someone was even advocating creating a Paid Editors' Club on Wiki - how absurd! Is that the concept of 'management'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That was me. And yes it is what I mean by "management", and on more than one level. :) Discussions about it are here (at the Statement), here at VP-proposals (where it was not loved), here at WT:COI where it was kind-of-liked. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This list was voted to be kept at this MfD. However, not without some disquiet and from people such as DGG who, like me, would prefer to see paid editing ultimately banned entirely. The other pages you link to have no bearing as they aer essays or failed proposals - they are only kept for historical purposes.That list is as a worthless as a dead parrot and is a joke. Its not a binding document of any kind such as a professional charter or a recognised code of practice such as the Bar Association or the Law Society. These people who blatantly exploit our voluntary work will sign anything if it keeps them in business.

I disagree with the idea of a Paid Editors' Club - we are not a web host, and I would be vehemently against our volunteers having to manage it. nevertheless, it was a good try - keep the ideas coming.

Consensus can change, and as some of these discussion go back early 10 years, consensus is changing, and there is a growing manifest disapproval of paid editing of any kind. Already in some of those older discussions is was stated that so much of the paid editing is black-hat anyway it may as well be completely disallowed. Add to that the fact that we have moved ahead quite a lot with our efforts at COI and SPI, and that we have a new, supposedly, more competent team at NPR who with ACTRIAL having significantly fewer pages to check, paid pages stand out even more clearly.

It should be obvious to any honest person that Wikipedia was not created for people to make a living out of. I'm already frustrated at the bloated WMF staff list of over 300 that our efforts get the donations that foot the bill for. There were 15 employees when I joined Wikipedia.

At the moment we'll have to wait until the outcome of the current Arbcom case before we can even begin to think about what the next step should be. then any RfC will have to be extremely carefully worded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand everything you are saying. I don't understand what you think the symbolic ban on paid editing would change in terms of what we actually experience as editors (the amount of bad content that paid editors add to WP). What do you think the symbolic ban would do? Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

see what I just posted on the COI talk p. It would enable us to clearly say and publish: Anyone who asks for payment for writing a WP articles is deceiving you. I intend to bring another MfD on the list--I do not think it would stay on now, & I think someof the people who organized it may be having second thoughts. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I did see. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Andre Marin

Hi Jytdog! It looks like there's a new editor wanting to polish up Mr. Marin's public image via Wikipedia. Your nonbiased input would be appreciated. Lurker9999 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)