![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
You are hereby advised that your accusation of canvassing at my TP April 5, 2015 and at the user's TP April 5, 2015 was inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of warning. As I explained to you here April 5, 2015, my efforts were about collaboration. You also need to evaluate your own behavior because it is certainly beginning to smell like hounding. Atsme☯ Consult 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"sort of an extension of COI guidelines"← no, it's a user essay with no guideline weight whatsoever. Even so, it's so toxic it is (deservedly) going to get deleted. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so if they have already published a COI statement on their UP, and they participate in an article where there may be a COI, are they supposed to indicate they have a published COI statement (like a link) somewhere in the discussion, or in the edit summary, or ???? Atsme☯ Consult 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, just wanted to thank you for your further attempts to reason with said user about Russ Martin. As you can see, I tried to be nice to him and explain in detail on my talk page. Sadly he responded with personal attacks. Hopefully he will come around. Best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
User jytdog, Why do you think it is edit war on medications? I am adding useful information to the section with reliable references. You want the section to talk about anti-inflammatory drug Aspirin but not an oral anti-hyperglycemic, Sulphonyl urea, why ? I am , to say the least, intrigued. Although there is a long separate article on anti-diabetic medications , I believe, we have to make some mention of different classes of medication on this page too. Please tell me what your specific objections are ? You removed, uncited text, fine but now I have included information from peer reviewed journals with citations? Is there anything that I have missed ? Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Per my comment here [2] you have been warned. Atsme☯ Consult 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: Regarding your response above about your disparaging remarks, I totally disagree, and have made note of your response. Atsme☯ Consult 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please dont jump down my throat and accuse me of edit warring just because i do a single revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neuropathic_pain&diff=655380815&oldid=655380571
I see on you talk page you have been accused of incivility on previous occasions.-- Penbat ( talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again JYtdog. As per our discussion on March 19th, would you have time to look at the two pages Single dealer platforms and Paul Caplin? I note they still have warnings at the top of them, and this really detracts from some great content in there. Would you have time in the next day or so to review these in an effort to get these pages back to a non-warning status? Your efforts are very much appreciated. Kind regards, Jennifer Jennifermaitland ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog, I appreciate it. I would just like those pages back to being sound pieces of info and once that is done I will propose some additions that I think will be helpful to single dealer platforms. A lot of students use the page so having it warning free would be a big help. Appreciate you're very busy though! Jennifermaitland ( talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Jytdog - I wonder if I you'll have time to look at this before we head in to Easter weekend? I would really appreciate that. Thanks, Jennifermaitland ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks Roxy the dog. I know he's very snowed under. Basically my concern are the big tags at the top of the articles. If there is stuff in the articles that still needs to be removed I certainly don't mind, but I'd just like to see the articles get back to looking more valid and without those tags as they are a valuable resource with some of the only non-biased information out there (you'll see that any other article referencing single dealer platform is usually on a big bank's website, and all the other stuff about Paul Caplin is to sell music). Happy to help in any way I can with clean ups of other pages if anyone needs a hand with anything. Thanks, Jennifermaitland ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Penbat#SPA_.2F_COI. I have neuropathic pain and have researched about a dozen different possible treatments. Scrambler device recently came to my attention and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia article for it so i thought it was worth doing. Pleaee withdraw your smear immediately.-- Penbat ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
But he's a writer of bad articles, like this one, Social undermining, created by him in 2010 that he doesn't fix. And this new one: Legal aspects of workplace bullying. He's created number on the subject of bullying that are mostly made up of links and lists, and the bullying template containing mostly his articles: {{ Bullying}} which he has ownership over. Another favorite subject is reflected in the template {{ Narcissism}}. IMO, these just show his knowledge of psychology is just enough to put together unrelated "facts" or terms with no understanding of theories in psychology. (He also takes every opportunity to use the word "fuck" in article titles; see latest article Fit in or fuck off. I don't object to the word, just his many articles with the word in its title. ) I could go on but won't. Just my opinion. And probably, these are mostly harmless if misleading articles. EChastain ( talk) 15:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI: The discussion beginning in Talk:Sherman Skolnick appears to be similar in nature to the one you are having in Talk:The Three Stooges (2012 film). - Location ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you've been notified, but you're mentioned at a new section at AN/I. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite our past differences, I actually do appreciate the work you do for WP in your area of expertise. Maybe the day will come that we can actually collaborate in harmony but until that day comes, let's do our best to not burn any bridges. Ok? Atsme☯ Consult 01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Tetramethylhexadecenyl_succinyl_cysteine ? -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog I request you allow my contributions to remain regarding transcaval TAVI. It appears effective, has been applied in over 90 patients to date, and has been lifesaving in some cases. The text is clear and has a high quality medical reference. I believe it important for patients and physicians to be aware of the alternative to other access techniques described, because lay sources of information are limited and because symptomatic aortic valve stenosis is quite dire without treatment. I'm new to wikipedia so regret if I am not following some appropriate procedure or technique Thank you 216.15.0.209 ( talk) 13:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dear Jytdog,
