![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I hate to promote my own userspace, but if you want things to pull from for that Berkeley class, see User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles for a list. – Train2104 ( t • c) 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Sitush (
talk)
08:38, 18 April 2017 (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.
You are reverting a version that was agreed upon by 4 editors. However much you think you are right, you can not do that.
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. Debresser ( talk) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, Thank you for your review for our page! The wiki page is actually still in progress and we will add more citations in 2-3 days. About the topic, we are student from UCB and this is actually our final project. The subsections are already set up and we do not have too much flexibility. Would you mind we move the section back to the page until the end of semester and also give us some advice about how should we improve in order to make it more related to the page topic? Thank you again! Ljqianl ( talk) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
See [1] which I don't think has an RS. Editor keeps adding it, see the talk page. Worth taking to RSN, although I've had bad luck there with lack of interest?. Doug Weller talk 06:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I am contributing to the climate justice section of the Climate Change Policy in the US page, including the section on the "Climate Mayors." You asked for third-party sources in this section, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for unbiased third-party sources. I have an article from Fox News discussing specifically the March 28th, 2017 letter by the MNCAA, but I did not include it because I was unsure if it was a good source. What is the best way to source very recent developments such as this? Thanks! [1]
References
-- Mcmonty2357 ( talk) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You probably saw it on her talk page, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennepicfoundation:_move_from_topic_ban_to_full_ban. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, Recently you flagged out article -- " Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations page," formerlly "Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States," and Socio-environmental impacts of animal agriculture" for deletion. Can we discuss why this happened and how to address the problems you found so that the article can be remediated? HELI ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my Talk page. I only made one edit on the Trazodone page, signed in the normal way. I am a professional chemist and was interested in the reports this week on a potential new use for Trazodone. The report I cited was from a reputable source (the BBC) and I have seen similar reports in many other sources. I checked that the scientists doing the work are reputable (they work at the MRC labs in the UK), although I agree that there may not yet be peer-reviewed publications from them regarding this particular development. I don't see why "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" should not report factually accurate and newsworthy information like this, so although I now bow to your superior knowledge of the editorial standards strived for in the medical articles I must say that I disagree with pedantically following such guidelines in relation to off label and investigative uses. I did not "hype" the new findings, merely reported them so that others, like me, who looked in Wikipedia to see what is known of the chemical in question would have the latest information. Mikedt10 ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this this. I think this could have gone either way. I was about to reply to your comment when Drmies closed. No problem. I do think, though, that its unfair to characterize some points as knee jerk . I think there are other ways of dealing with what I would consider undue issues rather than BLP problems than to delete, and that and other comments were well and carefully thought out. Just sayin'. Grumble grumble.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Debresser (
talk)
22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings Jytdog,
I am a part of a group of students at UC Berkeley who were editing the Stream Protection Rule page. Thank you for some of your edits, but we would like to ask why did you restructure the article? Additionally, you removed some crucial elements of the SPR history, environmental impact, and environmental justice components. It would be beneficial to include these in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibrilkyser ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, pls clarify why do you deep link the Boston Globe article in David Samadi's page? Also pls clarify if you have a COI ref David Samadi. Evonomix ( talk) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to have a look at discussions going on here, especially, the Rfc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog. Thank you.
Seraphim System (
talk)
08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
excellent vote. Please sign your post thought! LibStar ( talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. Your AE request is way too big. Please shrink it to 500 words. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Sometimes Wikipedia is a funny place to work... St Anselm ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (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 agreed with this edit, but one could just say "revert unsourced" instead of making a personalized remark. Would reduce potential drama and be less bitey. Just saying. Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Likewise?( Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Earlier today. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how many times I have to repeat that I did not start that RfC. I was asked to commented on it and so that is what I was doing (it was a delayed response because I haven't had time to look at anything here for most of this month). From what I understand, your position is that the labor of wikipedia editors is more important than the content itself. Your being someone who puts a lot of effort into maintaining a certain standard at wikipedia, I can understand your position. I also understand your evocation of the policies. This is why I myself did not start an RfC, but it is there and I do not see why I am required to be pious toward the work of others when I find that, ultimately, the result is less than satisfactory. You call this disrespectful. Ok. I do not believe that the work of the wikipedia community is to be put above the content. There are no new or additional sources. True. But the section in question tends, in my humble opinion, towards a particular point of view. This is clear when you bring up the fact that community members in past RfCs expressed suspicions that the school is a diploma mill, a view which is expressed (indirectly, perhaps, but only slightly) in the article on the basis of a website from a single state in a single country. I do not see how the expression of suspicion by the article is any worse than the promotional campaign - it is not neutral. I also understand that consensus is important here, to the point wikipedia couldn't function without it. Nonetheless, consensus is sometimes wrong and I am within my right here as well as within the guidelines to express my position in that regard in an RfC that I DID NOT start and was asked to comment upon. My position is that the content ought to be removed to avoid a war of opinion between the promotion campaign and the 'suspicious ones'. If it were so cut and dry that the previous RfCs had solved this problem then Mootros wouldn't have opened the RfC. My comments are simply follow from DGG and Markbassett, both who raised the question as to whether or not there is enough information to say anything at all about the school's accreditation and whether providing such information is in any case relevant enough to include. That my position, following from the comments of these two, requires the removal of community work is unfortunate and I am sorry that it offends you. I have more respect for the information provided by wikipedia than I do for any single editor or group of editors. It is no surprise to me that in a situation where a handful of people put considerably more effort into maintaining that information (and necessarily so), a politics of labor hierarchy would arise. Your most recent responses to me are aggressive and I consider them to be needless attacks which are personal-political and interpretive and I would appreciate that you keep in mind that, until this point, (and I am again repeating myself), I have been nothing but acquiescent towards you. Respectfully, Wildgraf quinn ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
...so I'm sure I came across as snippy and unpleasant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. For the record, I (obviously) agree that the article in question shouldn't exist or I wouldn't have nominated it - it's just a mess of dictionary definitions after all, and my own redirect attempt was reverted. I just don't want to give the article creator any loophole they can use to request undeletion of it! I've had my cup of tea now and I welcome your participation in the AfD discussion. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this ... – Train2104 ( t • c) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Politics aside, that is one of the most thorough NPOV investigations I have ever seen. That must've taken you a significant amount of time to put together and goes a LONG way to strengthening the integrity of this project. Well done. v/r - T P 03:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
Dear Jytdog,
As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.
I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.
According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia.
References
-- Aozolins-golin-riga ( talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
... because I would have liked to comment if I'd seen it sooner. This thread. I wanted to say that I too think your edit summary to the brand new editor was an unnecessary and harmful putdown, to put it no more strongly. The edit summary you responded to may have been "remarkable", but it was also quite typical of well-meaning newbies, as was the whole edit. In this case, a newbie who seemed to have good potential to learn Wikipedia's culture and customs. I don't think you can have seen me exhibit a tendency to dogpile with Montana and Olive (actually I have, if anything, the opposite tendency). Bishonen | talk 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC).
My reference to a vendor's listing mentioning "Equipoise", the item's name, is to support the existence and use of that name. The vendor was chosen at random, and it is no more spam, like you call it, than mentioning Microsoft or Amazon as it is done commonly within Wikipedia articles to reference a product. A more useful and constructive action from your part would be to find another source, or request one, without merely putting the article on your chopping board. Also, you suppress the brand name ("Equipoise") under which the substance is universally known. It is like suppressing the trade name "Aspirin" when referring to acetylsalicylic acid. And, stop attacking and undoing/deleting my referenced relevant edits with no explanation, akin to vandalism. You were warned before about this. Thank you 50.187.63.48 ( talk) 19:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
as you will then. Jytdog ( talk) 23:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
See [5] and [6]. Seems a very good source? Doug Weller talk 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Received a message from you "you reverted Drmies... Drmies is an admin and arb; this was probably unwise of you"
That particular point that was edited has been, and continues to be, searching for a consensus. To make that edit simply ignores the discussion.
Please keep in mind that being an admin and arb doesn't make you special. As Jimmy Wales put it, "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position." Wilfred Brown ( talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog - I believe you are making unnecessary reverts on a page while it would have been better to flag the page, leave a comment, or make the changes yourself. This would have been sufficient action for an article with non-neutral language. As to your other complaint, I am the students' instructor, am familiar with the literature, and confirm they have not plagiarized their sources and have appropriately cited everything. You have not fixed anything, only thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I am warning you to undo your latest revert as it is unproductive and the sort of behavior which leads to edit wars. Physhist ( talk) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Janweh64/Rules of conduct —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 11:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI I just created Monsanto GMO cannabis hoax. - Bri ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ibogaine&oldid=prev&diff=777894147, I strongly urge you to 'find the best source [you] can' for this improvement -- which is entirely accurate and up to date. Since the block to getting it accepted would be yourself, you would be best placed to decide what meets the standard of non-spamminess and acceptability. May I suggest https://thethirdwave.co/ibogaine-legality/ which I find to be on the same level of acceptability as the citation you replaced of http://www.ibogaine.co.uk ?
More embarrassingly, the 2015 URL you prefer to revert -- http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/ibogaine -- leads to a 404 page. You should know not to do *that*!
On a personal note, this sort of thing is why I have not bothered to try and improve Wikipedia for many years now. Pthag ( talk) 09:04, 30 April 2017 (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.
