![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Stop or I will request you be blocked. It's been revealed you have been edit warring this article for months and attempting to out hapless new users. You still stop or be stopped. Please see WP:ANI. 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge ( talk • contribs)
I'm happy to see that you agreed with Snow Rise's thoughtful analysis at ANI, because what he said really hits the nail on the head (as you've heard me say ad nauseum before). (But other than that, I think the multiple threads about you there today have been some of the most ridiculously nonsensical stuff I've seen in some time. So you have my genuine sympathy there.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
You should check out Goggle Maps' response to the query "7601 Cousteau Drive, Rowlett, TX, United States" to judge whether the story is relevant. 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It was of course definitely not bright to rely on Google maps on this occasion. However, I would have thought there are minimal standards for map makers, or are there none in the US? 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion. If I come across some research on that, I'll look into that. 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
how do I cite math? there is no need to be rude. If you care about accuracy of information then you would care about when you have been led to believe false information by the accepted sources. Mathematics proves these sources incorrect based off the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Made some changes per your remarks. Please drop by and comment. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When you noticed The Chardon Polka Band was tagged for notability, you noted "seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit". Thanks for contributing. I cleaned up the article and started a discussion of Notability on its talk page. Please contribute to discussion and/or confirm or remove notability tag, as I may or may not be considered impartial. Lefton4ya ( talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I am from the same area they are from and and am kinda friends with the band. I am not paid by them or asked to edit by them, but just trying to clean up their wiki page and noticed the notability tag . In trying to be a good denizen of WP but also help the band I like, I added references and cleaned up the article and also removed notability tag, but when it was added back I didn't want to start an edit war and felt someone more impartial should decide. But check out the talk page for discussion points. Lefton4ya ( talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog. I am not sure where to post this for your convenience, so please pardon me if I should use my own talk page. I modified the draft Renee Radell article per your suggestions, taking out any flattering comments and citing all statements of fact. Might I ask when such a piece warrants submission? Both you and DGG have said that notability should probably not be a problem. My COI as a relative of Renee would be the reason I should not submit this directly? Thank you kindly for any suggestions about next steps OtterNYC ( talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Commenting here rather than the messy project talk page. Would you have any problem with a 'seal' that identified a particular version of the article as having gone through some formal process? That would address your objection about the article immediately ceasing to be 'accurate' as soon as a new edit was made. I discussed this with Anthonyhcole a while ago. There is a desperate need for some kind of process that either alerts readers to particularly bad articles, or encourages them in the direction of slightly better ones. Peter Damian ( talk) 08:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to start a post war, just new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what was going on. sorry Madelinerobin ( talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Madelinerobin
Thanks incredibly much for cleaning up those articles. I am not an expert - I could merely see that the sources in no way supported the references, which you confirmed. It would help to understand the seriousness of the errors in the Chlorine and NO2 poisoning articles. Did this create the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way? Peter Damian ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on Omeprazole. I was apparently asleep at the wheel and didn't notice it was the lead I was removing the info from. – Robin Hood (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Re diff, it is not possible to "fix" a ping. Thinking about what would happen when editors correct typos or make other adjustments to their comments shows the reason for that. A notification will only occur when adding new content with a new signature. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the diff at AfD EGS (I'm watching it to remind myself to vote later): diff. That won't work! If you comment with a ping, then notice that it was broken, you have two choices. First, add a new comment (do not edit anything, add a new line with a new message and a new signature); the new message would have a short note something like "re-ping to fix mistake". Second, in one edit, delete all of the erroneous comment and save the page, then add a new comment with the fixed text. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
It takes a real son of a gun to get me to admit when I'm wrong about the wording of one of our core policies, especially WP:EP which I guard like a hawk, but somehow you've (mostly) won me over. It's a genuine pleasure and delight to meet another editor who as strongly believes in WP:5P as I do. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
Useful template, if you weren't aware:
Hope that's helpful in the future,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice work on this article. Thanks. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog - re your recent edit and comment - I thought the overview was supposed to summarise the page - I at first added to Trapezoid body linking decussate so in my mind removing necessity for detailed info in overview and trimming section. But if I was wrong - so be it.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
China is a source country of Mail-order brides you can find a lot of Websites in the Internet so it is a fact but its very difficult to find a reliable source so please could you insert the Citation needed-Symbol?-- 141.19.228.15 ( talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, when I said "My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?" at AfD, I was thinking of the Piggate article, I was mixing them up (pork and politicians in both, you know). Just thought I'd mention it. Then I thought I'd go prod Piggate, but it has already been AfD'd and kept with something like fifty keep votes. I wonder what message board they came from. But since it's the encyclopedia any canvassed idiot can edit, not much can be done about it. I'm thinking maybe I need a break from all the silliness.
However, incidentally, you know the article Barack the Magic Negro that you mentioned (and which is at least a song, not just a fucking "meme")? It led me to the very interesting article Magical Negro. Educational! There's some good stuff here! Bishonen | talk 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Not a serious comment. I really should have logged out already, and I'm probably getting giddy. Didn't someone call you a vulgarian recently, or was that someone else? (No insinuation about anyone's fingers, of course!) This talk section sounds like it should have a mash-up: something like Pontius Piggate and the Short-Fingered Magical Negro on the Island of Vulgaria. Sounds like something Bishzilla would host. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Mim.cis ( talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
NeatGrey (
talk)
22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. At least one of
your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, 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 some 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. Please do not use the phrase
"going forward". It's a terrible cliche.
Drmies (
talk)
20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
.. please take a look here. The timings especially are interesting. FP1 takes on client, clients articles subsequently start getting negative information removed and positive info added. Likewise FP1's client's opposition get the reverse treatment... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way I can contact you to discuss my COI privately and in confidence? 59.38.139.24 ( talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:3RR. Please use the article talk to sort it out rather than reverting each other. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Which article is this? I can take a look ... Alexbrn ( talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Anna is awesome, for sure. But Anna, is there nothing we can do about protecting FAs? A couple of years ago I was concerned about edits to a FA article and had to spend a lot of time in an attempt to defend the article as written -- one would think, after all, that the amount of time that these dedicated editors spent and the careful oversight by other editors would suggest a close to perfect article. Right? Well, that is not the case at all. That editor said, "Dancer and those others have not shown me the grace (the Wikigrace?) of assuming good faith on my part or of considering the possibility that I just might really have the credentials and the real-world practical expertise and experience to enable me to do at a professional level what I’ve done here. Dancer’s comments throughout contain a distinct tone of fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging. Behavior like that..." We have, and always will, have editors who see themselves as experts -- unlike me who sees herself as a total amateur. On the other hand, I'm not dumb and realize that we need to do something... Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you participated on the EGS discussion [3]. I added some new info about two Wikipedians who were fighting to keep the article. I think EGS is manipulating the Wikipedia process and this should be addressed. If you could chime in on my point and make it clear to the closing admin, maybe we can stop them. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 04:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you sent me a warning of edit warring, but left nothing of the sort on the other user's page that is engaged in the same back and forth. Why is that? I am less than impressed and suggest you go bark at someone else. Zedshort ( talk) 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/
As for the other edit, other sources showed that Smith was self-diagnosed. I did my final edit on Internet Explorer. Ylevental ( talk) 00:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I was reflecting and I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with you. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and you has reacted with hostility. [4] I guess I would have reacted just like you. I apologize.
I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.
I let this message on WikiProject Medicine [5]
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know whether or not you would like me to wait for you before starting the RfC. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog,
I wanted to thank you again for looking into the FP1 Strategies business. I don't know how much of the history of that you looked at, but I had to go to five different boards before I found somebody who agreed something fishy was going on.
I added a few more of FP1's more obvious accounts today to the SPI today; I've just been Googling their client list and seeing who's edited those articles. There's two names that came up again and again as I looked into those articles. Amazingly, those exact two editors were mentioned in the news as being suspected accounts for a PR firm in the case listed right under mine on COI/N.