please help to translate the Text in this Article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.174.197 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my reference-backed changes on The Exodus. Your version only accounts for one perspective, and omits various archaeological evidence and historical commentary to the contrary. My changes offer users exposure to the full breadth of opinion, whereas your version forces--with clear agenda--only one set of opinion. Clearly, your actions lack academic integrity and violate Wikipedia's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neherz123 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said at AFD, I don't strongly disagree but I take issue (in the most minor of ways) with the premise that, "Editors who want to cite primary sources and create extensive or strong content based on them are often agenda-driven". Often? Perhaps I edit differently but I know I've included sources in various articles that are borderline primary sources and none of that related to agenda-driving. I edit extensively in areas of history (and very rarely in medicine-related topic areas) and primary sources are almost relied-upon to develop content. I don't consider that "original research" - in 99% of cases I'm simply restating facts from primary sources without commentary - x died on x date, he sailed on x ship, he was appointed to x position. When it comes to notability, there has to be a middle-ground between acknowledging that x number of people have written about something in a manner that substantiates "significant coverage" and acknowledging that some of those people have an agenda in publishing their material such that their coverage shouldn't be considered to confer notability. My point at AFD is that if the subject had been written about extensively in non-medical sources, it would likely be considered notable, regardless of the validity of those sources with regard to MEDRS. MEDRS is not a notability guideline and transferring its overly strict restrictions with regard to primary/secondary sources and tying them into WP:GNG and WP:RS for the purposes of assessing notability seems contrary to the purpose of MEDRS itself. It seems, to me, that guideline was created to restrict editors from making medical claims about subjects without proper sources to verify those claims. The guideline (surely) wasn't created to restrict the depth of medical subjects written about and I can't see that it makes any comment with regard to notability anyway. Anyway, I'm glad someone is talking about it and you've certainly been a good sport about it at AFD so kudos for that. St★lwart 111 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and my hatting there was not designed to restrict further discussion ("last word" sort of stuff) so please amend as you see fit. St★lwart 111 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, My only POV is a support for fact. I am not upset with company or have COI. PGs journey from inception to present dilemmas is a piece of Qld history needing to be comprehensively documented in an encyclopedia. I am interested in these topics and Qld history repeats itself if not told or covered up. If its hard to find positive RS for PG then that may be a reflection of factual situation created by them or by authorities inaction for so long. Alloduckie ( talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, we are related to Signum Biosciences. How we can disclose COI for future edits? We would like to understand the reasoning behind the reason EHT and Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine pages were redirected to your edited Signum Biosciences page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigrd ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm notifying you that I am opening a dispute in order to bring a third party and community into the discussion. I have tried to explain my changes, but all you do is link things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Scottch ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I didn't do the text on my own, it was a group project. As a task, we had to write for the cursus toxicology at the Radboud University Nijmegen about a chemical substance, about which isn't much information found on wikipedia. It was quiet interesting, but a lot of work. Maybe in the future I'll write another page. Hjg1008 ( talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
70.128.120.202 (
talk)
00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The COIN case I opened on Lajosgents was archived without comment. Is it a mistake? Brianhe ( talk) 04:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 13:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for fixing my mistake on the Active Release Technique page about primary sources. I didn't know about that rule. However, I think there's one important thing we still need to adjust. See my post on the talk page Talk:Active Release Technique#Misleading efficacy disclaimerThanks. Armadillo1985 ( talk) 14:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, You asked my on my usertalk page if I had any relationship with the authors whose work I've cited. I work at the same department at Leiden University as J.F. Brosschot, one of the authors of some of the works I have cited. However I am not paid by him or the university to make these contributions. I am a psychologist myself so therefore I also have some expertise on the matter. I'd be happy to disclose this if that would be relevant to the article, if you would be so kind as to explain to me if and where I should disclose this.
I wasn't aware that my edits would cause you to think I have a single purpose account. I was under the impression that the perseverative cognition article was accepted, and it said that it shouldn't be an orphaned article, therefore I added some links on other relevant pages to the perseverative cognition page. I thought that was what I was supposed to do? I am new to wikipedia and still figuring out all the guidelines, so I'm sorry if I did anything wrong and any tips or advice are welcome!
Thanks! Wikimoort ( talk) 07:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For sticking up for me and helping to ensure the matter was resolved quickly Huddsblue ( talk) 08:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
I felt that your comments on my Talk page were a bit off point.