...that you host the following end of discussion, since it was you that brought the action in the first place. I placed it at the Noticeboard, and Softlavender deleted it twice. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this conversation to the talk page of the user who posted it. Please see User talk:Leprof 7272#Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog, do you want to check out Niman Ranch? Its clear " NimanRanch" is undisclosed COI editing and violating username policy, and it looks like " Laurnisc" might be an employee as well. The editing in some ways doesn't appear constructive. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: and otherwise, stay off my Talk page. You are not welcome, and you have no place reverting my edits there. Copying @ Softlavender: to adjuducate if necessary. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Scott P. ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on this article. Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 11:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you may be engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please accept this good faith suggestion.
Hi, re. your revert in spinal muscular atrophy, you might have made a mistake when calling information on patient registries an "advertisement". I encourage you to take a look at this: [7]. I also intend to update this section with mentions of other SMA registries across the globe. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
I don't always agree with you on content, but I would like you to know that I am grateful for the hard work you've put in lately to uphold the values of the project. Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hello. I see that you merged Sandoz with Novartis, but I'd like to create a Sandoz page for the surname. Should I create Sandoz (surname) or simply write over the redirect please? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I'm a little perplexed by your crusade against brain fingerprinting, and in particular the insinuation that there is a study which supports the notion that it is less reliable than the polygraph. Do you have any sources other than the Verge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreagle ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, I'm not sure that your suggestion is entirely well founded. If you read the article, as I have, you will see that the quote which Jytdog has used is not in fact even in reference to the polygraph study. Ignoring the irony in your comment regarding assumption of good faith and subsequent allegations of dishonesty, I take issue with the notion that I must provide a second source. Not only is the comment quoted literally just the opinion of a journalist on another site (and therefore no more valid than my own opinion) but there is no issue with challenging the logic of a study based on its method. That is the way that science works. We do not simply assume that something is valid until it is proven to be invalid. This study, if you read it, is actually a literature review, which basically threw together disparate studies with different methods and pooled their results. It is, then, unsurprising that the results were inconsistent. Current brain fingerprinting research shows no false positives across many trials in some protocols. Taking this one literature review is therefore an inaccurate representation of the state of play in this area. Finally, your assertion that the Courts are not valid authority is absurd. What would you suggest they rely on if not scientific testimony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreagle ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I saw your comments on my page. Thank you for the warm welcome! I've tried to make some of the changes you noted I need to change and I will keep working on the others. Thank you very much fo rthe help in formatting the page, I didn't realize there was a common order.
Cheers, Twyatt5— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twyatt5 ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 May 2017 UTC) (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on
Alternative for Germany. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --
Joobo (
talk)
06:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
...we have been discussing this and letting the community continue to review the block may be better. Thank you,
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks....what is next ?-- Widmun ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you see this? [8] I don't think it's enough to make you notable yet, but it's a start. 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw your post [10] at 2017_wikitext_editor/Feedback.
How do I preview?? Wow I have no idea how this thing works.
I figured it would be better to offer my Flow-rant reply here, rather than there. When Flow was being designed, many editors said it couldn't be deployed without proper wikitext support. The lead designer explicitly stated that he wanted to kill off wikitext. He said he was going to build what he wanted to build, and the WMF would decide about deployment whether we liked it or not. Flow was fundamentally built around Visual Editor. Later they grafted on a second editing mode.... a wikitext simulator. It was an unholy hack. The answer to your question is that there's a pencil-icon at the bottom-right of the edit window. You can click that, then click which mode you want to use. It has no actual preview. You're supposed to use Visual mode as a fake preview.
Flow literally can't save wikitext. If you switch to "wikitext mode", you can type in wikitext. But when you save or "preview", it throws your wikitext away. It translates it into VisualEditor format (HTML/RDFa). When you're done previewing and go back to wikitext mode, or if you save and try to edit it again later, it invents new and fictional wikitext. That new wikitext usually resembles the wikitext you originally typed in. The new wikitext usually renders the same as what you typed. The new wikitext is usually not completely broken. (In other words, saving or merely previewing often mangles your wikitext, and in some cases completely destroys it.)
It's so broken that merely reverting an edit can damage the original version. It's so broken that it can generate "tumors". What's a tumor? Each time you preview or save, it does a round trip translation. Round trip translations can generate expanding garbage. Each time you preview or save, you get expanding garbage in the middle of the wikitext. It takes very specific wikitext to trigger that sort of tumor, but it illustrates just how broken the design is.
The story just gets worse. Recently the WMF ran a survey of users, asking about Flow. They WP:Canvassed that survey as hard as possible. On some wikis, people can opt-in to activate Flow as their user_talk page. The WMF posted survey invitations onto the talk page of everyone who actively opted into to Flow. There were also a small number of neutral survey-announcements posted to community pages.
There were various survey questions, but the most notable question was for "Prefer Flow" / "Neutral" / "Prefer Wikitext". After canvasing the survey as hard as possible in favor of Flow, the results were 38% prefer Flow, 10% neutral, 52% prefer wikitext. Even after massive canvassing, "strongly prefer wikitext" outnumbered "prefer Flow" and "strongly Prefer Flow" combined.
Based on this survey of the community feedback on Flow, the report recommends that the WMF resume development of Flow, it recommends that the WMF seek to expand deployment of Flow.
And this all circles back to the 2017_wikitext_editor. In case you missed it, there was 90+% consensus at Village Pump to block deployment. [11] Visual Editor renders various things wrong, and both Flow and the New editor use the Visual-Editor engine to generate defective previews. Flow has far more serious problems due to damaging the page-source itself, but they all suffer from the same rendering flaws. Alsee ( talk) 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello!
I saw that you reverted my edit on the anatabine page, so I thought I'd come here to discuss it with you. Since I am a new editor, I am trying to learn from any reverts, so I appreciate your patience and participation. As a reminder, the information in question is below:
In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal, when news broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of the company. [1] Williams resigned in 2014 and the company changed its name at the same time it changed its board and management, at the end of 2013 due to the scandal. [2]
In your revert of my deletion, you gave the reasoning that "this is very relevant to commercial development of the drug. it belongs in this section." However, I do not understand why a political scandal involving the CEO of a company that happens to make this drug is relevant to the product development of this specific drug. I would understand if the scandal involved the drug itself, such as in the preceding paragraph which talks about the unlawful promotion of the drug, but that is not the case here.
Therefore, could you please explain your rationale for keeping this information in the Anatabine#Commercial Development section in greater detail to me?
References
Thanks! ― Biochemistry🙴❤ 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog..I am at a loss...While I was liaising with you and left my revised manuscript on my Talk page for your attention as directed , I waited without response which I thought rather odd because you are usually prompt to reply...This morning the article was deleted by Kurykh. I was overwhelmed by the extensive amount of information which I read on various links on WP unfortunately without much use as to what I need to do next...However I have recreated the page (without my middle name , which I thought will be less confusing when searching me on the web) and submitted it for revision as required... and a copy of it is still on my talk page... Sorry to keep bothering you , my excuse is that I am 73 yr. old...Regards -- Widmun ( talk) 15:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you warning, now comes mine. I originally assumed good Faith in Your edits. Even when other users told otherwise i still looked for common ground regarding content questions on the particular article and agf in what you did. Yet you did not seem to do the same if it comes to other editors in case they are not 100 percent on your side. For you it seems it does not count what RS tell, no but more what you want to see here personally on WP,- he best example is your absolute urge to include the particular point of German nationalism in the infobox of the party albeit you are till now neither able to give a single reliable source to that claim nor do you seem willing to understand what this ideology actually means. And now you try to push an even more blatant POV in the first sentence of the article, without even changing the sources.Well, If it is not obvious now what is going on here it probably never will be. In case you continue with such behaviour that violates WP guidelines sanctions are possible or could become necessary. This personal warning gets a bit more distinct on the matter instead of your fear aiming pre written example you liked to put on my talk page without any grounds behind. -- Joobo ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Joobo ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw that you caught a WP:COPYVIO on Virtual Reality today that I missed when I approved the pending change. Could you give me some tips or best practices for detecting WP:COPYVIO so they don't get past me again? Are you using a tool? Should I be? Thanks! – 𝕘wendy | ☎ 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Alexander ISUM. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Creationism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a category:denialism. I don't see any mention of such in the article. At least with the An IP has removed it twice. Should the category remain? The category fits, but seems unsupported. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I think your name appeared in some of the discussions about this. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo in case you want to propose how to resolve this. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I've mentioned this to Favonian given his warning to the editor who moved it. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I realize you do not like me — but please refrain from reverting just based off that. If you followed the history of that page I have edited and helped build it extensively — and if you disagree with anything I do please take that to the appropriate venue — or at least try to discuss it and look to the history of the page. In case you missed it, I was the one who inserted that formulation at the start, and it frankly does not hold to give clear rules on a guide page. Look to the talk page and you will see a comment about why "it is inappropriate" is better wording than "you should not". Don't go around telling me that my conduct on policy pages in general is objectionable, that is rude and in fact far more objectionable. Carl Fredrik talk 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Be aware that you are at WP:3RR on Help:Maintenance template removal. Please refrain from reverting, especially when your grounds are objectively false. Carl Fredrik talk 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have already asked that you refrain from posting on my talk, especially not with bullying threats like that. If you want to discuss this at ANI, I ask that you do this after June 13th when I will be able to defend myself. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 15:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have said I will observe a voluntary topic ban for the next month, and revert my recent changes, if you agree to postpone taking me to ANI until I am able to defend myself. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 15:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why published journals are as bad articles? According to Wikipedia, they are: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Good research. Is there something I'm missing? Also, the Daily Mail reference was a joint article between them and the Rugby Players Association, a reputable source. Also, reputable newspapers such as the Independent and the Telegraph are used in other articles on Wikipedia. Why were they not allowed in this article? Just interested to understand, thanks. TGB13 ( talk) 20:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that i think i have enough of the RfC talk. This whole episode is exactly why i never made an account or contribute in a long term and meaningful way. I am unwilling to tilt winmills, have too little patience and a too low a tolerance for certain tactics of discussion that are all too common all across Wikipedia. I mean, i just dont get what i can do and how to go on or what else could be done, although it certainly seems as if exactly that feeling is wanted, which again is all too common all around. I am also sure that if i check the talk my inner idiot will tell me to respond again and i will cave in... so maybe deep down i do like to tilt at windmills haha... anyway, have a good one i guess. Will keep an eye out on the article talk anyway because im quite curious in a sense how this will turn out. I mean i know how it will turn out but i am interested in further comments despite my resignation... ah well, what else is there to be done other than using sources against oppinion. If that is not enough, well there never was a chance anyway. Have to accept that and move on. Wikipedia is little more than fast food knowledge anyway and no reader gives a second thought about... basicaly anything. But that is another issue altogether that i probably shouldn't even have mentioned... alas my inner idiot told me to tilt at windmills again haha 91.49.68.199 ( talk) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I had already composed this message but was unsure who to ask, then noticed you did the last revert, so here it is:
these edits creep in again and again, I'm not sure what to do about it. No immediate warnings to the last IP addresses, but there were (including to Ilikerabbits!), to invite discussion here, but no evidence of any conversation so far other than through edit summaries...