Since you closed the Jolly case, I figured I'd ask you directly. Are these worth adding to the SPI? Or am I getting overly paranoid? Thanks, EllenMcGill ( talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog ( talk), Thanks for the way you dealt with the COI issue on Raheja Developers page, and it was the best thing that happened to the page & me. Regards, Leoaugust ( talk) 11:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a notification that I started a discussion considering your excessive use of authority considering Youth time article
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
F aristocrat (
talk)
09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog: Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your COI position and advice for my future handling of COI issues. You are a busy and patient contributor, with patience made especially clear by your generous explanation to the Onnit contributor and more-than-fair interaction with the frustrating BB. Your involvement with Activated phenolics helped to bring that matter to a quick closure, with thanks. Regarding Onnit, I believe my method was more direct to base a solution with reliance on WP guidelines, but, now with your advice, I will try to balance better COI matters on the Talk pages and promotional article content. Good to have your feedback and see you around articles of mutual interest! -- Zefr ( talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I wonder here, if you're not just denying rope. With these hard economic times, we all need as much as we can get. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. A strange page, Big Mean Ethan Dean, was created. It is not encyclopedic. As a more experianced user, can you help me? The creator just messed up my speedy deletion. 68.100.116.118 ( talk) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Urinary tract infection. 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:
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. Cirflow ( talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in on the Paul Wager-related discussion. I don't have the patience you have for clear COI editors who refuse to follow the rules, but on the other hand I do recognize that the rules are the barrier that is so often written about in articles on the "problems of Wikipedia". I still wonder why volunteer labour has to be so kind to those who want to use the wiki as a promotional device. I am starting to think that there should be a more serious version of "connected contributor" for dealing with such cases. Just wondering out loud :) HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected this page for a while, given the time wasting of vandalism reverts. Jytdog, if you'd like it lifted ahead of time please let me know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I just wanted to leave a visible trace of thanks for your extreme patience, forbearance, and helpfulness with my Northeastern University students this term. There are 54 of them — in WP project reflections, they universally report that they see editing WP as "real world writing," "intimidating but important," and "a way to use [their] privilege at being at a good university to give back" — they also reported taking more time than usual to check sources. Their writing is not always perfectly encyclopedic, but they are very interested in participating. You've helped several significantly. Thank you! WritingTeacherC ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't like my citing a meta-study? Did you even look at the source? It fits the guidelines. Revert or your reversion or I will have to escalate. Look at the research quotes and cited before you delete. Sorry if that secondary source doesn't fit your POV. Antisoapbox ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You 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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In re this: technically, CSD requires only one (an admin). Copyvios, hoaxes, attack pages, and other obvious violations are, and ought to be, "delete on sight" for admins. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
So I don't know if you're following the FP1 SPI case, but it was rejected for having too much text, and I was also told we're not allowed to shorten the text. Do you have any suggestions, or is this the end of the road?
If you don't mind my venting for a moment, I'm quite amazed how impenetrable your bureaucracy is here. At first I was joking that it was like the DMV, but at least at the DMV I eventually go home with my new driver's license or plates. Is this case really not something Wikipedia higher-ups can be made to give a shit about? (Pardon the salty language, I'm more than a little frustrated.)
Sorry for my own role, though, in making that page longer. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog.
Yes of course WP is built on collaboration so what has gone wrong here? Why are you censoring me?
It must be obvious to you now that this article has ownership. It it is (and you can gage I am getting annoyed) an example of
Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It undermines due weight. Many people out-side the US read English WP and the this doesn't reflect the world view. When I added {{globalize/USA}} it was immediately deleted by Yobol before I could do any more edits, ensuring that this page continues to have lengthy argues that prevents the article from having an encyclopedic quality. Any time, night-or-day it is watched by editors that I can't imaging can have proper jobs in order to be on WP 24/7. Nor live in the real world or be bothered to actually read the references given. Well, you have now gotten yourself involved – so sort it out. And if you're the same editor that gets mentioned on the admin notice board, then the noose of the rope I' am been doling out (see the talk page) – tightens my claim that this article has undue ownership -which may now include you. So sort it out! you may call that uncivil also if you wish but I would like to see some real meaningful collaboration on this article too--
Aspro (
talk)
23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, given that you did not participate in the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Popular_culture_section, which specifically asked whether the section on popular culture should be included, I find it surprising that you should so vehemently delete the section - to the point of swearing in an edit comment. May I ask why you feel justified in cold-shouldering the discussion I had started? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I really hope that with this edit summary, you didn't intend the meaning to be, basically, "STFU" because that is the tone it has. Also, look at the source material, it is directly what the source states, careful wording is deliberate. Montanabw (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I want you to know I wasn't trying to sloganeer for anyone by adding it (though I gather from your edit summary that you thought the DC IP had added it?)--I just wanted a compact mission statement from the group, and that was the best I could come up with. The italics, on the other hand, were the IP's. I've got no objection to your taking it out, though (and feel free to doublecheck me elsewhere, too).
BTW, my assumption is that this IP is another FP1 attack dog--more on that article's talk page. EllenMcGill ( talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Realmessage ( talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, as usual. -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for editing my article, but I have been reading about mr. El-Batrawi, collecting a lot of information about him for couple of years. And you deleted everything I wrote. I would like to use the information I collected for many years. So how can we fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrich77 ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Jt, you are quite right in deleting this. But maybe you can say something to this person to let him down gently. (?) Regards. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 17:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Realmessage. Thanks for your note. Thanks too for acknowledging that you are new to Wikipedia. Please be aware that although this is indeed "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this place is not a wild west - there is kind of "rule of law" here. The community has developed what we call policies and guidelines that govern content and editor behavior. Your edit violated several of those policies. This is not a terrible thing! A lot of people who first come here don't understand the policies. But you are obligated to try to understand them, and to follow them. This is actually part of the "terms of service" that you agreed to when you created your account, and that you again agree to each time you edit. The relevant policies are WP:OR (you cannot add your own thoughts or beliefs to Wikipedia), instead, per the policy WP:VERIFY, everything you add needs to be directly supported by what we consider to be a reliable source (which ideally is independent of the subject). The actual content that gets added needs to be what we call neutral - you need to actually try to write without coloring what the literature says, and to give what we call " weight" to content according to what is in the literature. Finally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to promote any perspective. Your edit violated every one of those policies. If that doesn't make sense to you I can try to explain more, but please do have a read of each of those policies before you react. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey mate,
Thanks for deleting my edits at Imperial Chemical Industries. Apparently a major fire that injured 60+ firefighters and led to major reforms of the Fire Service is non-notable newspaper fodder. Shit like this is I quit editing wikipedia a few years ago. Good to see nothing has changed. I'm out.
-- I bet you'll delete this too
Thank you for this AM ( talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
…in your accusation that I personalized the Cladogram issue. Your threat of ANI contained no links. The matter for me is purely "academic"—is this a proper application of the tool, or not? I am persuadable otherwise, but I suspect not. It appears likely to be a misuse of a quantitative graphic analytical device—whose line lengths are intended to convey quantitative information—to present qualitative information that is therefore misleading, and that otherwise makes articles much harder to edit (in the area of the information to which the graphic analysis is misapplied). There is nothing personal in my views, or analysis. You need to make clear, here if possible, what it is you are getting at, in threatening me. And, as I have been away from that matter, for personal reasons, I will look to the discussion that you started. But I am sure that I am too late (and guessing that no one thought carefully about what I had already stated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I have read and I am about to re-read some sections of your user page and I find it very interesting and very well explained. Ferrer1965 ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if you saw my question at Talk:Swami Premananda (guru). Maybe it doesn't matter anymore since socks probably aren't trustworthy anyway. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
For all you and I spat on some articles, we appear to be in accord on helping out some folks. It's all just one big happy, dysfunctional wiki-family at times, isn't it? Kudos where due for a well-timed remark. Montanabw (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Danielle Sheypuk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the short-comings of the M&A diagrams, I've done some digging in the template notes here & here (as well as this), and have come up with a semi-solution to the business units/divisions sold/spun off. It can be found here: Allergan – any thoughts? Your opinion is always appreciated. XyZAn ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Presumably you meant Talk:Throat lozenge. I've commented there. Is there another prior discussion of which I should be aware? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I need you to disclose your COI about education right now. I think you are destroying the article of ANU on purpose. Deleting the stellarator thing is OK but The "Computer Science Subject Ranking" I added yesterday is not a promotion and it is supported by cite source. What's more, you keep standing in the way of adding the Ranking Table which is supported by convincing cite sources. Ranking is not a promotional material but a performance evaluation. -- Miyawaki kyoto ( talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, editor NeatGrey wasn't banned; they were blocked, and as it turns out, incorrectly so. I've already removed a few of the strike-outs you made; please check to see what contributions you reverted or negated and undo that. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
But here's the thing. If I remember correctly you got brought up on ANI or AN not too long ago (or was it an ArbCom request?) where your detractors said you were being overzealous in your prosecution of COI cases. In this case I think that may have been a possibility, and I think it is a good idea to be more...not careful..."discerning", I think that's the best term. I don't rightly know why in this case NeatGrey was included with the others in the SPI, since in at least some of the discussions they were leaning in the opposite direction, if I remember correctly. Just a word to the wise. Take it easy, Drmies ( talk) 02:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily paid editing; the main problem with bad editors in transhumanism is that they are relentless advocates, and think the rest of humanity is just incorrect for not being as enthusiastic as they are, so immediately leap to accusations of bad faith, shilling and COI (a.k.a. The Personal Attack That's Allowed) when someone says "what, no, this is all rubbish". Lots of advocates, all networked. (compare cryptocurrency editors, who are similarly networked relentless advocates who think the rest of humanity is just incorrect, and are in it for the money.) - David Gerard ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologize. I truly wasn't aware that there was a huge block of discussion on the finasteride talk page that appeared in the last week. I haven't checked the talk page in months since I didn't see any reference to talk page discussion on the main article. However, even without reading the discussion, I do think it is extremely misleading to cherry pick half of a statement from the underlying source document to make it seem like finasteride side effects are rare. Frankly, the term "rare" is completely subjective and I don't believe a statement like that belongs in a scientific article per MEDRS. Doors22 ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you called the Virino hypothesiss on Prion original research. I also saw that you are on WikiProgect Medicane and that the Virino article has a template that says it needs to be evaluated by a medical professional as the scientific accuracy is questioned. Maybe you would like to Evaluate the Virino article if you are a doctor. Spidersmilk ( talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I've begun making some changes to the Easypod page. You moved some material to the talk page, along with a note about how it puts UNDUE weight on a primary source. I initially introduced that info because I thought this study added to the notability of the device. Wasn't aware of the MEDRS guideline. If I delete this content from the article can I safely remove the neutrality message? I realize there are still other issues to address in the article, and I'm hoping others may accept the invitation to improve it. In the meantime, I've removed several of the images and tried to rewrite some content in a more straightforward manner. Medscrib ( talk) 02:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, is there is a simpler way as the contributor of those articles, I can go ahead and do a delete without having to put it up for AfD ? I have saved the stuff in Sandbox and whenever I find relevant sources to support these articles (which I don't know when) at that stage maybe I can run it through a draft-> article creation process. Will be great if you can use your superpowers and knock those articles without wasting other editors time through lengthy AfD debates and possibly prevent another episode of my reacting to some other editor comments et al.. Would that work ? Cheers AM ( talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I edited this page last night and this morning see my changes have been removed by you. The page as it stands is biased and my edits added a significant number of quality references. Please revert to my saved page changes. UnicornRainbowMonkey ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there are big time differences between where you are and where I am so I am only now seeing your comments. Reading them now...