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
[4] "many editors here have misread the proposed addition, its possible uses, and its intention - some wildly so." Curious - was there no self-analysis before making such a harsh comment against those who opposed your proposal? Remember, it's always better to stick to content, and not comment about editors. It actually gave me an idea for my next essay. I've always been amazed at how things circle around...and keep spinning. Inertia is a curious thing. Atsme☯ Consult 15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to explain how wikipedia works -- it is confusing for someone who is new to it. I will read through the different sections, and I understand that everything needs to be evidence based. I started out not wanting to be combative, it's just everything I write gets ignored and the page doesn't change. Because the naturopathy page is classified as "fringe" my understanding is that there are administrators who get to dictate the content, and it really seems like they have a bias against Naturopathic Medicine. Just the line in the intro, about naturopathy being replete with unscientific, potentially dangerous practices is a pretty harsh and insulting judgment. Even WebMd's page on naturopathic medicine is far more respectful. I want to see mainstream sources with other perspectives used to create content, but nothing I write up gets on the page. This is why I am so frustrated. I guess the best thing is to keep trying to post sections that are well cited with mainstream sources. I really appreciate everything you wrote on my page, thank you for taking the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris ( talk • contribs) 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sorry for the delay of my answer, but I contribute on Wikipedia content only on my free time. To answer to our question : No, I don't have any relationships with companies or people involved with the subject. I have past a lot of my free time to add my contribution on Wikipedia, checked with references, so if you find some part not neutral, just tell me precisely where and I'll rewrite it. Our goal are mutual we want a rich and neutral Wikipedia as possible. Regards Poulpii — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Good job violating WP:AGF, dear sir (as you can see from my contribution history going all the way back to 2004, I'm not known for WP:VAND). Of course it's easier to insult a fellow editor (violation of WP:CIV, mind you) who is honestly trying to improve WP, and revert what you don't like, rather than attempt to join forces and search for the proper sources together. Good bye, I am outta here, enjoy your WP:Adminitis -- Wesha ( talk) 23:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you've violated 3RR today with these edits. [5] [6] [7] [8] I know there were two Ribena sections (I was about to remove the old one), but you removed the new one, and that had nothing to do with your removal of the paroxetine material. I'd appreciate if it if you would retore the Ribena material and if the reverting could stop. The article could use a copy edit. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Remove reliable source as Indonesian Embassy and El Mercurio is vandalisme. Please respect what other people contributed...-- AdvPrima ( talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I've advised the editor adding a review of this nucleotide about the need to rely on secondary sources. He's a scientist, so was trying to cite the original literature - as we're trained to do. I've reverted back to the expanded version and added a tag about needing more secondary sources. Hope that's OK. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I had dealings but not in a while. I just believe that the editing here has not been totally altruistic or objective, and because of the issues he cares about he often attracts opposition. That opposition has no place in this article about him. TLVEWR ( talk) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, just a note to let you know that I swapped the headings to Break 1 and 2, rather than Survey and Discussion. It didn't seem appropriate that one of the people supporting the ban moved relevant material posted by Doors to a different section (as Formerly just did). This isn't like an article RfC where discussion might continue for 30 days. AN/I discussions are much shorter in duration, so that kind of tight structure usually isn't needed, and in this case it didn't seem fair. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: didn't show an interest in reviewing the COI draft. You had started reviewing it, so I wanted to see if you wanted to take this one on, or if I should see if I can drag another editor in to review. Should be a pretty easy one, as it's not a controversial company. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Jean Miller. Part of the Brice Stratford cohort. Just wanted you to know, so you could properly tag it. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just posting this here because I understand your position, and I want to make sure you understand mine. You are a rational editor in my experience, and while you may not see it, I'm still engaging in an effort to be a rational editor, myself.
I'm not attempting to remove information about the possible harm of the drug (if you look in the previous section, you'll see where I mentioned having once driven a friend to the ER after smoking cannabis interfered with his pre-existing heart condition: I know it can be dangerous, even life threatening under the right circumstances!), but am working to ensure that Formerly 98's stated goal of shifting the focus of of the section to put more emphasis on the dangers of the drug doesn't devolve into POV pushing. Were he not involved in this effort, I'd be fine with the language as it is, but with information being added and re-worded to put more emphasis on the dangers, I want to ensure that there's nothing even remotely questionable about the contents.
In this case, my only objection was to the sentence which characterized the incidents reported on as being "determined" to have been caused by cannabis. We're talking about a field (medicine) which most people don't understand very well. It's not a stretch for the average person to assume there is some sort of test a doctor could perform which could conclusively identify the cause of the visit as cannabis injestion, when the truth is that there is not. It's a judgement call on the part of the medical professional, something which is better described as "implicated" than "determined". The use of the word "most" doesn't bother me at all. In fact, given the relative popularity of marijuanna, I'm a little surprised it was only 30%.