Articles of interest where the same addresses/user edits:
Birth control,
Reproductive rights,
Young Earth creationism,
Authorship of the Bible,
Biblical literalist chronology,
Women in Christianity,
Christian views on slavery,
Abortion and the Catholic Church (I've not checked extensively yet if all of those edits were necessarily problematic, except some repeated ones obviously are)...
Is this of a high enough gravity that I should worry or open an ANI case? Or do we keep reverting forever?
Involved addresses (that I know): 123.231.124.98, 123.231.121.246, 123.231.107.255.
123.231.107.255 was due for enough warnings reached, but then Ilikerabbits! and other addresses were also used.
Thanks in advance for your advice. —
Paleo
Neonate —
14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
J - I was going to remove all mention of the vit E class action and its resolution, but hesitated because it was part of company's history. However, I am comfortable with that being deleted, along with the mentions of products and production sites. Bigger picture is that most of the mid- to large-sized supplement companies are constantly dealing with threats of or actual class action lawsuits ever since the Dannon yogurt decision. The resultant trend has been a reining in of egregious and unsubstantiated health claims. A few companies deliberately continue to skate near the thin ice, and others are just plain stupid. Whether any of that is Wikipedia-worthy may best be decided on a case by case basis. There are a few that cratered so spectacularly that it was an essential part of the description of the company (Sensa, Airborne, etc.). David notMD ( talk) 15:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So the lawyers are us link and 2 local news fluff pieces are right out? :). If I'd known it was G4, would have CSD'd on that basis. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (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!
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello - can you please explain why we should not report this [12] since it seems to be adequately sourced? We may not be a gossip rag but it is perfectly normal and in line with a nuetral point of view to report adqueately sourced facts about article subjects. What is "BLP DS" please? Thank you. Amisom ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - in case it wasn't clear from the above, I would like you to stop posting rude, aggressive or unconstructive comments on my talkpage [13] Thanks in dvance Amisom ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the current changes [14]? An user is making major changes in the sourced text and falsified sources. 81.171.7.100 ( talk) 11:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled across this during NPP. There's certainly nothing at all notable about him as a cleric, but I'd rather have someone who knows something about the alternative medicine stuff look at it also. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. I have a question that I was hoping you could help me with, mainly because I know you're active and knowledgeable here regarding medical topics and sourcing. I was reading a speech Michael Crichton had given [15] where he makes the following statement: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it." I read through the wikipedia article on second hand smoke and it doesn't seem to line up with Crichton's statement. Do you know where I could read more about this claim? Or is it simply not true. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Gillespie's lobbying career was a significant part of his overall career, spanning two decades. Emphasis is not inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4400:444E:56A:68B9:7075:2C18 ( talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please see Talk:Religious violence.-- 46.10.52.226 ( talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits. I am adding a very relevant reference for an unreferenced claim in the article that needs a source. Also, you are threatening me with blocking when it's you who are doing blockable offences by advertising paid Wikipedia editing services. If you revert my edit again without having a discussion on the Talk page, I will report you. If you disagree with my edit, the correct thing to do is to discuss it on the Talk page, not start an edit war by simply reverting something that you don't agree with. Let99 ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter -- papageno ( talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on my draft pages:
Thanks in advance. Seniorexpat ( talk) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that you like to disregard and delete the overwhelming proof that magnetic field therapy works. Finally, the FDA is no longer suppressing magnetic field therapy and is embracing it - and one of these reasons is because of the crisis that is happening with Oxi overdoses in the United States. The FDA wants the doctors to stop writing pain medication prescriptions - they are jailing doctors that write pain medication prescriptions that result in overdose. Trump has made changes in the FDA to accomplish this. You can watch TV commercials now PEMF therapy now. The FDA recently started 510K clearing all sorts of PEMF devices for over the counter use to treat pain and to promote microcirculation -
Even the drug companies that specilize in pain have jumped on board! Get with the program.
https://www.aleve.com/aleve-direct-therapy/
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/K152432.pdf
They have grandfathered in PEMF as TENS devices - PEMF induction to stimulate the blood vessels - not direct electrode contact - it's magnetic fields. This is how the FDA is doing this.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/K151834.pdf
We all know of the vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry to keep this therapy secret but there are some big changes in the way the FDA now regulates magnetic field therapy - and this is because of Trump's change in healthcare initiatives. We know that doctors are not going to jump on board immediately because that would require a lot of re-education - but we should at least allow wikipedia to tell the audience that is on the verge of suicide because of chronic pain that there are now FDA cleared alternatives. That is what the surgeon general is promoting too - the US has to get off of pain medication. By you prohibiting this new therapy to be written about on wikipedia - you do a great disservice to humanity holding this information back. Kids are killing themselves. There are 300,00 children with childhood arthritis in the USA! It's time for you to learn that the FDA "thinks different" now and it's OK to talk about magnetic field therapy.
The article on PEMF needs to be updated. If you feel you are the expert - you write it - but PEMF has been used for over 100 years to treat pain all over europe. It's approved for pain by Health Canada now and finally the FDA accepts it too. Get with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlee8985 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Read WP:DNTTR. 2. Read WP:PRESERVE. Carefully. FYI, a simple Google search would have offered dozens of reliable sources. However, you preferred to revert, make a nonsense comment about EMA website, and then template me. I take it as malicious behaviour. — kashmiri TALK 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Am I wrong...?
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
09:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
They might need some advice, particularly the spammer - some cleanup is going to be needed there if only because her ELs fail EL. See my post to Diannaa. [21] Doug Weller talk 14:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to reach a conclusion at ANi.
I'm not sure exactly what bad behaviour you are trying to badger me into admitting but I see no reason to make statements that will be quoted back to me forever more in future disputes. The point of the thread is to address Wikihounding. I was not engaging with Godsy except to tell him to back off the harassment. Therefore there is no inter-editor behavioural issue at dispute with me.
Various unsubstantiated issues with my editing have been raised, but my track record stands up to fair scrutiny. We all make editing mistakes, but mine are not so bad I deserve any sanctions. No one has dragged me to the Admin notice boards in a long time.
I see from your userpage you've had your own fair share of disputes, so you should be more sympathetic here. Legacypac ( talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You've participated in exactly 1 MfD involving userspace and zero involving draft space. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/cgi-bin/xfd-stats.py?username=Jytdog&max=50000 compared to 815 I've participated or initiated https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/cgi-bin/xfd-stats.py?username=Legacypac&max=50000 In 82% of all time my vote or nomination lines up with the result. Is there some other experience in the user/draft area that qualifies you to seek a topic ban on my participation? Legacypac ( talk) 22:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You closed Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proposed clarifying change here and to blocking policy as "no significant disagreement" almost one month ago. However, some people raised points about the changes. Also, I listed it at Template:centralized discussion and then delisted it into Archives when you closed it. If relisting is unnecessary (which I'm not requesting... yet), how about amending or expanding your closing rationale instead? Also, you closed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Unblocking after community-imposed block as "Resolved, policies amended". The change to such policy would affect how Wikipedia is edited, and I think the proposal is more than just a simple change. Nevertheless, as said, if relisting is unnecessary, I think more explanation and summarization are appreciated please. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hypothetically, (no offense) what if you could get blocked per community consensus? How would you appeal the community-implemented block? George Ho ( talk) 06:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
proposed change wouldn't technically prevent problems [but is] a move in the right direction." You can summarize the arguments in your own way and expand the closing rationale. The closure of the WP:VPPR discussion would be said as "superseded" by the policy change, but you can summarize the arguments in favor of either option. Well... "option 1" arguments, "option 2" arguments, and "option 3" arguments. How is that? George Ho ( talk) 07:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The article may still be horrible, but it doesn't require an expert, has plenty of in-line citations, and some of the other tags have passed their use-by date. Please review and prune the tags. Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing about Fengchey's edits to the Diffusion Tensor Imaging section of the Diffusion MRI section. A claim of COI does not defeat peer reviewed articles and published patents. I'm the inventor of DTI. GE, Siemens, Hitachi, Toshiba, and Philips spent tens of millions of dollars on the top attorneys in the world to try to disprove this to avoid patent litigation for infringement and they lost. So why does an unknown person "Fengchey" get to delete the patent and all my publications. How does that serve knowledge?