...saw the discussion titled "References" on my talk page and replied.
Hello Jytdog,
I just wanted to say that over time, I've been trying to do more editing on the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) page, not having much luck. But I have to say that the detailed tips and rules list that you made for me has been the most helpful. Definitely you spent more time on my behalf than other editors. This is like learning law! Just wanted to say thank you for your extra time and effort. Listenforgood ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Just noticed that you knew about the editor's COI for European Graduate School a month ago. Good job.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your comment (too strong a statement on too weak a source) on the revert but I'm not sure how to address it. I can see now I worded it a little awkwardly. I guess you had time to read the source, so what statement wording do you think is justified ? Do you doubt the statement and want MEDRS, or do you accept it's essentially true and just want better/different sources ? (It almost seems a statement of the obvious given that checkpoint inhibitors allow lymphocytes to avoid their suppression by the tumour, and cancer prognosis (in many types) is widely accepted to relate to the level of TILs.) I thought what I wrote pretty much reflected the relevant part of the source but we could say "Dr X says ..." if you think it is a minority opinion. Cheers - Rod57 ( talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I just read the WP:ELNO which you linked and I understand why you removed the blog. but why did you remove other organizations? Keratoconus Support and Awareness and UK Keratoconus Self Help and Support Group? also, this blog is actually homepage of the largest support community available and it is full of helpful articles shared by kc patients, I think there should be an exception. k18s ( talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hui, I just wanted to ask you a few questiosn about the redirect for the ORT article. Looking at the two pages, I agree the ORT article itself needed to be updated a bit to better account for the medical, as well as social rationale for that kind of treatment. That being said, the ORT seems really to need to be Main article for the management section. If that sounds good to you, I'd be happy to recreate the ORT page, add the appropriate content to the recreated page, and add the main tag. Bpmcneilly ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
When someone *on his second day* as a registered user, uses the words level 3 heading in an edit summary, my radar starts beeping. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Talk:Ethereum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have flagged this your behavior on the referenced Talk page. And I further invite you to, if you believe your vague attack is in any way justified, to take it to the proper forum where your vague allegations would need to be made specific, could be constructively responded to, and evaluated by non-involved administrators to review your assertions.
N2e (
talk)
14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It was my thought that the MRSA page ought to be coordinated with the drug's page on Wikipedia. If you choose to revoke the changes to the MRSA Page, perhaps change the drug's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asigkem ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have voluntarily disclosed that I am a post-finasteride-syndrome patient. That is enough disclosure for my editing purposes on the finasteride page. You have not answered whether you are a paid editor or whether you have edited Wikipedia under different sock accounts. I have also previously requested that you not write on my talk page in the past which you just disrespected. Doors22 ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For being inordinately nice. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, there is an AN/I discussion about User:JaberEl-Hour. You were involved in this case, so please comment at AN/I. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Madcloud01 is a self-confirmed COI editor working for St. Martin's Press, and from what I can tell very much wanting to be compliant with policies. They generally update the bibliographies in Wikipedia articles with new books by authors with pages here. I have conversed with the user, and am not knowledgeable enough to give sufficient advice on where the line lies between adding uncontroversial facts and promotion. This is a typical change: diff, and diff. I am less clear about "forthcoming books", such as here: diff. The user has also created some articles for authors such as Claire Dederer and for the book Arc of Justice. I didn't want to take this to COIN because I don't think that there is a problem, but I wanted a more experienced eye looking at it. If you have time, please let me know what you think I can say to her that could be helpful. Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly sorry to have clearly upset you. That was not my intention - but seriously accusing me of an edit war over red link removals. Seems a bit rich to me. However I will leave well alone if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps you could even write the articles an remove the "red link" issue entirely.
Subject: Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary - and I seriously can't see how Wikipedia:Verifiability relates - in the slightest.
Again sorry :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It is amazing how Adam Gussen article on Wikipedia has speedy deletion right before Alan Sohn runs against him to take his seat. Don't worry, there are MANY examples like this. Gotta go to bed now. Wasickta ( talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Wasickta ( talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For keeping calm and promoting rational thought in a heated moment. Wasickta ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Jytdog. I've nominated the Medical definition of death article for deletion. The article started out with the title Legal death, and the lede still reflects that meaning, but the article drifted so far off topic that somebody renamed it and created the proper Legal death article that exists today. As it is now, I don't even know what the Medical definition of death article is supposed to be about because the lede doesn't even define what "Medical definition of death" means apart from legal death, which already has its own article. Please comment when able. Thanks. Cryobiologist ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in thinking that if a PR company involved in paid editing has been banned from WP that ban should also apply to the company's employees and agents too? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi I am new to the Wonderful World of Wiki and want to do everything correctly, but I am confused. I rebuilt the Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals page being careful not to be promotional, or in any way non-factual. I built the page in the same manner as many other pages that provide information on companies are built , so I don't understand why I was flagged? I will correct the permission issue regarding the logo, but otherwise the information is truthful, sourced and doesn't seem to violate any guidelines. thanks for your isight in helping me, the novice.. User:Barryfc101 Barryfc101 ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Why is Orkambi approved for F508del mutation when ivacaftor seems to target G551D? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(facebook is not a reliable source it's host wich can host relible sources. facebook is not to be considered a source a source is the person signing the article or in other way's contributing the content and beeing identified as the contributer of the content. you can find reliable sources on facebook and the same people in university libraries. Thus facebook can contain reliable sources. Ulfarf ( talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I only use verifiable data in my entries. I do not edit war(sombody reverted while I was editing). I make edits i'm quite sure are right and have been established as facts through multiple sources. I use the talk pages mostly. since you claime facebook is not a good host wich host's are sutable for WP? You can rely on hosted content on Facebook if it contains reliable sources. The data can be deleted by a user but data can be deleted from any host. Ulfarf ( talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2Bthc+cancer+cells+apoptosis&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5 And then correct the cancer section of the cannabis & THC article. Ulfarf ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported reference 8 and your name to the appropriate governmental agencies. You may want to reconsider who and what you are associated with. For now, I will let the reference remain for further investigation. Govern yourself accordingly. Jeff1938 ( talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog: I would like to disagree with your revision of the section on “Intranasal drug delivery” on the Glioblastoma multiforme page on May 7, 2016. I would like to revert your revision, but at the same time want to avoid back-and-forth editing. Perhaps we can agree beforehand?
The reason you stated for your revision was “we don’t know if it works yet or not.” What is the evidence for your position? In support of my view that intranasal perillyl alcohol does work, there are three peer-reviewed studies that report results from phase I/II trials in Brazil, where perillyl alcohol was given intranasally to patients with malignant glioma, resulting in increased survival of patients. As well, there are several secondary references (review articles) that refer to those results without questioning them, but rather finding them quite positive and encouraging. So, why do you disagree?
Also, you state “a small study”. Perhaps you know that malignant glioma is a rare (orphan) disease. Including several hundred patients, as the Brazil studies did, is quite an achievement and by no means a small study, in particular in view of their phase I/II status.