Again, I just want to reiterate that I don't see it as a major issue except that the section is being shifted towards a specific focus and in that context, I am nitpicking anything which might push that change in focus over the edge into POV pushing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, guilty as charged! It absolutely was my intent to shift the POV of the safety section of this article, which was dramatically non-NPOV. When I started editing this article, the section started out by summarizing a Lancet review on the safety of cannabis with the sentence
Here is what the source actually said
All of which was summarized with the sentence "THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high." The article then went on to cite the AE profile of nabiximols as evidence for the safety of cannabis, even though the dose is 1/10th that normally absorbed as a smoker. But I'm a POV pusher. Right. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is now a section titled Make no mistake wherein I modified and emphasized several aspects based on your criticisms and suggestions. Under Keep your behavior in check, I'm a little iffy on whether the last bullet point belongs there. It was originally added by AlbinoFerret and it's a good addition, but I'm not sure where it should go. Thanks again. Atsme☯ Consult 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, thank you-- Sigehelmus ( talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for stepping in there with the Titus case. I am trying to figure out if I could have done better. There was a similar case where I got called in, did my best, but a new editor got really bitter and quit. How far does a conversation have to go before I should report it, and where? Thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Check out the mess this making: Education_Program:Boston_College/Environmental_Disruptors_of_Development_(Spring_2015)... anything relating to MEDRS shouldn't be edited by unwilling students: [9]! On a brighter note, if you have a moment, do you have any further ideas about this? SmartSE ( talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have seen your notes to me, and the answer is that I only have influence over the edits I make. I cannot speak to anyone else's. Yet, I comment on the talk pages and make my views known. In the case you just reversed, I would surmise that you reversed it just because you believe the editor was unwarranted and not necessarily because of the intent of the change. With that article in particular I would think that editors would be more concerned at being objective and not try to paint the subject based on his/her own opinions or beliefs. While I admit that there can be a lot of heated debate on the issues involved, Wikipedia is supposed to be an neutral center and not a news site for ideological positioning. Juda S. Engelmayer ( talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"I will say this one time. do not stalk me." I found this on my talk page just after editing on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. First, I have told you that you are no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet you have posted twice since this request. Secondly, the post is hollow, as it appears that you have been stalking me. Thirdly, the post is a threat. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
i really have no idea what has made you take such a personal disliking to me. have you noticed, i am not engaging with you. i walked away at 24D. I walked away at WT:COI. due to the way you immediately personalize any content dispute we have, I want to stay the hell away from you, and would prefer if you do the same -- do not follow me around. Jytdog ( talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Am tired of being abused and insulted with biased editors here. I appreciate any assistance you can have to ensure accuracy. I'd appreciate confidential emails to ronn@5wpr.com if youd like to correspond directly. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 ( talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. I'm not much of an advocate for "wikilove" and " WP:CIV" and that, but your post here grated on me, compare my own comment. Please consider that the "usernames" are people of flesh and blood. Did you happen to look at the person's userpage? Bishonen | talk 22:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Doors22 (
talk •
contribs)
00:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I need people to work on new shows with.
SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (
talk)
12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
…patient and kind attention at the Mol binding page, but I will not be editing there any more. There is a very, very long history of disrespect and even stalking with this editor (hence my brief puffery), and I have consequently wasted months of life with him. His modus operandi is always the same, to come into the midst of a period of my work—thanks on the keen intel on the "work in progress" tag, a technical detail I'd note he could have shared with me anytime in the last two years. He then reverts, and and on attempting to discuss, belittles my differing ideas. This proceeds to a phase to wear me out through (i) muddying broader Talk discussion by continuing to making changes during cool-down periods where I've called for expert attention, (ii) removing the calls for outside attention, unilaterally, and (iii) persistence in reverting in various ways, alone or through networks. As such, I have given up on every article where this editor has come on. (In this case, I mistakenly wandered into his turf; in past, his pattern has been to follow me to articles I have earlier engaged, under guise of keeping tabs on a problem editor.) I now stay away from most science (because his and my interests overlap too significantly), instead publishing elsewhere (and not freely contributing here), esp. because of the stalking time-wasting, but also because of his apparent complete lack of self-awareness about his bias and perniciousness. Even when other editors have come on and argued, as you did today, that there was value in what was being reverted—thank you again for your voice—the result, most often is that they depart, being worn out by the tension. This is a further reason—wasting others' time, added to my own own—that leads me to always depart when he arrives. Note when you can, at that article, the discrepancies that have been introduced through fast, careless reversions/edits, and if you can, see the article to better standing. I am out of contributing there, but will support you in any way that I can. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