Aaron Filler, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiller ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Afiller ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a best place to notify of undisclosed/potential COI editors? The IP user 75.99.119.254 has only been making edits related to Colavita, and very promo ones at that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I remember you citing a guideline for sourcing these during an AfD. Can you remind me of where it is? I really need to become familiar with that. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you out of the blue. I was lurking the whole fiasco EA/transhumanist/Vipul fiasco for a while, but stopped following it. I remember you wanted to start an RfC; did that ever happen? GojiBarry ( talk) 00:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Antrochoanal polyps 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. Legacypac ( talk) 05:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I had create 20 articles. But there are few pages which are not reviewed till now. I am requested to you please review the pages. Tushar Singha ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Archaeogenetics of the Near East shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Why have you merged theranostics into personalized medicine? Theranostics is an independent concept and is enough eligible to have an independent article.-- Sahehco ( talk) 13:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The ref I added is not from that list. it's a an important part of a larger academic report. If you have issues with it, please discuss it on the talk page. But don't edit war and be careful of removing reliable sources without explanation. Otherwise it could be treated as WP:Vandalism-- Taeyebar 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
hi Jytdog, i just fixed the strikeout/underlining of your entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Care Anywhere, hope this is ok.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I am performing a cochrane update on Olanzapine, and I am having trouble deciding if I should change the current text in the article.
What information do you think is important to relay from this 2005 review?
It presently states, "A Cochrane review found, however, that the usefulness of olanzapine maintenance therapy is difficult to determine as more than half of people in trials quit before the six-week completion date."
Thanks for your time!
JenOttawa ( talk) 23:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Christianity and violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
WARNING. Please stop warring at Blohm + Voss and discuss your edits on the article talk page. If you persist, sanctions may be taken. Cheers, 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk)
Hi Jytdog. I added the NYT topic as many articles I've seen do (it's sorta rare for NYT to even keep a topic on many schools), and I don't think it qualifies as ELNO 9 as it's not a search results page. It's a selected list of articles related to the topic, further reading if you will. I think it meets WP:ELYES #3. As for the Food Business School link, sure it looks like spam, as the CIA seems to have a larger marketing department than it does academics sometimes, but the FBS is the CIA for its graduate programs. Sorta considered a somewhat separate entity, but owned/operated by CIA. I'm gonna add more about it in the article, but the link definitely is relevant. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I just realized you may not have full access to the article in the Parkinson's Imaging discussion that we are both working on. I fortunately work an institution that provides it to me without a fee. If you have an open e-mail and are interested, I would be more than happy to send you a copy. I enjoy sandwiches ( talk) 13:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my removal of the word "leading". [22] It is my opinion that I should repeat this removal, for the following reasons: 1. The Rfc did not sanction the specific words of the text, as specific in both the proposal and the closing specifically. 2. There is a major pillar of Wikipedai policy that states that unsourced information can be removed when challenged, and such is the precise case here. 3. Please also note that my main opponent so far, Dailycare, expressed that he has no problem with the removal I made. [23] Would you agree with me on this, or if you disagree, could you please explain why? Debresser ( talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 tried an edit for the initial intro--only this time--of Christianity and Violence. I am not confident at all that these additions will all be agreed upon but all the advice says, "Be Bold!" so I went ahead and put them all in! Please go ahead and argue with me about them! It is an effort to make this article seem to lean a little less in one direction. I've decided after reading it a couple of times that it is the adjectives in the descriptions that are negative that make it read that way in addition to not including enough alternate views. I was wondering about removing some of those??? Anyway--tell me what you think--surely we can work this out together. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled across this during NPP. There's certainly nothing at all notable about him as a cleric, but I'd rather have someone who knows something about the alternative medicine stuff look at it also. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking for a layout guideline for articles on drugs – thank you for actually linking one! — Prof. Squirrel ( talk) 18:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need to continue commenting "in public". Re
your comment, Obviously someone at WMF who never uses this site thought it would be a great thing to implement. Hats off to them!
goes quite a bit beyond "frustration". Your comments regarding the edit summary counter and related seemed obviously driven by frustration, which is why I was more than willing to reply to your concerns (in multiple locations). The quoted above is a simple potshot and does not help resolve any issue. Whether I or you see the change as good, bad, or neither, two sentences worth of pure sarcasm is not an
effective tool at communicating what needs to change and clearly turns the discussion into an "us versus the nameless them who so idiotically made the change" discussion, rather than one where information is transferred and whom-so-ever with the power to change the situation can take productive action. If you want to cast about for someone pouring oil on a fire, start with statements like that one. It is not that editor's first comment like that and I don't expect it to be his last unless he is let known that it is not the way to do things. --
Izno (
talk)
23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at COI editing at Mandy Harvey and Reinsurance Group of America? (The e-mail domain for the latter is "rgare" per its website, and the Wikipedia username is rgareweb.) I just don't have the stomach to participate in COI policing, and I have personal and / or professional affiliations with both of these topics, so I'd just rather recuse myself. I'm sorry to be adding more work to your plate, but I appreciate your help. Kekki1978 ( talk) 04:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 ( talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
You must be tired, and hungry, after passing out all that rope! Just wanted to give you some encouragement, and say thanks. DN ( talk) 19:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
I am sorry if i stepped in inapropriately at ANI, just seen it by chance while looking over the rediculous drama on the boards (yes i find some of it weirdly entertaining, like a soap opera i guess haha). Anyway, hope i was not out of line. But now that that is closed there is no point to dwell on it for me. So i will go back to watching instead of editing. But i have to say, i do find the aproach of certain people, and by that i really do mean a sizeable group of people in many different areas, rather problematic to put it mildly, very mildly even. Ah whatever, no need for me to ramble on here, just wanted to say sorry for just getting involved in something that had nothing to do with me. Just felt the need to say something, for better or for worse. Have a good day anyway. 91.49.78.64 ( talk) 14:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that, should have looked beforehand, my bad. -- Yalens ( talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In regards to this edit of yours, I'd ask that if you have issues with Barbara, please discuss it with me. I'm a colleague of hers at Pitt and I'm interested in avoiding personality conflicts so we can all edit peacefully. I don't disagree with your warning but I think coming from you, that warning isn't well-received. I'd be glad to help communicate the message if you could stay off her talk page. And yes, I spoke to her so this isn't coming out of left field. Chris Troutman ( talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, why is the detail on Head & Shoulders celebrities considered Trivia when other brands are doing exactly the same thing ( /info/en/?search=List_of_Nike_sponsorships) is it the way it is structured? less than 5% of these celebrity or team endorsements are cited. If I add citations to the list and remove less notable persons would this be tolerable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.132.244 ( talk) 11:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I added some criticisms of Coinbase yesterday, which you have removed. I am in no way a wikipedia expert who spends all day on here, I just effectively want to warn people of how poor coinbase is after my own personal experience and also the experience of pretty much everyone I have ever met, within the crypto community. I don't know what you would consider "reliable sourcing" in terms of references etc but I think wikipedia should give a fair and accurate representation of the company and to have absolutely no criticism of coinbase at the moment is entirely inaccurate. They are completely failing in their role as an exchange and have literally no customer support. The site IS constantly down whenever there is a big market swing. Those are absolute facts. I will happily look for more articles and link to multiple articles about it if that's what you think is appropriate but as I say, I really think it is fair to have criticism of the company for their complete failure to function as intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeynesey ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi
You reverted my addition about the synthetic rubber (Buna) plant at Oswiecim. This is a very well known and documented story. Perhaps you were not aware that Oswiecim is simply the original Polish name for the town the Germans called Auschwitz. At Auschwitz were three camps; Auschwitz I (the original concentration camp), Auschwitz II (also called Auschwitz-Birkenau, an extermination camp) and Auschwitz III (also called Monowitz, and a forced labor camp). It is this third camp which supplied the labor to the IG Farben synthetic rubber plant and other plants associated with the camp. In fact, the camp was created purely for the purpose of supplying labor. If you read the first para of the WP entry for Auschwitz III you will see this explained. Or there are several excellent books on the subject, such as that by Andreas Kilian. Thanks. PointOfPresence ( talk) 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For fixing up Altor BioScience after I moved it from AfC. Thanks a lot! Cerebellum ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. When you notice new content that is not properly sourced, you can ask the author to source it, rather than simply reverting it. When you ask for sources, you allow other people to contribute and improve the content. Simsong ( talk) 01:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This is well known Biblical cannon. Abraham gave birth to Isaac, which gave birth to Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Jacob/Israel gave birth to 12 sons and one daughter, the fourth son's name was Judah. Taking a look at The Online Jewish Encyclopedia ( http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm): "[...] technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time [...]" 68.225.237.140 ( talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you have improved that section, I just wanted to let you know that it also was added to Answers in Genesis, in case you'd want to also edit it... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 05:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog! I have noticed the talk page from solvation shell and the sourcing discussion there. Is there any problem if I insert some citation for that content from NON-ENG sources? (Romanian and/or Russian souces). Thanks.-- 82.79.115.107 ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! And thanks for reacting to the changes I made. I know about the rule of not linking to blogs, forums and the like. Yet, though hosted on a blogspot platform, EvT is an academic project and contains some valuable research and tools for those interested in the subject of Jewish angelology and demonology. I am not sure whether the author of EvT is a " recognized authority", but he is far from being anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetgar ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytog, i see you removed the updated information i added on Anneliese Dodds for being un-sourced. If you clicked on the link(s) that were added you will see they lead you to the election pages where the results from those elections are displayed. Her name for instance in the 2010 election is quite clear on the Reading East (UK Parliament constituency) page. Are you suggesting that i use the linked page as a reference? cheers Dexcel ( talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I would like to know why you consider CRYSTALBALL hype the section about nucleoside therapy referencing papers published in high-impact, peer-reviewed international journals such as EMBO Medicine, and led by scientists at Columbia University and other top scientific institutions.