Looking forward to your feedback. Hopefully, we can find some agreement. P.S.: I think it would be beneficial for the readership to include reference to the US clinical trial (intranasal perillyl alcohol for GBM) currently going on. What do you think? Ossky ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You obviously figured this out, but I didn't realize until just now that yesterday I pinged
CFCF on
WT:MED by mistake when I was responding to something that you had said (about the influx of editors). I just replaced your username with CFCF's in my original comment, so I'm leaving this note here to explain why you may have gotten a ping just now about a day-old comment. And also to explain to CFCF that I accidentally tagged him yesterday. I'll just leave my reply here too to your comment from yesterday (" I had no idea that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs even existed..."
) since the conversation on that thread has long moved on and this is kind of a tangent anyway... You and me both... Apparently it's on my watchlist though. :) A few months ago I was trying to follow all of the SUD related articles, so I guess I came across that wikiproject, followed it, and immediately forgot about it. It must not have been very active before. There's also
WP:Cannabis. I think those are all of the substance related wikiprojects that I've come across.
PermStrump
(talk)
17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
KDS4444 ( talk) 02:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You should not have posted this (or anything else) on Doors' talk page. I have closed the COIN. Doors22 has agreed not to engage in direct article editing. You said that, if he were to agree to this, you would walk away from the article, so the assumption now is that you will honour that. Doc James is going to look out for any edit requests from Doors; he and Doors get along, so that will sort out the dispute on that page. In addition you and Doors should not post on each other's talk pages. This will end the long-standing dispute between you, so please respect it. SarahSV (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You really should have discussed this issue with me, rather than re-reverting. You've been around long enough to know better. I find that I agree with you concerning use of primary research in a (quasi-) medical article, though this was not an egregious case, and would probably have reverted my own edits, given the opportunity.
I'm inclined, however, to disagree with your characterization of the references in question as spam. WP:SELFCITE advises,
Mfareedk posted the references using his (I presume) own name, thereby disclosing his conflict of interests. (Disclosure generally vitiates a conflict of interest, absent evidence of corruption.) The citations are, as far as I can tell, to reputable, peer-reviewed journals, not self-published blogs or open forums. The text relying on those references was relevant, conformable to content policies, and not excessive. It was not outlandish, scandalous, or tendentious, but seemed to be in keeping with scientific consensus (to the extent that I'm aware of it) regarding the effects of inbreeding. If the sources were not primary research, I'd have said Mfareedk's edits should stand. Do you disagree?
I would also respectfully suggest that, instead of deleting his edits and chiding Mfareedk about self-promotion, a better, and more Wikipedian, response would have been to discuss the matter with him, and to encourage him to find secondary sources to support his factual assertions, so that his own research could stand as illustrations, rather than the principal bases, for his assertions in the text.
Unwarranted self-promotion on Wikipedia annoys me at least as much as it does you, and there is far too much of it. (It seems every song or album recorded in the last twenty years, and every band that has ever played two gigs, has a Wikipedia article!). But not all self-promotion is unwarranted, even if it's perhaps a little unseemly. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed the |rfcid=
from the {{
rfc}}
because unless that is done, Legobot will not remove the RfC from
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted (
like this), although it will correctly add it to
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (
like this). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I saw this comment before you deleted it. I actually think it's very valuable for you to say something along these lines (though it might be possible to rephrase in somewhat more diplomatic tones). It's good to know that you are following this story, but I think it's even better if there's a visible record that uninvolved Wikipedians care about the process followed by companies like this -- especially when they include longtime Wikipedians and people in positions of trust in our ecosystem. - Pete ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit and for including in your summary a reference to WP:MEDRS which led me to Secondary source. Now I understand why secondary sources should be cited.-- Akhooha ( talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your zeal, but and older reference is fine as long as it demonstrates a point. That's why people still cite Watson & Crick (1953). This quote was primarily about the demographics, which is unlikely to change. Unless you can prove it using more recent quotes, of course. I will reinsert that citation, because an older reference is certainly better than no reference at all. Peteruetz ( talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Most of the Western world is asleep. Just saying. Being critical of my own insomnia. FeatherPluma ( talk) 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, looking for some guidance. It looks like an editor, Zefr, is displaying some WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour at the above article. I've attempted to edit the article early this month, Zefr immediately reverts. Looking at the history of the article, anyone who contributes to it who is not Zefr is reverted. I've looked on their TP, any prior notifications of edit warring/disruption etc are immediately blanked off. How do we deal with behaviour like this? XyZAn ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I happened on this AfD when leaving a talk page note for another editor. I saw you're collapsing discussion of !votes, but the discussions don't appear to be off-topic or disruptive (the reasons for hatting given in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). This hatting gives the impression of closing down debate - we get to consensus by discussion, clarification, and possibly even changing minds, not by voting in isolation. Characterising all the discussion in that AfD as "bickering" is not fair. Would you change the summaries from "bickering" to a less pejorative term, and consider uncollapsing some of the more constructive and less repetitive discussion? Thanks. Fences& Windows 12:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed the userbox I had placed on Alvy Ray's userpage. Fair enough. I had placed it there partly to see how the tag worked and to get it working correctly, which I now think it does, and partly as a favor to Mr. Smith to allow him to disclose his COIs in a standardized format. I did not intend for it to be problematic or a cause for conflict or concern, and would like to know if it has somehow become one. It is my hope that this new template, {{
UserboxCOI}}
, will become a convenient way for editors to disclose conflicts of interest instead of having to come up with a novel sentence saying so each time a COI is identified. The only thing I changed about Mr. Smith's userpage this evening was to update it for the template's new functionality of being able to identify multiple articles with which a user might have a COI (which Mr. Smith open stated that he had). But it is his userpage to mess with, not mine, and I only hope this change did not cause him any grief. I do not anticipate making any additional changes to the template in the future. My apologies for having tested it here.
KDS4444 (
talk)
07:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, Thank you again for the terrific coaching material you gave me a while back. You took a lot of time to help me.
My son is schizophrenic. Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract knocks down the negative symptoms significantly. Here's info about CBD and schizophrenia.
Dr. Daniele Piomelli at the University of California at Irvine. I met with him personally for an hour discussing his work: Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. [1] http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201215a.html (full article) This study is cited here: [2] TIME Magazine article about the study: [3]
Schizophr Res. 2015 Mar;162(1-3):153-61. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.01.033. Epub 2015 Feb 7. A systematic review of the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol in humans. [4] [5]
Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(32):5131-40. A critical review of the antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol: 30 years of a translational investigation. [6]
CBD can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia. [7]
Studies suggest that cannabinoids such as CBD and SR141716 have a pharmacological profile similar to that of atypical antipsychotic drugs. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Mar;11(2 Pt 2):208-19. doi: 10.3109/15622970801908047. Potential antipsychotic properties of central cannabinoid (CB1) receptor antagonists. [8]
2013 Evidence suggests that CBD can ameliorate positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. [9]
1,511 PubMed studies on cannabidiol: [10]
Thank you,
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) "Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug"]. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 39 (4): 421–9.
doi:
/S0100-879X2006000400001.
PMID
16612464. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |url=
at position 1 (
help)
Listenforgood ( talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
References
…freaking out, as you call it, at my Talk page, just a response to a continuing threat, there, to sanction me despite the ANI being archived. (The matter with Drmies was my ignorance of how to address the concern, and his impatience with my technical incompetence.) As for the frequency of my attendance, that is my call, and I admit, I have, in a new leaf, paid very little if any attention to politics and discussion here. I have found it to be completely useless, wasted time, with a few rare exceptions, yourself, and Liz, being some exceptional editors to whom I will attend.
Otherwise, I thank you for your continued evenhandedness/fairness in matters, despite your dislike. It is honourable, and I invite your continued comment on any matters you wish pertaining to me. We will no doubt continue to disagree (e.g., on the practical need for and ease of maintenance. and so value of cladograms as business images), but I respect you nonetheless, and am fine that I alone feel this between us. On the tagging matter, I have (i) indeed taken "to heart" the feedback, (ii) invited further feedback at my Talk page, but even so, will continue to try to improve articles, starting with sourcing issues (the sole source of our credibility, by Mr Wales et al's original design). And so this means—per policy, and depending on article status quo—that articles, and or sections, and/or sentences, will still receive tags, as issues demand.