…clarifying information about the meaning of covalent be left in, because, while accessible via wikilink, having key distinctions made in the article actually being read helps readers avoid distraction and gain most of the required information before they first click out of the article. This is a matter of personal pedagogic preference (PPP!), on how we think our students best learn, and so an individual matter for educators to wrestle with. But here in particular, a key editorial issue of the article remains whether covalent adducts are complexes or not, and so this detail I would ask to remain in. But, I am not editing there anymore, so it is uo to you, mate. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
You are hereby advised that your accusation of canvassing at my TP April 5, 2015 and at the user's TP April 5, 2015 was inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of warning. As I explained to you here April 5, 2015, my efforts were about collaboration. You also need to evaluate your own behavior because it is certainly beginning to smell like hounding. Atsme☯ Consult 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"sort of an extension of COI guidelines"← no, it's a user essay with no guideline weight whatsoever. Even so, it's so toxic it is (deservedly) going to get deleted. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so if they have already published a COI statement on their UP, and they participate in an article where there may be a COI, are they supposed to indicate they have a published COI statement (like a link) somewhere in the discussion, or in the edit summary, or ???? Atsme☯ Consult 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, just wanted to thank you for your further attempts to reason with said user about Russ Martin. As you can see, I tried to be nice to him and explain in detail on my talk page. Sadly he responded with personal attacks. Hopefully he will come around. Best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
User jytdog, Why do you think it is edit war on medications? I am adding useful information to the section with reliable references. You want the section to talk about anti-inflammatory drug Aspirin but not an oral anti-hyperglycemic, Sulphonyl urea, why ? I am , to say the least, intrigued. Although there is a long separate article on anti-diabetic medications , I believe, we have to make some mention of different classes of medication on this page too. Please tell me what your specific objections are ? You removed, uncited text, fine but now I have included information from peer reviewed journals with citations? Is there anything that I have missed ? Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Per my comment here [2] you have been warned. Atsme☯ Consult 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: Regarding your response above about your disparaging remarks, I totally disagree, and have made note of your response. Atsme☯ Consult 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please dont jump down my throat and accuse me of edit warring just because i do a single revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neuropathic_pain&diff=655380815&oldid=655380571
I see on you talk page you have been accused of incivility on previous occasions.-- Penbat ( talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again JYtdog. As per our discussion on March 19th, would you have time to look at the two pages Single dealer platforms and Paul Caplin? I note they still have warnings at the top of them, and this really detracts from some great content in there. Would you have time in the next day or so to review these in an effort to get these pages back to a non-warning status? Your efforts are very much appreciated. Kind regards, Jennifer Jennifermaitland ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog, I appreciate it. I would just like those pages back to being sound pieces of info and once that is done I will propose some additions that I think will be helpful to single dealer platforms. A lot of students use the page so having it warning free would be a big help. Appreciate you're very busy though! Jennifermaitland ( talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Jytdog - I wonder if I you'll have time to look at this before we head in to Easter weekend? I would really appreciate that. Thanks, Jennifermaitland ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks Roxy the dog. I know he's very snowed under. Basically my concern are the big tags at the top of the articles. If there is stuff in the articles that still needs to be removed I certainly don't mind, but I'd just like to see the articles get back to looking more valid and without those tags as they are a valuable resource with some of the only non-biased information out there (you'll see that any other article referencing single dealer platform is usually on a big bank's website, and all the other stuff about Paul Caplin is to sell music). Happy to help in any way I can with clean ups of other pages if anyone needs a hand with anything. Thanks, Jennifermaitland ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Penbat#SPA_.2F_COI. I have neuropathic pain and have researched about a dozen different possible treatments. Scrambler device recently came to my attention and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia article for it so i thought it was worth doing. Pleaee withdraw your smear immediately.-- Penbat ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
But he's a writer of bad articles, like this one, Social undermining, created by him in 2010 that he doesn't fix. And this new one: Legal aspects of workplace bullying. He's created number on the subject of bullying that are mostly made up of links and lists, and the bullying template containing mostly his articles: {{ Bullying}} which he has ownership over. Another favorite subject is reflected in the template {{ Narcissism}}. IMO, these just show his knowledge of psychology is just enough to put together unrelated "facts" or terms with no understanding of theories in psychology. (He also takes every opportunity to use the word "fuck" in article titles; see latest article Fit in or fuck off. I don't object to the word, just his many articles with the word in its title. ) I could go on but won't. Just my opinion. And probably, these are mostly harmless if misleading articles. EChastain ( talk) 15:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI: The discussion beginning in Talk:Sherman Skolnick appears to be similar in nature to the one you are having in Talk:The Three Stooges (2012 film). - Location ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you've been notified, but you're mentioned at a new section at AN/I. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite our past differences, I actually do appreciate the work you do for WP in your area of expertise. Maybe the day will come that we can actually collaborate in harmony but until that day comes, let's do our best to not burn any bridges. Ok? Atsme☯ Consult 01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Tetramethylhexadecenyl_succinyl_cysteine ? -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog I request you allow my contributions to remain regarding transcaval TAVI. It appears effective, has been applied in over 90 patients to date, and has been lifesaving in some cases. The text is clear and has a high quality medical reference. I believe it important for patients and physicians to be aware of the alternative to other access techniques described, because lay sources of information are limited and because symptomatic aortic valve stenosis is quite dire without treatment. I'm new to wikipedia so regret if I am not following some appropriate procedure or technique Thank you 216.15.0.209 ( talk) 13:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dear Jytdog,