Since this is a subject of high interest in relation to this case and the scientific aspects of it, it deserves an encyclopedia article with reliable information. All the scientific references I added come from PubMed, with just one reference to a Washington Post article about Arturito Estopinan, which is the first known human patient.
Which are your credentials to censor peer-reviewed scientific informations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry ( talk • contribs) 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog:
That was the version pro ante, and the article should stay that way until consensus. Please don't mistake it for edit warring. Saronsacl ( talk) 01:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creatively searching for those sources within such a short space of time. I'll help to use parts of them to improve the article. I also read your opinions on your user page at NPOV part 1: secondary sources, and agree with your understanding and definition of what Wikipedia is. Thanks again. Edaham ( talk) 05:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{
PD-notice}}
after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
12:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As Sancho Panza I'd say this would never succeed at AfD. Wiki realpolitik means we're stuck with this shitty article. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog you have history of edit warring. What is your problem with people adding information. Down's syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadarson ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 July 2017 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I hate to promote my own userspace, but if you want things to pull from for that Berkeley class, see User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles for a list. – Train2104 ( t • c) 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Sitush (
talk)
08:38, 18 April 2017 (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.
You are reverting a version that was agreed upon by 4 editors. However much you think you are right, you can not do that.
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. Debresser ( talk) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, Thank you for your review for our page! The wiki page is actually still in progress and we will add more citations in 2-3 days. About the topic, we are student from UCB and this is actually our final project. The subsections are already set up and we do not have too much flexibility. Would you mind we move the section back to the page until the end of semester and also give us some advice about how should we improve in order to make it more related to the page topic? Thank you again! Ljqianl ( talk) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
See [1] which I don't think has an RS. Editor keeps adding it, see the talk page. Worth taking to RSN, although I've had bad luck there with lack of interest?. Doug Weller talk 06:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I am contributing to the climate justice section of the Climate Change Policy in the US page, including the section on the "Climate Mayors." You asked for third-party sources in this section, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for unbiased third-party sources. I have an article from Fox News discussing specifically the March 28th, 2017 letter by the MNCAA, but I did not include it because I was unsure if it was a good source. What is the best way to source very recent developments such as this? Thanks! [1]
References
-- Mcmonty2357 ( talk) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You probably saw it on her talk page, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennepicfoundation:_move_from_topic_ban_to_full_ban. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, Recently you flagged out article -- " Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations page," formerlly "Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States," and Socio-environmental impacts of animal agriculture" for deletion. Can we discuss why this happened and how to address the problems you found so that the article can be remediated? HELI ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my Talk page. I only made one edit on the Trazodone page, signed in the normal way. I am a professional chemist and was interested in the reports this week on a potential new use for Trazodone. The report I cited was from a reputable source (the BBC) and I have seen similar reports in many other sources. I checked that the scientists doing the work are reputable (they work at the MRC labs in the UK), although I agree that there may not yet be peer-reviewed publications from them regarding this particular development. I don't see why "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" should not report factually accurate and newsworthy information like this, so although I now bow to your superior knowledge of the editorial standards strived for in the medical articles I must say that I disagree with pedantically following such guidelines in relation to off label and investigative uses. I did not "hype" the new findings, merely reported them so that others, like me, who looked in Wikipedia to see what is known of the chemical in question would have the latest information. Mikedt10 ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this this. I think this could have gone either way. I was about to reply to your comment when Drmies closed. No problem. I do think, though, that its unfair to characterize some points as knee jerk . I think there are other ways of dealing with what I would consider undue issues rather than BLP problems than to delete, and that and other comments were well and carefully thought out. Just sayin'. Grumble grumble.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Debresser (
talk)
22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings Jytdog,
I am a part of a group of students at UC Berkeley who were editing the Stream Protection Rule page. Thank you for some of your edits, but we would like to ask why did you restructure the article? Additionally, you removed some crucial elements of the SPR history, environmental impact, and environmental justice components. It would be beneficial to include these in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibrilkyser ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, pls clarify why do you deep link the Boston Globe article in David Samadi's page? Also pls clarify if you have a COI ref David Samadi. Evonomix ( talk) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to have a look at discussions going on here, especially, the Rfc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog. Thank you.
Seraphim System (
talk)
08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
excellent vote. Please sign your post thought! LibStar ( talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. Your AE request is way too big. Please shrink it to 500 words. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Sometimes Wikipedia is a funny place to work... St Anselm ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (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 agreed with this edit, but one could just say "revert unsourced" instead of making a personalized remark. Would reduce potential drama and be less bitey. Just saying. Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Likewise?( Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Earlier today. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how many times I have to repeat that I did not start that RfC. I was asked to commented on it and so that is what I was doing (it was a delayed response because I haven't had time to look at anything here for most of this month). From what I understand, your position is that the labor of wikipedia editors is more important than the content itself. Your being someone who puts a lot of effort into maintaining a certain standard at wikipedia, I can understand your position. I also understand your evocation of the policies. This is why I myself did not start an RfC, but it is there and I do not see why I am required to be pious toward the work of others when I find that, ultimately, the result is less than satisfactory. You call this disrespectful. Ok. I do not believe that the work of the wikipedia community is to be put above the content. There are no new or additional sources. True. But the section in question tends, in my humble opinion, towards a particular point of view. This is clear when you bring up the fact that community members in past RfCs expressed suspicions that the school is a diploma mill, a view which is expressed (indirectly, perhaps, but only slightly) in the article on the basis of a website from a single state in a single country. I do not see how the expression of suspicion by the article is any worse than the promotional campaign - it is not neutral. I also understand that consensus is important here, to the point wikipedia couldn't function without it. Nonetheless, consensus is sometimes wrong and I am within my right here as well as within the guidelines to express my position in that regard in an RfC that I DID NOT start and was asked to comment upon. My position is that the content ought to be removed to avoid a war of opinion between the promotion campaign and the 'suspicious ones'. If it were so cut and dry that the previous RfCs had solved this problem then Mootros wouldn't have opened the RfC. My comments are simply follow from DGG and Markbassett, both who raised the question as to whether or not there is enough information to say anything at all about the school's accreditation and whether providing such information is in any case relevant enough to include. That my position, following from the comments of these two, requires the removal of community work is unfortunate and I am sorry that it offends you. I have more respect for the information provided by wikipedia than I do for any single editor or group of editors. It is no surprise to me that in a situation where a handful of people put considerably more effort into maintaining that information (and necessarily so), a politics of labor hierarchy would arise. Your most recent responses to me are aggressive and I consider them to be needless attacks which are personal-political and interpretive and I would appreciate that you keep in mind that, until this point, (and I am again repeating myself), I have been nothing but acquiescent towards you. Respectfully, Wildgraf quinn ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
...so I'm sure I came across as snippy and unpleasant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. For the record, I (obviously) agree that the article in question shouldn't exist or I wouldn't have nominated it - it's just a mess of dictionary definitions after all, and my own redirect attempt was reverted. I just don't want to give the article creator any loophole they can use to request undeletion of it! I've had my cup of tea now and I welcome your participation in the AfD discussion. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this ... – Train2104 ( t • c) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Politics aside, that is one of the most thorough NPOV investigations I have ever seen. That must've taken you a significant amount of time to put together and goes a LONG way to strengthening the integrity of this project. Well done. v/r - T P 03:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
Dear Jytdog,
As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.
I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.
According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia.