Otherwise, hope all is well with you and yours. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In this edit you removed some text that you claim was completely wrong. What was wrong about "Wikipedia works because of the efforts of volunteers like you and their bold edits to assist us in building this encyclopedia project. Fixing problems and then removing maintenance templates when you're done is important in that effort."? Debresser ( talk) 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring and false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaman12 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
…by the move of the comments. I will see what the issue was for you—how the change of location changed the meaning of the Talk comment—but if you wish to clarify this, here, for sake of my understanding. Otherwise, my understanding is that my Talk page is the one venue where I do have control, and so it is critical to me that I understand what the core issue was (rather than being told what not to do at my Talk page!). Thanks in response for your reply. I very much want to understand how I misrepresented you by the simple, apolitical, impersonal, merely "administrative" move of text. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll want to know about these two templates. The second one, in particular, is probably underutilized. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been declined as premature at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:11, 24 May 2016 (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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Stop or I will request you be blocked. It's been revealed you have been edit warring this article for months and attempting to out hapless new users. You still stop or be stopped. Please see WP:ANI. 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge ( talk • contribs)
I'm happy to see that you agreed with Snow Rise's thoughtful analysis at ANI, because what he said really hits the nail on the head (as you've heard me say ad nauseum before). (But other than that, I think the multiple threads about you there today have been some of the most ridiculously nonsensical stuff I've seen in some time. So you have my genuine sympathy there.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
You should check out Goggle Maps' response to the query "7601 Cousteau Drive, Rowlett, TX, United States" to judge whether the story is relevant. 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It was of course definitely not bright to rely on Google maps on this occasion. However, I would have thought there are minimal standards for map makers, or are there none in the US? 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion. If I come across some research on that, I'll look into that. 84.188.254.35 ( talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
how do I cite math? there is no need to be rude. If you care about accuracy of information then you would care about when you have been led to believe false information by the accepted sources. Mathematics proves these sources incorrect based off the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Made some changes per your remarks. Please drop by and comment. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When you noticed The Chardon Polka Band was tagged for notability, you noted "seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit". Thanks for contributing. I cleaned up the article and started a discussion of Notability on its talk page. Please contribute to discussion and/or confirm or remove notability tag, as I may or may not be considered impartial. Lefton4ya ( talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I am from the same area they are from and and am kinda friends with the band. I am not paid by them or asked to edit by them, but just trying to clean up their wiki page and noticed the notability tag . In trying to be a good denizen of WP but also help the band I like, I added references and cleaned up the article and also removed notability tag, but when it was added back I didn't want to start an edit war and felt someone more impartial should decide. But check out the talk page for discussion points. Lefton4ya ( talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog. I am not sure where to post this for your convenience, so please pardon me if I should use my own talk page. I modified the draft Renee Radell article per your suggestions, taking out any flattering comments and citing all statements of fact. Might I ask when such a piece warrants submission? Both you and DGG have said that notability should probably not be a problem. My COI as a relative of Renee would be the reason I should not submit this directly? Thank you kindly for any suggestions about next steps OtterNYC ( talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Commenting here rather than the messy project talk page. Would you have any problem with a 'seal' that identified a particular version of the article as having gone through some formal process? That would address your objection about the article immediately ceasing to be 'accurate' as soon as a new edit was made. I discussed this with Anthonyhcole a while ago. There is a desperate need for some kind of process that either alerts readers to particularly bad articles, or encourages them in the direction of slightly better ones. Peter Damian ( talk) 08:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to start a post war, just new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what was going on. sorry Madelinerobin ( talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Madelinerobin
Thanks incredibly much for cleaning up those articles. I am not an expert - I could merely see that the sources in no way supported the references, which you confirmed. It would help to understand the seriousness of the errors in the Chlorine and NO2 poisoning articles. Did this create the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way? Peter Damian ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on Omeprazole. I was apparently asleep at the wheel and didn't notice it was the lead I was removing the info from. – Robin Hood (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Re diff, it is not possible to "fix" a ping. Thinking about what would happen when editors correct typos or make other adjustments to their comments shows the reason for that. A notification will only occur when adding new content with a new signature. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the diff at AfD EGS (I'm watching it to remind myself to vote later): diff. That won't work! If you comment with a ping, then notice that it was broken, you have two choices. First, add a new comment (do not edit anything, add a new line with a new message and a new signature); the new message would have a short note something like "re-ping to fix mistake". Second, in one edit, delete all of the erroneous comment and save the page, then add a new comment with the fixed text. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
It takes a real son of a gun to get me to admit when I'm wrong about the wording of one of our core policies, especially WP:EP which I guard like a hawk, but somehow you've (mostly) won me over. It's a genuine pleasure and delight to meet another editor who as strongly believes in WP:5P as I do. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
Useful template, if you weren't aware:
Hope that's helpful in the future,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice work on this article. Thanks. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog - re your recent edit and comment - I thought the overview was supposed to summarise the page - I at first added to Trapezoid body linking decussate so in my mind removing necessity for detailed info in overview and trimming section. But if I was wrong - so be it.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
China is a source country of Mail-order brides you can find a lot of Websites in the Internet so it is a fact but its very difficult to find a reliable source so please could you insert the Citation needed-Symbol?-- 141.19.228.15 ( talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, when I said "My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?" at AfD, I was thinking of the Piggate article, I was mixing them up (pork and politicians in both, you know). Just thought I'd mention it. Then I thought I'd go prod Piggate, but it has already been AfD'd and kept with something like fifty keep votes. I wonder what message board they came from. But since it's the encyclopedia any canvassed idiot can edit, not much can be done about it. I'm thinking maybe I need a break from all the silliness.
However, incidentally, you know the article Barack the Magic Negro that you mentioned (and which is at least a song, not just a fucking "meme")? It led me to the very interesting article Magical Negro. Educational! There's some good stuff here! Bishonen | talk 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Not a serious comment. I really should have logged out already, and I'm probably getting giddy. Didn't someone call you a vulgarian recently, or was that someone else? (No insinuation about anyone's fingers, of course!) This talk section sounds like it should have a mash-up: something like Pontius Piggate and the Short-Fingered Magical Negro on the Island of Vulgaria. Sounds like something Bishzilla would host. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Mim.cis ( talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
NeatGrey (
talk)
22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. At least one of
your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, 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 some 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. Please do not use the phrase
"going forward". It's a terrible cliche.
Drmies (
talk)
20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
.. please take a look here. The timings especially are interesting. FP1 takes on client, clients articles subsequently start getting negative information removed and positive info added. Likewise FP1's client's opposition get the reverse treatment... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way I can contact you to discuss my COI privately and in confidence? 59.38.139.24 ( talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:3RR. Please use the article talk to sort it out rather than reverting each other. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Which article is this? I can take a look ... Alexbrn ( talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Anna is awesome, for sure. But Anna, is there nothing we can do about protecting FAs? A couple of years ago I was concerned about edits to a FA article and had to spend a lot of time in an attempt to defend the article as written -- one would think, after all, that the amount of time that these dedicated editors spent and the careful oversight by other editors would suggest a close to perfect article. Right? Well, that is not the case at all. That editor said, "Dancer and those others have not shown me the grace (the Wikigrace?) of assuming good faith on my part or of considering the possibility that I just might really have the credentials and the real-world practical expertise and experience to enable me to do at a professional level what I’ve done here. Dancer’s comments throughout contain a distinct tone of fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging. Behavior like that..." We have, and always will, have editors who see themselves as experts -- unlike me who sees herself as a total amateur. On the other hand, I'm not dumb and realize that we need to do something... Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you participated on the EGS discussion [3]. I added some new info about two Wikipedians who were fighting to keep the article. I think EGS is manipulating the Wikipedia process and this should be addressed. If you could chime in on my point and make it clear to the closing admin, maybe we can stop them. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 04:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you sent me a warning of edit warring, but left nothing of the sort on the other user's page that is engaged in the same back and forth. Why is that? I am less than impressed and suggest you go bark at someone else. Zedshort ( talk) 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/
As for the other edit, other sources showed that Smith was self-diagnosed. I did my final edit on Internet Explorer. Ylevental ( talk) 00:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I was reflecting and I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with you. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and you has reacted with hostility. [4] I guess I would have reacted just like you. I apologize.
I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.
I let this message on WikiProject Medicine [5]
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know whether or not you would like me to wait for you before starting the RfC. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog,
I wanted to thank you again for looking into the FP1 Strategies business. I don't know how much of the history of that you looked at, but I had to go to five different boards before I found somebody who agreed something fishy was going on.
I added a few more of FP1's more obvious accounts today to the SPI today; I've just been Googling their client list and seeing who's edited those articles. There's two names that came up again and again as I looked into those articles. Amazingly, those exact two editors were mentioned in the news as being suspected accounts for a PR firm in the case listed right under mine on COI/N.