please help to translate the Text in this Article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.174.197 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my reference-backed changes on The Exodus. Your version only accounts for one perspective, and omits various archaeological evidence and historical commentary to the contrary. My changes offer users exposure to the full breadth of opinion, whereas your version forces--with clear agenda--only one set of opinion. Clearly, your actions lack academic integrity and violate Wikipedia's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neherz123 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said at AFD, I don't strongly disagree but I take issue (in the most minor of ways) with the premise that, "Editors who want to cite primary sources and create extensive or strong content based on them are often agenda-driven". Often? Perhaps I edit differently but I know I've included sources in various articles that are borderline primary sources and none of that related to agenda-driving. I edit extensively in areas of history (and very rarely in medicine-related topic areas) and primary sources are almost relied-upon to develop content. I don't consider that "original research" - in 99% of cases I'm simply restating facts from primary sources without commentary - x died on x date, he sailed on x ship, he was appointed to x position. When it comes to notability, there has to be a middle-ground between acknowledging that x number of people have written about something in a manner that substantiates "significant coverage" and acknowledging that some of those people have an agenda in publishing their material such that their coverage shouldn't be considered to confer notability. My point at AFD is that if the subject had been written about extensively in non-medical sources, it would likely be considered notable, regardless of the validity of those sources with regard to MEDRS. MEDRS is not a notability guideline and transferring its overly strict restrictions with regard to primary/secondary sources and tying them into WP:GNG and WP:RS for the purposes of assessing notability seems contrary to the purpose of MEDRS itself. It seems, to me, that guideline was created to restrict editors from making medical claims about subjects without proper sources to verify those claims. The guideline (surely) wasn't created to restrict the depth of medical subjects written about and I can't see that it makes any comment with regard to notability anyway. Anyway, I'm glad someone is talking about it and you've certainly been a good sport about it at AFD so kudos for that. St★lwart 111 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and my hatting there was not designed to restrict further discussion ("last word" sort of stuff) so please amend as you see fit. St★lwart 111 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, My only POV is a support for fact. I am not upset with company or have COI. PGs journey from inception to present dilemmas is a piece of Qld history needing to be comprehensively documented in an encyclopedia. I am interested in these topics and Qld history repeats itself if not told or covered up. If its hard to find positive RS for PG then that may be a reflection of factual situation created by them or by authorities inaction for so long. Alloduckie ( talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, we are related to Signum Biosciences. How we can disclose COI for future edits? We would like to understand the reasoning behind the reason EHT and Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine pages were redirected to your edited Signum Biosciences page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigrd ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm notifying you that I am opening a dispute in order to bring a third party and community into the discussion. I have tried to explain my changes, but all you do is link things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Scottch ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I didn't do the text on my own, it was a group project. As a task, we had to write for the cursus toxicology at the Radboud University Nijmegen about a chemical substance, about which isn't much information found on wikipedia. It was quiet interesting, but a lot of work. Maybe in the future I'll write another page. Hjg1008 ( talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
70.128.120.202 (
talk)
00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The COIN case I opened on Lajosgents was archived without comment. Is it a mistake? Brianhe ( talk) 04:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 13:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for fixing my mistake on the Active Release Technique page about primary sources. I didn't know about that rule. However, I think there's one important thing we still need to adjust. See my post on the talk page Talk:Active Release Technique#Misleading efficacy disclaimerThanks. Armadillo1985 ( talk) 14:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, You asked my on my usertalk page if I had any relationship with the authors whose work I've cited. I work at the same department at Leiden University as J.F. Brosschot, one of the authors of some of the works I have cited. However I am not paid by him or the university to make these contributions. I am a psychologist myself so therefore I also have some expertise on the matter. I'd be happy to disclose this if that would be relevant to the article, if you would be so kind as to explain to me if and where I should disclose this.
I wasn't aware that my edits would cause you to think I have a single purpose account. I was under the impression that the perseverative cognition article was accepted, and it said that it shouldn't be an orphaned article, therefore I added some links on other relevant pages to the perseverative cognition page. I thought that was what I was supposed to do? I am new to wikipedia and still figuring out all the guidelines, so I'm sorry if I did anything wrong and any tips or advice are welcome!
Thanks! Wikimoort ( talk) 07:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For sticking up for me and helping to ensure the matter was resolved quickly Huddsblue ( talk) 08:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
I felt that your comments on my Talk page were a bit off point.