References
-- Aozolins-golin-riga ( talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
... because I would have liked to comment if I'd seen it sooner. This thread. I wanted to say that I too think your edit summary to the brand new editor was an unnecessary and harmful putdown, to put it no more strongly. The edit summary you responded to may have been "remarkable", but it was also quite typical of well-meaning newbies, as was the whole edit. In this case, a newbie who seemed to have good potential to learn Wikipedia's culture and customs. I don't think you can have seen me exhibit a tendency to dogpile with Montana and Olive (actually I have, if anything, the opposite tendency). Bishonen | talk 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC).
My reference to a vendor's listing mentioning "Equipoise", the item's name, is to support the existence and use of that name. The vendor was chosen at random, and it is no more spam, like you call it, than mentioning Microsoft or Amazon as it is done commonly within Wikipedia articles to reference a product. A more useful and constructive action from your part would be to find another source, or request one, without merely putting the article on your chopping board. Also, you suppress the brand name ("Equipoise") under which the substance is universally known. It is like suppressing the trade name "Aspirin" when referring to acetylsalicylic acid. And, stop attacking and undoing/deleting my referenced relevant edits with no explanation, akin to vandalism. You were warned before about this. Thank you 50.187.63.48 ( talk) 19:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
as you will then. Jytdog ( talk) 23:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
See [5] and [6]. Seems a very good source? Doug Weller talk 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Received a message from you "you reverted Drmies... Drmies is an admin and arb; this was probably unwise of you"
That particular point that was edited has been, and continues to be, searching for a consensus. To make that edit simply ignores the discussion.
Please keep in mind that being an admin and arb doesn't make you special. As Jimmy Wales put it, "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position." Wilfred Brown ( talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog - I believe you are making unnecessary reverts on a page while it would have been better to flag the page, leave a comment, or make the changes yourself. This would have been sufficient action for an article with non-neutral language. As to your other complaint, I am the students' instructor, am familiar with the literature, and confirm they have not plagiarized their sources and have appropriately cited everything. You have not fixed anything, only thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I am warning you to undo your latest revert as it is unproductive and the sort of behavior which leads to edit wars. Physhist ( talk) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Janweh64/Rules of conduct —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 11:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI I just created Monsanto GMO cannabis hoax. - Bri ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ibogaine&oldid=prev&diff=777894147, I strongly urge you to 'find the best source [you] can' for this improvement -- which is entirely accurate and up to date. Since the block to getting it accepted would be yourself, you would be best placed to decide what meets the standard of non-spamminess and acceptability. May I suggest https://thethirdwave.co/ibogaine-legality/ which I find to be on the same level of acceptability as the citation you replaced of http://www.ibogaine.co.uk ?
More embarrassingly, the 2015 URL you prefer to revert -- http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/ibogaine -- leads to a 404 page. You should know not to do *that*!
On a personal note, this sort of thing is why I have not bothered to try and improve Wikipedia for many years now. Pthag ( talk) 09:04, 30 April 2017 (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.
...that you host the following end of discussion, since it was you that brought the action in the first place. I placed it at the Noticeboard, and Softlavender deleted it twice. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this conversation to the talk page of the user who posted it. Please see User talk:Leprof 7272#Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog, do you want to check out Niman Ranch? Its clear " NimanRanch" is undisclosed COI editing and violating username policy, and it looks like " Laurnisc" might be an employee as well. The editing in some ways doesn't appear constructive. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: and otherwise, stay off my Talk page. You are not welcome, and you have no place reverting my edits there. Copying @ Softlavender: to adjuducate if necessary. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Scott P. ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on this article. Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 11:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you may be engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please accept this good faith suggestion.
Hi, re. your revert in spinal muscular atrophy, you might have made a mistake when calling information on patient registries an "advertisement". I encourage you to take a look at this: [7]. I also intend to update this section with mentions of other SMA registries across the globe. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
I don't always agree with you on content, but I would like you to know that I am grateful for the hard work you've put in lately to uphold the values of the project. Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hello. I see that you merged Sandoz with Novartis, but I'd like to create a Sandoz page for the surname. Should I create Sandoz (surname) or simply write over the redirect please? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I'm a little perplexed by your crusade against brain fingerprinting, and in particular the insinuation that there is a study which supports the notion that it is less reliable than the polygraph. Do you have any sources other than the Verge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreagle ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, I'm not sure that your suggestion is entirely well founded. If you read the article, as I have, you will see that the quote which Jytdog has used is not in fact even in reference to the polygraph study. Ignoring the irony in your comment regarding assumption of good faith and subsequent allegations of dishonesty, I take issue with the notion that I must provide a second source. Not only is the comment quoted literally just the opinion of a journalist on another site (and therefore no more valid than my own opinion) but there is no issue with challenging the logic of a study based on its method. That is the way that science works. We do not simply assume that something is valid until it is proven to be invalid. This study, if you read it, is actually a literature review, which basically threw together disparate studies with different methods and pooled their results. It is, then, unsurprising that the results were inconsistent. Current brain fingerprinting research shows no false positives across many trials in some protocols. Taking this one literature review is therefore an inaccurate representation of the state of play in this area. Finally, your assertion that the Courts are not valid authority is absurd. What would you suggest they rely on if not scientific testimony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreagle ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I saw your comments on my page. Thank you for the warm welcome! I've tried to make some of the changes you noted I need to change and I will keep working on the others. Thank you very much fo rthe help in formatting the page, I didn't realize there was a common order.
Cheers, Twyatt5— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twyatt5 ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 May 2017 UTC) (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on
Alternative for Germany. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --
Joobo (
talk)
06:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
...we have been discussing this and letting the community continue to review the block may be better. Thank you,
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks....what is next ?-- Widmun ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you see this? [8] I don't think it's enough to make you notable yet, but it's a start. 0;-D -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw your post [10] at 2017_wikitext_editor/Feedback.
How do I preview?? Wow I have no idea how this thing works.
I figured it would be better to offer my Flow-rant reply here, rather than there. When Flow was being designed, many editors said it couldn't be deployed without proper wikitext support. The lead designer explicitly stated that he wanted to kill off wikitext. He said he was going to build what he wanted to build, and the WMF would decide about deployment whether we liked it or not. Flow was fundamentally built around Visual Editor. Later they grafted on a second editing mode.... a wikitext simulator. It was an unholy hack. The answer to your question is that there's a pencil-icon at the bottom-right of the edit window. You can click that, then click which mode you want to use. It has no actual preview. You're supposed to use Visual mode as a fake preview.
Flow literally can't save wikitext. If you switch to "wikitext mode", you can type in wikitext. But when you save or "preview", it throws your wikitext away. It translates it into VisualEditor format (HTML/RDFa). When you're done previewing and go back to wikitext mode, or if you save and try to edit it again later, it invents new and fictional wikitext. That new wikitext usually resembles the wikitext you originally typed in. The new wikitext usually renders the same as what you typed. The new wikitext is usually not completely broken. (In other words, saving or merely previewing often mangles your wikitext, and in some cases completely destroys it.)
It's so broken that merely reverting an edit can damage the original version. It's so broken that it can generate "tumors". What's a tumor? Each time you preview or save, it does a round trip translation. Round trip translations can generate expanding garbage. Each time you preview or save, you get expanding garbage in the middle of the wikitext. It takes very specific wikitext to trigger that sort of tumor, but it illustrates just how broken the design is.
The story just gets worse. Recently the WMF ran a survey of users, asking about Flow. They WP:Canvassed that survey as hard as possible. On some wikis, people can opt-in to activate Flow as their user_talk page. The WMF posted survey invitations onto the talk page of everyone who actively opted into to Flow. There were also a small number of neutral survey-announcements posted to community pages.
There were various survey questions, but the most notable question was for "Prefer Flow" / "Neutral" / "Prefer Wikitext". After canvasing the survey as hard as possible in favor of Flow, the results were 38% prefer Flow, 10% neutral, 52% prefer wikitext. Even after massive canvassing, "strongly prefer wikitext" outnumbered "prefer Flow" and "strongly Prefer Flow" combined.
Based on this survey of the community feedback on Flow, the report recommends that the WMF resume development of Flow, it recommends that the WMF seek to expand deployment of Flow.
And this all circles back to the 2017_wikitext_editor. In case you missed it, there was 90+% consensus at Village Pump to block deployment. [11] Visual Editor renders various things wrong, and both Flow and the New editor use the Visual-Editor engine to generate defective previews. Flow has far more serious problems due to damaging the page-source itself, but they all suffer from the same rendering flaws. Alsee ( talk) 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello!
I saw that you reverted my edit on the anatabine page, so I thought I'd come here to discuss it with you. Since I am a new editor, I am trying to learn from any reverts, so I appreciate your patience and participation. As a reminder, the information in question is below:
In 2013, the company became embroiled in political scandal, when news broke that the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife had received significant loans and gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr, the CEO of the company. [1] Williams resigned in 2014 and the company changed its name at the same time it changed its board and management, at the end of 2013 due to the scandal. [2]
In your revert of my deletion, you gave the reasoning that "this is very relevant to commercial development of the drug. it belongs in this section." However, I do not understand why a political scandal involving the CEO of a company that happens to make this drug is relevant to the product development of this specific drug. I would understand if the scandal involved the drug itself, such as in the preceding paragraph which talks about the unlawful promotion of the drug, but that is not the case here.
Therefore, could you please explain your rationale for keeping this information in the Anatabine#Commercial Development section in greater detail to me?