Since you closed the Jolly case, I figured I'd ask you directly. Are these worth adding to the SPI? Or am I getting overly paranoid? Thanks, EllenMcGill ( talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog ( talk), Thanks for the way you dealt with the COI issue on Raheja Developers page, and it was the best thing that happened to the page & me. Regards, Leoaugust ( talk) 11:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a notification that I started a discussion considering your excessive use of authority considering Youth time article
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
F aristocrat (
talk)
09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog: Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your COI position and advice for my future handling of COI issues. You are a busy and patient contributor, with patience made especially clear by your generous explanation to the Onnit contributor and more-than-fair interaction with the frustrating BB. Your involvement with Activated phenolics helped to bring that matter to a quick closure, with thanks. Regarding Onnit, I believe my method was more direct to base a solution with reliance on WP guidelines, but, now with your advice, I will try to balance better COI matters on the Talk pages and promotional article content. Good to have your feedback and see you around articles of mutual interest! -- Zefr ( talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I wonder here, if you're not just denying rope. With these hard economic times, we all need as much as we can get. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. A strange page, Big Mean Ethan Dean, was created. It is not encyclopedic. As a more experianced user, can you help me? The creator just messed up my speedy deletion. 68.100.116.118 ( talk) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Urinary tract infection. 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:
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. Cirflow ( talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in on the Paul Wager-related discussion. I don't have the patience you have for clear COI editors who refuse to follow the rules, but on the other hand I do recognize that the rules are the barrier that is so often written about in articles on the "problems of Wikipedia". I still wonder why volunteer labour has to be so kind to those who want to use the wiki as a promotional device. I am starting to think that there should be a more serious version of "connected contributor" for dealing with such cases. Just wondering out loud :) HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected this page for a while, given the time wasting of vandalism reverts. Jytdog, if you'd like it lifted ahead of time please let me know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I just wanted to leave a visible trace of thanks for your extreme patience, forbearance, and helpfulness with my Northeastern University students this term. There are 54 of them — in WP project reflections, they universally report that they see editing WP as "real world writing," "intimidating but important," and "a way to use [their] privilege at being at a good university to give back" — they also reported taking more time than usual to check sources. Their writing is not always perfectly encyclopedic, but they are very interested in participating. You've helped several significantly. Thank you! WritingTeacherC ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't like my citing a meta-study? Did you even look at the source? It fits the guidelines. Revert or your reversion or I will have to escalate. Look at the research quotes and cited before you delete. Sorry if that secondary source doesn't fit your POV. Antisoapbox ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You 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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In re this: technically, CSD requires only one (an admin). Copyvios, hoaxes, attack pages, and other obvious violations are, and ought to be, "delete on sight" for admins. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
So I don't know if you're following the FP1 SPI case, but it was rejected for having too much text, and I was also told we're not allowed to shorten the text. Do you have any suggestions, or is this the end of the road?
If you don't mind my venting for a moment, I'm quite amazed how impenetrable your bureaucracy is here. At first I was joking that it was like the DMV, but at least at the DMV I eventually go home with my new driver's license or plates. Is this case really not something Wikipedia higher-ups can be made to give a shit about? (Pardon the salty language, I'm more than a little frustrated.)
Sorry for my own role, though, in making that page longer. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill ( talk) 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog.
Yes of course WP is built on collaboration so what has gone wrong here? Why are you censoring me?
It must be obvious to you now that this article has ownership. It it is (and you can gage I am getting annoyed) an example of
Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It undermines due weight. Many people out-side the US read English WP and the this doesn't reflect the world view. When I added {{globalize/USA}} it was immediately deleted by Yobol before I could do any more edits, ensuring that this page continues to have lengthy argues that prevents the article from having an encyclopedic quality. Any time, night-or-day it is watched by editors that I can't imaging can have proper jobs in order to be on WP 24/7. Nor live in the real world or be bothered to actually read the references given. Well, you have now gotten yourself involved – so sort it out. And if you're the same editor that gets mentioned on the admin notice board, then the noose of the rope I' am been doling out (see the talk page) – tightens my claim that this article has undue ownership -which may now include you. So sort it out! you may call that uncivil also if you wish but I would like to see some real meaningful collaboration on this article too--
Aspro (
talk)
23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, given that you did not participate in the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Popular_culture_section, which specifically asked whether the section on popular culture should be included, I find it surprising that you should so vehemently delete the section - to the point of swearing in an edit comment. May I ask why you feel justified in cold-shouldering the discussion I had started? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I really hope that with this edit summary, you didn't intend the meaning to be, basically, "STFU" because that is the tone it has. Also, look at the source material, it is directly what the source states, careful wording is deliberate. Montanabw (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I want you to know I wasn't trying to sloganeer for anyone by adding it (though I gather from your edit summary that you thought the DC IP had added it?)--I just wanted a compact mission statement from the group, and that was the best I could come up with. The italics, on the other hand, were the IP's. I've got no objection to your taking it out, though (and feel free to doublecheck me elsewhere, too).
BTW, my assumption is that this IP is another FP1 attack dog--more on that article's talk page. EllenMcGill ( talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Realmessage ( talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, as usual. -- Edcolins ( talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for editing my article, but I have been reading about mr. El-Batrawi, collecting a lot of information about him for couple of years. And you deleted everything I wrote. I would like to use the information I collected for many years. So how can we fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrich77 ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Jt, you are quite right in deleting this. But maybe you can say something to this person to let him down gently. (?) Regards. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 17:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Realmessage. Thanks for your note. Thanks too for acknowledging that you are new to Wikipedia. Please be aware that although this is indeed "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this place is not a wild west - there is kind of "rule of law" here. The community has developed what we call policies and guidelines that govern content and editor behavior. Your edit violated several of those policies. This is not a terrible thing! A lot of people who first come here don't understand the policies. But you are obligated to try to understand them, and to follow them. This is actually part of the "terms of service" that you agreed to when you created your account, and that you again agree to each time you edit. The relevant policies are WP:OR (you cannot add your own thoughts or beliefs to Wikipedia), instead, per the policy WP:VERIFY, everything you add needs to be directly supported by what we consider to be a reliable source (which ideally is independent of the subject). The actual content that gets added needs to be what we call neutral - you need to actually try to write without coloring what the literature says, and to give what we call " weight" to content according to what is in the literature. Finally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to promote any perspective. Your edit violated every one of those policies. If that doesn't make sense to you I can try to explain more, but please do have a read of each of those policies before you react. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey mate,
Thanks for deleting my edits at Imperial Chemical Industries. Apparently a major fire that injured 60+ firefighters and led to major reforms of the Fire Service is non-notable newspaper fodder. Shit like this is I quit editing wikipedia a few years ago. Good to see nothing has changed. I'm out.
-- I bet you'll delete this too
Thank you for this AM ( talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
…in your accusation that I personalized the Cladogram issue. Your threat of ANI contained no links. The matter for me is purely "academic"—is this a proper application of the tool, or not? I am persuadable otherwise, but I suspect not. It appears likely to be a misuse of a quantitative graphic analytical device—whose line lengths are intended to convey quantitative information—to present qualitative information that is therefore misleading, and that otherwise makes articles much harder to edit (in the area of the information to which the graphic analysis is misapplied). There is nothing personal in my views, or analysis. You need to make clear, here if possible, what it is you are getting at, in threatening me. And, as I have been away from that matter, for personal reasons, I will look to the discussion that you started. But I am sure that I am too late (and guessing that no one thought carefully about what I had already stated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I have read and I am about to re-read some sections of your user page and I find it very interesting and very well explained. Ferrer1965 ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if you saw my question at Talk:Swami Premananda (guru). Maybe it doesn't matter anymore since socks probably aren't trustworthy anyway. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
For all you and I spat on some articles, we appear to be in accord on helping out some folks. It's all just one big happy, dysfunctional wiki-family at times, isn't it? Kudos where due for a well-timed remark. Montanabw (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Danielle Sheypuk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 ( talk) 10:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the short-comings of the M&A diagrams, I've done some digging in the template notes here & here (as well as this), and have come up with a semi-solution to the business units/divisions sold/spun off. It can be found here: Allergan – any thoughts? Your opinion is always appreciated. XyZAn ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Presumably you meant Talk:Throat lozenge. I've commented there. Is there another prior discussion of which I should be aware? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I need you to disclose your COI about education right now. I think you are destroying the article of ANU on purpose. Deleting the stellarator thing is OK but The "Computer Science Subject Ranking" I added yesterday is not a promotion and it is supported by cite source. What's more, you keep standing in the way of adding the Ranking Table which is supported by convincing cite sources. Ranking is not a promotional material but a performance evaluation. -- Miyawaki kyoto ( talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, editor NeatGrey wasn't banned; they were blocked, and as it turns out, incorrectly so. I've already removed a few of the strike-outs you made; please check to see what contributions you reverted or negated and undo that. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
But here's the thing. If I remember correctly you got brought up on ANI or AN not too long ago (or was it an ArbCom request?) where your detractors said you were being overzealous in your prosecution of COI cases. In this case I think that may have been a possibility, and I think it is a good idea to be more...not careful..."discerning", I think that's the best term. I don't rightly know why in this case NeatGrey was included with the others in the SPI, since in at least some of the discussions they were leaning in the opposite direction, if I remember correctly. Just a word to the wise. Take it easy, Drmies ( talk) 02:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily paid editing; the main problem with bad editors in transhumanism is that they are relentless advocates, and think the rest of humanity is just incorrect for not being as enthusiastic as they are, so immediately leap to accusations of bad faith, shilling and COI (a.k.a. The Personal Attack That's Allowed) when someone says "what, no, this is all rubbish". Lots of advocates, all networked. (compare cryptocurrency editors, who are similarly networked relentless advocates who think the rest of humanity is just incorrect, and are in it for the money.) - David Gerard ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologize. I truly wasn't aware that there was a huge block of discussion on the finasteride talk page that appeared in the last week. I haven't checked the talk page in months since I didn't see any reference to talk page discussion on the main article. However, even without reading the discussion, I do think it is extremely misleading to cherry pick half of a statement from the underlying source document to make it seem like finasteride side effects are rare. Frankly, the term "rare" is completely subjective and I don't believe a statement like that belongs in a scientific article per MEDRS. Doors22 ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you called the Virino hypothesiss on Prion original research. I also saw that you are on WikiProgect Medicane and that the Virino article has a template that says it needs to be evaluated by a medical professional as the scientific accuracy is questioned. Maybe you would like to Evaluate the Virino article if you are a doctor. Spidersmilk ( talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I've begun making some changes to the Easypod page. You moved some material to the talk page, along with a note about how it puts UNDUE weight on a primary source. I initially introduced that info because I thought this study added to the notability of the device. Wasn't aware of the MEDRS guideline. If I delete this content from the article can I safely remove the neutrality message? I realize there are still other issues to address in the article, and I'm hoping others may accept the invitation to improve it. In the meantime, I've removed several of the images and tried to rewrite some content in a more straightforward manner. Medscrib ( talk) 02:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, is there is a simpler way as the contributor of those articles, I can go ahead and do a delete without having to put it up for AfD ? I have saved the stuff in Sandbox and whenever I find relevant sources to support these articles (which I don't know when) at that stage maybe I can run it through a draft-> article creation process. Will be great if you can use your superpowers and knock those articles without wasting other editors time through lengthy AfD debates and possibly prevent another episode of my reacting to some other editor comments et al.. Would that work ? Cheers AM ( talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I edited this page last night and this morning see my changes have been removed by you. The page as it stands is biased and my edits added a significant number of quality references. Please revert to my saved page changes. UnicornRainbowMonkey ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there are big time differences between where you are and where I am so I am only now seeing your comments. Reading them now...