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
[4] "many editors here have misread the proposed addition, its possible uses, and its intention - some wildly so." Curious - was there no self-analysis before making such a harsh comment against those who opposed your proposal? Remember, it's always better to stick to content, and not comment about editors. It actually gave me an idea for my next essay. I've always been amazed at how things circle around...and keep spinning. Inertia is a curious thing. Atsme☯ Consult 15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to explain how wikipedia works -- it is confusing for someone who is new to it. I will read through the different sections, and I understand that everything needs to be evidence based. I started out not wanting to be combative, it's just everything I write gets ignored and the page doesn't change. Because the naturopathy page is classified as "fringe" my understanding is that there are administrators who get to dictate the content, and it really seems like they have a bias against Naturopathic Medicine. Just the line in the intro, about naturopathy being replete with unscientific, potentially dangerous practices is a pretty harsh and insulting judgment. Even WebMd's page on naturopathic medicine is far more respectful. I want to see mainstream sources with other perspectives used to create content, but nothing I write up gets on the page. This is why I am so frustrated. I guess the best thing is to keep trying to post sections that are well cited with mainstream sources. I really appreciate everything you wrote on my page, thank you for taking the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris ( talk • contribs) 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sorry for the delay of my answer, but I contribute on Wikipedia content only on my free time. To answer to our question : No, I don't have any relationships with companies or people involved with the subject. I have past a lot of my free time to add my contribution on Wikipedia, checked with references, so if you find some part not neutral, just tell me precisely where and I'll rewrite it. Our goal are mutual we want a rich and neutral Wikipedia as possible. Regards Poulpii — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Good job violating WP:AGF, dear sir (as you can see from my contribution history going all the way back to 2004, I'm not known for WP:VAND). Of course it's easier to insult a fellow editor (violation of WP:CIV, mind you) who is honestly trying to improve WP, and revert what you don't like, rather than attempt to join forces and search for the proper sources together. Good bye, I am outta here, enjoy your WP:Adminitis -- Wesha ( talk) 23:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you've violated 3RR today with these edits. [5] [6] [7] [8] I know there were two Ribena sections (I was about to remove the old one), but you removed the new one, and that had nothing to do with your removal of the paroxetine material. I'd appreciate if it if you would retore the Ribena material and if the reverting could stop. The article could use a copy edit. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Remove reliable source as Indonesian Embassy and El Mercurio is vandalisme. Please respect what other people contributed...-- AdvPrima ( talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I've advised the editor adding a review of this nucleotide about the need to rely on secondary sources. He's a scientist, so was trying to cite the original literature - as we're trained to do. I've reverted back to the expanded version and added a tag about needing more secondary sources. Hope that's OK. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I had dealings but not in a while. I just believe that the editing here has not been totally altruistic or objective, and because of the issues he cares about he often attracts opposition. That opposition has no place in this article about him. TLVEWR ( talk) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, just a note to let you know that I swapped the headings to Break 1 and 2, rather than Survey and Discussion. It didn't seem appropriate that one of the people supporting the ban moved relevant material posted by Doors to a different section (as Formerly just did). This isn't like an article RfC where discussion might continue for 30 days. AN/I discussions are much shorter in duration, so that kind of tight structure usually isn't needed, and in this case it didn't seem fair. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: didn't show an interest in reviewing the COI draft. You had started reviewing it, so I wanted to see if you wanted to take this one on, or if I should see if I can drag another editor in to review. Should be a pretty easy one, as it's not a controversial company. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Jean Miller. Part of the Brice Stratford cohort. Just wanted you to know, so you could properly tag it. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just posting this here because I understand your position, and I want to make sure you understand mine. You are a rational editor in my experience, and while you may not see it, I'm still engaging in an effort to be a rational editor, myself.
I'm not attempting to remove information about the possible harm of the drug (if you look in the previous section, you'll see where I mentioned having once driven a friend to the ER after smoking cannabis interfered with his pre-existing heart condition: I know it can be dangerous, even life threatening under the right circumstances!), but am working to ensure that Formerly 98's stated goal of shifting the focus of of the section to put more emphasis on the dangers of the drug doesn't devolve into POV pushing. Were he not involved in this effort, I'd be fine with the language as it is, but with information being added and re-worded to put more emphasis on the dangers, I want to ensure that there's nothing even remotely questionable about the contents.
In this case, my only objection was to the sentence which characterized the incidents reported on as being "determined" to have been caused by cannabis. We're talking about a field (medicine) which most people don't understand very well. It's not a stretch for the average person to assume there is some sort of test a doctor could perform which could conclusively identify the cause of the visit as cannabis injestion, when the truth is that there is not. It's a judgement call on the part of the medical professional, something which is better described as "implicated" than "determined". The use of the word "most" doesn't bother me at all. In fact, given the relative popularity of marijuanna, I'm a little surprised it was only 30%.