References
Thanks! ― Biochemistry🙴❤ 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog..I am at a loss...While I was liaising with you and left my revised manuscript on my Talk page for your attention as directed , I waited without response which I thought rather odd because you are usually prompt to reply...This morning the article was deleted by Kurykh. I was overwhelmed by the extensive amount of information which I read on various links on WP unfortunately without much use as to what I need to do next...However I have recreated the page (without my middle name , which I thought will be less confusing when searching me on the web) and submitted it for revision as required... and a copy of it is still on my talk page... Sorry to keep bothering you , my excuse is that I am 73 yr. old...Regards -- Widmun ( talk) 15:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you warning, now comes mine. I originally assumed good Faith in Your edits. Even when other users told otherwise i still looked for common ground regarding content questions on the particular article and agf in what you did. Yet you did not seem to do the same if it comes to other editors in case they are not 100 percent on your side. For you it seems it does not count what RS tell, no but more what you want to see here personally on WP,- he best example is your absolute urge to include the particular point of German nationalism in the infobox of the party albeit you are till now neither able to give a single reliable source to that claim nor do you seem willing to understand what this ideology actually means. And now you try to push an even more blatant POV in the first sentence of the article, without even changing the sources.Well, If it is not obvious now what is going on here it probably never will be. In case you continue with such behaviour that violates WP guidelines sanctions are possible or could become necessary. This personal warning gets a bit more distinct on the matter instead of your fear aiming pre written example you liked to put on my talk page without any grounds behind. -- Joobo ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Joobo ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw that you caught a WP:COPYVIO on Virtual Reality today that I missed when I approved the pending change. Could you give me some tips or best practices for detecting WP:COPYVIO so they don't get past me again? Are you using a tool? Should I be? Thanks! – 𝕘wendy | ☎ 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Alexander ISUM. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Creationism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a category:denialism. I don't see any mention of such in the article. At least with the An IP has removed it twice. Should the category remain? The category fits, but seems unsupported. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I think your name appeared in some of the discussions about this. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo in case you want to propose how to resolve this. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I've mentioned this to Favonian given his warning to the editor who moved it. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I realize you do not like me — but please refrain from reverting just based off that. If you followed the history of that page I have edited and helped build it extensively — and if you disagree with anything I do please take that to the appropriate venue — or at least try to discuss it and look to the history of the page. In case you missed it, I was the one who inserted that formulation at the start, and it frankly does not hold to give clear rules on a guide page. Look to the talk page and you will see a comment about why "it is inappropriate" is better wording than "you should not". Don't go around telling me that my conduct on policy pages in general is objectionable, that is rude and in fact far more objectionable. Carl Fredrik talk 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Be aware that you are at WP:3RR on Help:Maintenance template removal. Please refrain from reverting, especially when your grounds are objectively false. Carl Fredrik talk 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have already asked that you refrain from posting on my talk, especially not with bullying threats like that. If you want to discuss this at ANI, I ask that you do this after June 13th when I will be able to defend myself. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 15:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have said I will observe a voluntary topic ban for the next month, and revert my recent changes, if you agree to postpone taking me to ANI until I am able to defend myself. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 15:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why published journals are as bad articles? According to Wikipedia, they are: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Good research. Is there something I'm missing? Also, the Daily Mail reference was a joint article between them and the Rugby Players Association, a reputable source. Also, reputable newspapers such as the Independent and the Telegraph are used in other articles on Wikipedia. Why were they not allowed in this article? Just interested to understand, thanks. TGB13 ( talk) 20:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that i think i have enough of the RfC talk. This whole episode is exactly why i never made an account or contribute in a long term and meaningful way. I am unwilling to tilt winmills, have too little patience and a too low a tolerance for certain tactics of discussion that are all too common all across Wikipedia. I mean, i just dont get what i can do and how to go on or what else could be done, although it certainly seems as if exactly that feeling is wanted, which again is all too common all around. I am also sure that if i check the talk my inner idiot will tell me to respond again and i will cave in... so maybe deep down i do like to tilt at windmills haha... anyway, have a good one i guess. Will keep an eye out on the article talk anyway because im quite curious in a sense how this will turn out. I mean i know how it will turn out but i am interested in further comments despite my resignation... ah well, what else is there to be done other than using sources against oppinion. If that is not enough, well there never was a chance anyway. Have to accept that and move on. Wikipedia is little more than fast food knowledge anyway and no reader gives a second thought about... basicaly anything. But that is another issue altogether that i probably shouldn't even have mentioned... alas my inner idiot told me to tilt at windmills again haha 91.49.68.199 ( talk) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I had already composed this message but was unsure who to ask, then noticed you did the last revert, so here it is:
these edits creep in again and again, I'm not sure what to do about it. No immediate warnings to the last IP addresses, but there were (including to Ilikerabbits!), to invite discussion here, but no evidence of any conversation so far other than through edit summaries...
Articles of interest where the same addresses/user edits:
Birth control,
Reproductive rights,
Young Earth creationism,
Authorship of the Bible,
Biblical literalist chronology,
Women in Christianity,
Christian views on slavery,
Abortion and the Catholic Church (I've not checked extensively yet if all of those edits were necessarily problematic, except some repeated ones obviously are)...
Is this of a high enough gravity that I should worry or open an ANI case? Or do we keep reverting forever?
Involved addresses (that I know): 123.231.124.98, 123.231.121.246, 123.231.107.255.
123.231.107.255 was due for enough warnings reached, but then Ilikerabbits! and other addresses were also used.
Thanks in advance for your advice. —
Paleo
Neonate —
14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
J - I was going to remove all mention of the vit E class action and its resolution, but hesitated because it was part of company's history. However, I am comfortable with that being deleted, along with the mentions of products and production sites. Bigger picture is that most of the mid- to large-sized supplement companies are constantly dealing with threats of or actual class action lawsuits ever since the Dannon yogurt decision. The resultant trend has been a reining in of egregious and unsubstantiated health claims. A few companies deliberately continue to skate near the thin ice, and others are just plain stupid. Whether any of that is Wikipedia-worthy may best be decided on a case by case basis. There are a few that cratered so spectacularly that it was an essential part of the description of the company (Sensa, Airborne, etc.). David notMD ( talk) 15:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So the lawyers are us link and 2 local news fluff pieces are right out? :). If I'd known it was G4, would have CSD'd on that basis. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (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!
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello - can you please explain why we should not report this [12] since it seems to be adequately sourced? We may not be a gossip rag but it is perfectly normal and in line with a nuetral point of view to report adqueately sourced facts about article subjects. What is "BLP DS" please? Thank you. Amisom ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - in case it wasn't clear from the above, I would like you to stop posting rude, aggressive or unconstructive comments on my talkpage [13] Thanks in dvance Amisom ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the current changes [14]? An user is making major changes in the sourced text and falsified sources. 81.171.7.100 ( talk) 11:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled across this during NPP. There's certainly nothing at all notable about him as a cleric, but I'd rather have someone who knows something about the alternative medicine stuff look at it also. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. I have a question that I was hoping you could help me with, mainly because I know you're active and knowledgeable here regarding medical topics and sourcing. I was reading a speech Michael Crichton had given [15] where he makes the following statement: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it." I read through the wikipedia article on second hand smoke and it doesn't seem to line up with Crichton's statement. Do you know where I could read more about this claim? Or is it simply not true. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Gillespie's lobbying career was a significant part of his overall career, spanning two decades. Emphasis is not inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4400:444E:56A:68B9:7075:2C18 ( talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please see Talk:Religious violence.-- 46.10.52.226 ( talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits. I am adding a very relevant reference for an unreferenced claim in the article that needs a source. Also, you are threatening me with blocking when it's you who are doing blockable offences by advertising paid Wikipedia editing services. If you revert my edit again without having a discussion on the Talk page, I will report you. If you disagree with my edit, the correct thing to do is to discuss it on the Talk page, not start an edit war by simply reverting something that you don't agree with. Let99 ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter -- papageno ( talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments on my draft pages:
Thanks in advance. Seniorexpat ( talk) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that you like to disregard and delete the overwhelming proof that magnetic field therapy works. Finally, the FDA is no longer suppressing magnetic field therapy and is embracing it - and one of these reasons is because of the crisis that is happening with Oxi overdoses in the United States. The FDA wants the doctors to stop writing pain medication prescriptions - they are jailing doctors that write pain medication prescriptions that result in overdose. Trump has made changes in the FDA to accomplish this. You can watch TV commercials now PEMF therapy now. The FDA recently started 510K clearing all sorts of PEMF devices for over the counter use to treat pain and to promote microcirculation -
Even the drug companies that specilize in pain have jumped on board! Get with the program.
https://www.aleve.com/aleve-direct-therapy/
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/K152432.pdf
They have grandfathered in PEMF as TENS devices - PEMF induction to stimulate the blood vessels - not direct electrode contact - it's magnetic fields. This is how the FDA is doing this.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/K151834.pdf
We all know of the vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry to keep this therapy secret but there are some big changes in the way the FDA now regulates magnetic field therapy - and this is because of Trump's change in healthcare initiatives. We know that doctors are not going to jump on board immediately because that would require a lot of re-education - but we should at least allow wikipedia to tell the audience that is on the verge of suicide because of chronic pain that there are now FDA cleared alternatives. That is what the surgeon general is promoting too - the US has to get off of pain medication. By you prohibiting this new therapy to be written about on wikipedia - you do a great disservice to humanity holding this information back. Kids are killing themselves. There are 300,00 children with childhood arthritis in the USA! It's time for you to learn that the FDA "thinks different" now and it's OK to talk about magnetic field therapy.