...saw the discussion titled "References" on my talk page and replied.
Hello Jytdog,
I just wanted to say that over time, I've been trying to do more editing on the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) page, not having much luck. But I have to say that the detailed tips and rules list that you made for me has been the most helpful. Definitely you spent more time on my behalf than other editors. This is like learning law! Just wanted to say thank you for your extra time and effort. Listenforgood ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Just noticed that you knew about the editor's COI for European Graduate School a month ago. Good job.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your comment (too strong a statement on too weak a source) on the revert but I'm not sure how to address it. I can see now I worded it a little awkwardly. I guess you had time to read the source, so what statement wording do you think is justified ? Do you doubt the statement and want MEDRS, or do you accept it's essentially true and just want better/different sources ? (It almost seems a statement of the obvious given that checkpoint inhibitors allow lymphocytes to avoid their suppression by the tumour, and cancer prognosis (in many types) is widely accepted to relate to the level of TILs.) I thought what I wrote pretty much reflected the relevant part of the source but we could say "Dr X says ..." if you think it is a minority opinion. Cheers - Rod57 ( talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I just read the WP:ELNO which you linked and I understand why you removed the blog. but why did you remove other organizations? Keratoconus Support and Awareness and UK Keratoconus Self Help and Support Group? also, this blog is actually homepage of the largest support community available and it is full of helpful articles shared by kc patients, I think there should be an exception. k18s ( talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hui, I just wanted to ask you a few questiosn about the redirect for the ORT article. Looking at the two pages, I agree the ORT article itself needed to be updated a bit to better account for the medical, as well as social rationale for that kind of treatment. That being said, the ORT seems really to need to be Main article for the management section. If that sounds good to you, I'd be happy to recreate the ORT page, add the appropriate content to the recreated page, and add the main tag. Bpmcneilly ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
When someone *on his second day* as a registered user, uses the words level 3 heading in an edit summary, my radar starts beeping. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Talk:Ethereum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have flagged this your behavior on the referenced Talk page. And I further invite you to, if you believe your vague attack is in any way justified, to take it to the proper forum where your vague allegations would need to be made specific, could be constructively responded to, and evaluated by non-involved administrators to review your assertions.
N2e (
talk)
14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It was my thought that the MRSA page ought to be coordinated with the drug's page on Wikipedia. If you choose to revoke the changes to the MRSA Page, perhaps change the drug's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asigkem ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have voluntarily disclosed that I am a post-finasteride-syndrome patient. That is enough disclosure for my editing purposes on the finasteride page. You have not answered whether you are a paid editor or whether you have edited Wikipedia under different sock accounts. I have also previously requested that you not write on my talk page in the past which you just disrespected. Doors22 ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For being inordinately nice. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, there is an AN/I discussion about User:JaberEl-Hour. You were involved in this case, so please comment at AN/I. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Madcloud01 is a self-confirmed COI editor working for St. Martin's Press, and from what I can tell very much wanting to be compliant with policies. They generally update the bibliographies in Wikipedia articles with new books by authors with pages here. I have conversed with the user, and am not knowledgeable enough to give sufficient advice on where the line lies between adding uncontroversial facts and promotion. This is a typical change: diff, and diff. I am less clear about "forthcoming books", such as here: diff. The user has also created some articles for authors such as Claire Dederer and for the book Arc of Justice. I didn't want to take this to COIN because I don't think that there is a problem, but I wanted a more experienced eye looking at it. If you have time, please let me know what you think I can say to her that could be helpful. Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly sorry to have clearly upset you. That was not my intention - but seriously accusing me of an edit war over red link removals. Seems a bit rich to me. However I will leave well alone if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps you could even write the articles an remove the "red link" issue entirely.
Subject: Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary - and I seriously can't see how Wikipedia:Verifiability relates - in the slightest.
Again sorry :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It is amazing how Adam Gussen article on Wikipedia has speedy deletion right before Alan Sohn runs against him to take his seat. Don't worry, there are MANY examples like this. Gotta go to bed now. Wasickta ( talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Wasickta ( talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For keeping calm and promoting rational thought in a heated moment. Wasickta ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Jytdog. I've nominated the Medical definition of death article for deletion. The article started out with the title Legal death, and the lede still reflects that meaning, but the article drifted so far off topic that somebody renamed it and created the proper Legal death article that exists today. As it is now, I don't even know what the Medical definition of death article is supposed to be about because the lede doesn't even define what "Medical definition of death" means apart from legal death, which already has its own article. Please comment when able. Thanks. Cryobiologist ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in thinking that if a PR company involved in paid editing has been banned from WP that ban should also apply to the company's employees and agents too? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi I am new to the Wonderful World of Wiki and want to do everything correctly, but I am confused. I rebuilt the Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals page being careful not to be promotional, or in any way non-factual. I built the page in the same manner as many other pages that provide information on companies are built , so I don't understand why I was flagged? I will correct the permission issue regarding the logo, but otherwise the information is truthful, sourced and doesn't seem to violate any guidelines. thanks for your isight in helping me, the novice.. User:Barryfc101 Barryfc101 ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Why is Orkambi approved for F508del mutation when ivacaftor seems to target G551D? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(facebook is not a reliable source it's host wich can host relible sources. facebook is not to be considered a source a source is the person signing the article or in other way's contributing the content and beeing identified as the contributer of the content. you can find reliable sources on facebook and the same people in university libraries. Thus facebook can contain reliable sources. Ulfarf ( talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I only use verifiable data in my entries. I do not edit war(sombody reverted while I was editing). I make edits i'm quite sure are right and have been established as facts through multiple sources. I use the talk pages mostly. since you claime facebook is not a good host wich host's are sutable for WP? You can rely on hosted content on Facebook if it contains reliable sources. The data can be deleted by a user but data can be deleted from any host. Ulfarf ( talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2Bthc+cancer+cells+apoptosis&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5 And then correct the cancer section of the cannabis & THC article. Ulfarf ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported reference 8 and your name to the appropriate governmental agencies. You may want to reconsider who and what you are associated with. For now, I will let the reference remain for further investigation. Govern yourself accordingly. Jeff1938 ( talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog: I would like to disagree with your revision of the section on “Intranasal drug delivery” on the Glioblastoma multiforme page on May 7, 2016. I would like to revert your revision, but at the same time want to avoid back-and-forth editing. Perhaps we can agree beforehand?
The reason you stated for your revision was “we don’t know if it works yet or not.” What is the evidence for your position? In support of my view that intranasal perillyl alcohol does work, there are three peer-reviewed studies that report results from phase I/II trials in Brazil, where perillyl alcohol was given intranasally to patients with malignant glioma, resulting in increased survival of patients. As well, there are several secondary references (review articles) that refer to those results without questioning them, but rather finding them quite positive and encouraging. So, why do you disagree?
Also, you state “a small study”. Perhaps you know that malignant glioma is a rare (orphan) disease. Including several hundred patients, as the Brazil studies did, is quite an achievement and by no means a small study, in particular in view of their phase I/II status.