Again, I just want to reiterate that I don't see it as a major issue except that the section is being shifted towards a specific focus and in that context, I am nitpicking anything which might push that change in focus over the edge into POV pushing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, guilty as charged! It absolutely was my intent to shift the POV of the safety section of this article, which was dramatically non-NPOV. When I started editing this article, the section started out by summarizing a Lancet review on the safety of cannabis with the sentence
Here is what the source actually said
All of which was summarized with the sentence "THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high." The article then went on to cite the AE profile of nabiximols as evidence for the safety of cannabis, even though the dose is 1/10th that normally absorbed as a smoker. But I'm a POV pusher. Right. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is now a section titled Make no mistake wherein I modified and emphasized several aspects based on your criticisms and suggestions. Under Keep your behavior in check, I'm a little iffy on whether the last bullet point belongs there. It was originally added by AlbinoFerret and it's a good addition, but I'm not sure where it should go. Thanks again. Atsme☯ Consult 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, thank you-- Sigehelmus ( talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for stepping in there with the Titus case. I am trying to figure out if I could have done better. There was a similar case where I got called in, did my best, but a new editor got really bitter and quit. How far does a conversation have to go before I should report it, and where? Thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Check out the mess this making: Education_Program:Boston_College/Environmental_Disruptors_of_Development_(Spring_2015)... anything relating to MEDRS shouldn't be edited by unwilling students: [9]! On a brighter note, if you have a moment, do you have any further ideas about this? SmartSE ( talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have seen your notes to me, and the answer is that I only have influence over the edits I make. I cannot speak to anyone else's. Yet, I comment on the talk pages and make my views known. In the case you just reversed, I would surmise that you reversed it just because you believe the editor was unwarranted and not necessarily because of the intent of the change. With that article in particular I would think that editors would be more concerned at being objective and not try to paint the subject based on his/her own opinions or beliefs. While I admit that there can be a lot of heated debate on the issues involved, Wikipedia is supposed to be an neutral center and not a news site for ideological positioning. Juda S. Engelmayer ( talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"I will say this one time. do not stalk me." I found this on my talk page just after editing on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. First, I have told you that you are no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet you have posted twice since this request. Secondly, the post is hollow, as it appears that you have been stalking me. Thirdly, the post is a threat. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
i really have no idea what has made you take such a personal disliking to me. have you noticed, i am not engaging with you. i walked away at 24D. I walked away at WT:COI. due to the way you immediately personalize any content dispute we have, I want to stay the hell away from you, and would prefer if you do the same -- do not follow me around. Jytdog ( talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Am tired of being abused and insulted with biased editors here. I appreciate any assistance you can have to ensure accuracy. I'd appreciate confidential emails to ronn@5wpr.com if youd like to correspond directly. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 ( talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. I'm not much of an advocate for "wikilove" and " WP:CIV" and that, but your post here grated on me, compare my own comment. Please consider that the "usernames" are people of flesh and blood. Did you happen to look at the person's userpage? Bishonen | talk 22:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Doors22 (
talk •
contribs)
00:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I need people to work on new shows with.
SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (
talk)
12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
…patient and kind attention at the Mol binding page, but I will not be editing there any more. There is a very, very long history of disrespect and even stalking with this editor (hence my brief puffery), and I have consequently wasted months of life with him. His modus operandi is always the same, to come into the midst of a period of my work—thanks on the keen intel on the "work in progress" tag, a technical detail I'd note he could have shared with me anytime in the last two years. He then reverts, and and on attempting to discuss, belittles my differing ideas. This proceeds to a phase to wear me out through (i) muddying broader Talk discussion by continuing to making changes during cool-down periods where I've called for expert attention, (ii) removing the calls for outside attention, unilaterally, and (iii) persistence in reverting in various ways, alone or through networks. As such, I have given up on every article where this editor has come on. (In this case, I mistakenly wandered into his turf; in past, his pattern has been to follow me to articles I have earlier engaged, under guise of keeping tabs on a problem editor.) I now stay away from most science (because his and my interests overlap too significantly), instead publishing elsewhere (and not freely contributing here), esp. because of the stalking time-wasting, but also because of his apparent complete lack of self-awareness about his bias and perniciousness. Even when other editors have come on and argued, as you did today, that there was value in what was being reverted—thank you again for your voice—the result, most often is that they depart, being worn out by the tension. This is a further reason—wasting others' time, added to my own own—that leads me to always depart when he arrives. Note when you can, at that article, the discrepancies that have been introduced through fast, careless reversions/edits, and if you can, see the article to better standing. I am out of contributing there, but will support you in any way that I can. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
…clarifying information about the meaning of covalent be left in, because, while accessible via wikilink, having key distinctions made in the article actually being read helps readers avoid distraction and gain most of the required information before they first click out of the article. This is a matter of personal pedagogic preference (PPP!), on how we think our students best learn, and so an individual matter for educators to wrestle with. But here in particular, a key editorial issue of the article remains whether covalent adducts are complexes or not, and so this detail I would ask to remain in. But, I am not editing there anymore, so it is uo to you, mate. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)