Looking forward to your feedback. Hopefully, we can find some agreement. P.S.: I think it would be beneficial for the readership to include reference to the US clinical trial (intranasal perillyl alcohol for GBM) currently going on. What do you think? Ossky ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You obviously figured this out, but I didn't realize until just now that yesterday I pinged
CFCF on
WT:MED by mistake when I was responding to something that you had said (about the influx of editors). I just replaced your username with CFCF's in my original comment, so I'm leaving this note here to explain why you may have gotten a ping just now about a day-old comment. And also to explain to CFCF that I accidentally tagged him yesterday. I'll just leave my reply here too to your comment from yesterday (" I had no idea that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs even existed..."
) since the conversation on that thread has long moved on and this is kind of a tangent anyway... You and me both... Apparently it's on my watchlist though. :) A few months ago I was trying to follow all of the SUD related articles, so I guess I came across that wikiproject, followed it, and immediately forgot about it. It must not have been very active before. There's also
WP:Cannabis. I think those are all of the substance related wikiprojects that I've come across.
PermStrump
(talk)
17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
KDS4444 ( talk) 02:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You should not have posted this (or anything else) on Doors' talk page. I have closed the COIN. Doors22 has agreed not to engage in direct article editing. You said that, if he were to agree to this, you would walk away from the article, so the assumption now is that you will honour that. Doc James is going to look out for any edit requests from Doors; he and Doors get along, so that will sort out the dispute on that page. In addition you and Doors should not post on each other's talk pages. This will end the long-standing dispute between you, so please respect it. SarahSV (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You really should have discussed this issue with me, rather than re-reverting. You've been around long enough to know better. I find that I agree with you concerning use of primary research in a (quasi-) medical article, though this was not an egregious case, and would probably have reverted my own edits, given the opportunity.
I'm inclined, however, to disagree with your characterization of the references in question as spam. WP:SELFCITE advises,
Mfareedk posted the references using his (I presume) own name, thereby disclosing his conflict of interests. (Disclosure generally vitiates a conflict of interest, absent evidence of corruption.) The citations are, as far as I can tell, to reputable, peer-reviewed journals, not self-published blogs or open forums. The text relying on those references was relevant, conformable to content policies, and not excessive. It was not outlandish, scandalous, or tendentious, but seemed to be in keeping with scientific consensus (to the extent that I'm aware of it) regarding the effects of inbreeding. If the sources were not primary research, I'd have said Mfareedk's edits should stand. Do you disagree?
I would also respectfully suggest that, instead of deleting his edits and chiding Mfareedk about self-promotion, a better, and more Wikipedian, response would have been to discuss the matter with him, and to encourage him to find secondary sources to support his factual assertions, so that his own research could stand as illustrations, rather than the principal bases, for his assertions in the text.
Unwarranted self-promotion on Wikipedia annoys me at least as much as it does you, and there is far too much of it. (It seems every song or album recorded in the last twenty years, and every band that has ever played two gigs, has a Wikipedia article!). But not all self-promotion is unwarranted, even if it's perhaps a little unseemly. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed the |rfcid=
from the {{
rfc}}
because unless that is done, Legobot will not remove the RfC from
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted (
like this), although it will correctly add it to
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (
like this). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I saw this comment before you deleted it. I actually think it's very valuable for you to say something along these lines (though it might be possible to rephrase in somewhat more diplomatic tones). It's good to know that you are following this story, but I think it's even better if there's a visible record that uninvolved Wikipedians care about the process followed by companies like this -- especially when they include longtime Wikipedians and people in positions of trust in our ecosystem. - Pete ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit and for including in your summary a reference to WP:MEDRS which led me to Secondary source. Now I understand why secondary sources should be cited.-- Akhooha ( talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand your zeal, but and older reference is fine as long as it demonstrates a point. That's why people still cite Watson & Crick (1953). This quote was primarily about the demographics, which is unlikely to change. Unless you can prove it using more recent quotes, of course. I will reinsert that citation, because an older reference is certainly better than no reference at all. Peteruetz ( talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Most of the Western world is asleep. Just saying. Being critical of my own insomnia. FeatherPluma ( talk) 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, looking for some guidance. It looks like an editor, Zefr, is displaying some WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour at the above article. I've attempted to edit the article early this month, Zefr immediately reverts. Looking at the history of the article, anyone who contributes to it who is not Zefr is reverted. I've looked on their TP, any prior notifications of edit warring/disruption etc are immediately blanked off. How do we deal with behaviour like this? XyZAn ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I happened on this AfD when leaving a talk page note for another editor. I saw you're collapsing discussion of !votes, but the discussions don't appear to be off-topic or disruptive (the reasons for hatting given in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). This hatting gives the impression of closing down debate - we get to consensus by discussion, clarification, and possibly even changing minds, not by voting in isolation. Characterising all the discussion in that AfD as "bickering" is not fair. Would you change the summaries from "bickering" to a less pejorative term, and consider uncollapsing some of the more constructive and less repetitive discussion? Thanks. Fences& Windows 12:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed the userbox I had placed on Alvy Ray's userpage. Fair enough. I had placed it there partly to see how the tag worked and to get it working correctly, which I now think it does, and partly as a favor to Mr. Smith to allow him to disclose his COIs in a standardized format. I did not intend for it to be problematic or a cause for conflict or concern, and would like to know if it has somehow become one. It is my hope that this new template, {{
UserboxCOI}}
, will become a convenient way for editors to disclose conflicts of interest instead of having to come up with a novel sentence saying so each time a COI is identified. The only thing I changed about Mr. Smith's userpage this evening was to update it for the template's new functionality of being able to identify multiple articles with which a user might have a COI (which Mr. Smith open stated that he had). But it is his userpage to mess with, not mine, and I only hope this change did not cause him any grief. I do not anticipate making any additional changes to the template in the future. My apologies for having tested it here.
KDS4444 (
talk)
07:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, Thank you again for the terrific coaching material you gave me a while back. You took a lot of time to help me.
My son is schizophrenic. Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract knocks down the negative symptoms significantly. Here's info about CBD and schizophrenia.
Dr. Daniele Piomelli at the University of California at Irvine. I met with him personally for an hour discussing his work: Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. [1] http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201215a.html (full article) This study is cited here: [2] TIME Magazine article about the study: [3]
Schizophr Res. 2015 Mar;162(1-3):153-61. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.01.033. Epub 2015 Feb 7. A systematic review of the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol in humans. [4] [5]
Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(32):5131-40. A critical review of the antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol: 30 years of a translational investigation. [6]
CBD can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia. [7]
Studies suggest that cannabinoids such as CBD and SR141716 have a pharmacological profile similar to that of atypical antipsychotic drugs. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Mar;11(2 Pt 2):208-19. doi: 10.3109/15622970801908047. Potential antipsychotic properties of central cannabinoid (CB1) receptor antagonists. [8]
2013 Evidence suggests that CBD can ameliorate positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. [9]
1,511 PubMed studies on cannabidiol: [10]
Thank you,
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) "Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug"]. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 39 (4): 421–9.
doi:
/S0100-879X2006000400001.
PMID
16612464. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |url=
at position 1 (
help)
Listenforgood ( talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
References
…freaking out, as you call it, at my Talk page, just a response to a continuing threat, there, to sanction me despite the ANI being archived. (The matter with Drmies was my ignorance of how to address the concern, and his impatience with my technical incompetence.) As for the frequency of my attendance, that is my call, and I admit, I have, in a new leaf, paid very little if any attention to politics and discussion here. I have found it to be completely useless, wasted time, with a few rare exceptions, yourself, and Liz, being some exceptional editors to whom I will attend.
Otherwise, I thank you for your continued evenhandedness/fairness in matters, despite your dislike. It is honourable, and I invite your continued comment on any matters you wish pertaining to me. We will no doubt continue to disagree (e.g., on the practical need for and ease of maintenance. and so value of cladograms as business images), but I respect you nonetheless, and am fine that I alone feel this between us. On the tagging matter, I have (i) indeed taken "to heart" the feedback, (ii) invited further feedback at my Talk page, but even so, will continue to try to improve articles, starting with sourcing issues (the sole source of our credibility, by Mr Wales et al's original design). And so this means—per policy, and depending on article status quo—that articles, and or sections, and/or sentences, will still receive tags, as issues demand.
Otherwise, hope all is well with you and yours. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In this edit you removed some text that you claim was completely wrong. What was wrong about "Wikipedia works because of the efforts of volunteers like you and their bold edits to assist us in building this encyclopedia project. Fixing problems and then removing maintenance templates when you're done is important in that effort."? Debresser ( talk) 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring and false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaman12 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
…by the move of the comments. I will see what the issue was for you—how the change of location changed the meaning of the Talk comment—but if you wish to clarify this, here, for sake of my understanding. Otherwise, my understanding is that my Talk page is the one venue where I do have control, and so it is critical to me that I understand what the core issue was (rather than being told what not to do at my Talk page!). Thanks in response for your reply. I very much want to understand how I misrepresented you by the simple, apolitical, impersonal, merely "administrative" move of text. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll want to know about these two templates. The second one, in particular, is probably underutilized. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been declined as premature at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 13:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)