The article on PEMF needs to be updated. If you feel you are the expert - you write it - but PEMF has been used for over 100 years to treat pain all over europe. It's approved for pain by Health Canada now and finally the FDA accepts it too. Get with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlee8985 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Read WP:DNTTR. 2. Read WP:PRESERVE. Carefully. FYI, a simple Google search would have offered dozens of reliable sources. However, you preferred to revert, make a nonsense comment about EMA website, and then template me. I take it as malicious behaviour. — kashmiri TALK 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Am I wrong...?
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
09:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
They might need some advice, particularly the spammer - some cleanup is going to be needed there if only because her ELs fail EL. See my post to Diannaa. [21] Doug Weller talk 14:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to reach a conclusion at ANi.
I'm not sure exactly what bad behaviour you are trying to badger me into admitting but I see no reason to make statements that will be quoted back to me forever more in future disputes. The point of the thread is to address Wikihounding. I was not engaging with Godsy except to tell him to back off the harassment. Therefore there is no inter-editor behavioural issue at dispute with me.
Various unsubstantiated issues with my editing have been raised, but my track record stands up to fair scrutiny. We all make editing mistakes, but mine are not so bad I deserve any sanctions. No one has dragged me to the Admin notice boards in a long time.
I see from your userpage you've had your own fair share of disputes, so you should be more sympathetic here. Legacypac ( talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You've participated in exactly 1 MfD involving userspace and zero involving draft space. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/cgi-bin/xfd-stats.py?username=Jytdog&max=50000 compared to 815 I've participated or initiated https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/cgi-bin/xfd-stats.py?username=Legacypac&max=50000 In 82% of all time my vote or nomination lines up with the result. Is there some other experience in the user/draft area that qualifies you to seek a topic ban on my participation? Legacypac ( talk) 22:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You closed Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proposed clarifying change here and to blocking policy as "no significant disagreement" almost one month ago. However, some people raised points about the changes. Also, I listed it at Template:centralized discussion and then delisted it into Archives when you closed it. If relisting is unnecessary (which I'm not requesting... yet), how about amending or expanding your closing rationale instead? Also, you closed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Unblocking after community-imposed block as "Resolved, policies amended". The change to such policy would affect how Wikipedia is edited, and I think the proposal is more than just a simple change. Nevertheless, as said, if relisting is unnecessary, I think more explanation and summarization are appreciated please. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hypothetically, (no offense) what if you could get blocked per community consensus? How would you appeal the community-implemented block? George Ho ( talk) 06:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
proposed change wouldn't technically prevent problems [but is] a move in the right direction." You can summarize the arguments in your own way and expand the closing rationale. The closure of the WP:VPPR discussion would be said as "superseded" by the policy change, but you can summarize the arguments in favor of either option. Well... "option 1" arguments, "option 2" arguments, and "option 3" arguments. How is that? George Ho ( talk) 07:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The article may still be horrible, but it doesn't require an expert, has plenty of in-line citations, and some of the other tags have passed their use-by date. Please review and prune the tags. Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing about Fengchey's edits to the Diffusion Tensor Imaging section of the Diffusion MRI section. A claim of COI does not defeat peer reviewed articles and published patents. I'm the inventor of DTI. GE, Siemens, Hitachi, Toshiba, and Philips spent tens of millions of dollars on the top attorneys in the world to try to disprove this to avoid patent litigation for infringement and they lost. So why does an unknown person "Fengchey" get to delete the patent and all my publications. How does that serve knowledge?
Aaron Filler, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiller ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Afiller ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a best place to notify of undisclosed/potential COI editors? The IP user 75.99.119.254 has only been making edits related to Colavita, and very promo ones at that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I remember you citing a guideline for sourcing these during an AfD. Can you remind me of where it is? I really need to become familiar with that. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you out of the blue. I was lurking the whole fiasco EA/transhumanist/Vipul fiasco for a while, but stopped following it. I remember you wanted to start an RfC; did that ever happen? GojiBarry ( talk) 00:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Antrochoanal polyps 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. Legacypac ( talk) 05:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I had create 20 articles. But there are few pages which are not reviewed till now. I am requested to you please review the pages. Tushar Singha ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Archaeogenetics of the Near East shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Why have you merged theranostics into personalized medicine? Theranostics is an independent concept and is enough eligible to have an independent article.-- Sahehco ( talk) 13:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The ref I added is not from that list. it's a an important part of a larger academic report. If you have issues with it, please discuss it on the talk page. But don't edit war and be careful of removing reliable sources without explanation. Otherwise it could be treated as WP:Vandalism-- Taeyebar 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
hi Jytdog, i just fixed the strikeout/underlining of your entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Care Anywhere, hope this is ok.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I am performing a cochrane update on Olanzapine, and I am having trouble deciding if I should change the current text in the article.
What information do you think is important to relay from this 2005 review?
It presently states, "A Cochrane review found, however, that the usefulness of olanzapine maintenance therapy is difficult to determine as more than half of people in trials quit before the six-week completion date."
Thanks for your time!
JenOttawa ( talk) 23:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Christianity and violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
WARNING. Please stop warring at Blohm + Voss and discuss your edits on the article talk page. If you persist, sanctions may be taken. Cheers, 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 ( talk)
Hi Jytdog. I added the NYT topic as many articles I've seen do (it's sorta rare for NYT to even keep a topic on many schools), and I don't think it qualifies as ELNO 9 as it's not a search results page. It's a selected list of articles related to the topic, further reading if you will. I think it meets WP:ELYES #3. As for the Food Business School link, sure it looks like spam, as the CIA seems to have a larger marketing department than it does academics sometimes, but the FBS is the CIA for its graduate programs. Sorta considered a somewhat separate entity, but owned/operated by CIA. I'm gonna add more about it in the article, but the link definitely is relevant. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I just realized you may not have full access to the article in the Parkinson's Imaging discussion that we are both working on. I fortunately work an institution that provides it to me without a fee. If you have an open e-mail and are interested, I would be more than happy to send you a copy. I enjoy sandwiches ( talk) 13:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my removal of the word "leading". [22] It is my opinion that I should repeat this removal, for the following reasons: 1. The Rfc did not sanction the specific words of the text, as specific in both the proposal and the closing specifically. 2. There is a major pillar of Wikipedai policy that states that unsourced information can be removed when challenged, and such is the precise case here. 3. Please also note that my main opponent so far, Dailycare, expressed that he has no problem with the removal I made. [23] Would you agree with me on this, or if you disagree, could you please explain why? Debresser ( talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 tried an edit for the initial intro--only this time--of Christianity and Violence. I am not confident at all that these additions will all be agreed upon but all the advice says, "Be Bold!" so I went ahead and put them all in! Please go ahead and argue with me about them! It is an effort to make this article seem to lean a little less in one direction. I've decided after reading it a couple of times that it is the adjectives in the descriptions that are negative that make it read that way in addition to not including enough alternate views. I was wondering about removing some of those??? Anyway--tell me what you think--surely we can work this out together. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled across this during NPP. There's certainly nothing at all notable about him as a cleric, but I'd rather have someone who knows something about the alternative medicine stuff look at it also. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking for a layout guideline for articles on drugs – thank you for actually linking one! — Prof. Squirrel ( talk) 18:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need to continue commenting "in public". Re
your comment, Obviously someone at WMF who never uses this site thought it would be a great thing to implement. Hats off to them!
goes quite a bit beyond "frustration". Your comments regarding the edit summary counter and related seemed obviously driven by frustration, which is why I was more than willing to reply to your concerns (in multiple locations). The quoted above is a simple potshot and does not help resolve any issue. Whether I or you see the change as good, bad, or neither, two sentences worth of pure sarcasm is not an
effective tool at communicating what needs to change and clearly turns the discussion into an "us versus the nameless them who so idiotically made the change" discussion, rather than one where information is transferred and whom-so-ever with the power to change the situation can take productive action. If you want to cast about for someone pouring oil on a fire, start with statements like that one. It is not that editor's first comment like that and I don't expect it to be his last unless he is let known that it is not the way to do things. --
Izno (
talk)
23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at COI editing at Mandy Harvey and Reinsurance Group of America? (The e-mail domain for the latter is "rgare" per its website, and the Wikipedia username is rgareweb.) I just don't have the stomach to participate in COI policing, and I have personal and / or professional affiliations with both of these topics, so I'd just rather recuse myself. I'm sorry to be adding more work to your plate, but I appreciate your help. Kekki1978 ( talk) 04:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 ( talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
You must be tired, and hungry, after passing out all that rope! Just wanted to give you some encouragement, and say thanks. DN ( talk) 19:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
I am sorry if i stepped in inapropriately at ANI, just seen it by chance while looking over the rediculous drama on the boards (yes i find some of it weirdly entertaining, like a soap opera i guess haha). Anyway, hope i was not out of line. But now that that is closed there is no point to dwell on it for me. So i will go back to watching instead of editing. But i have to say, i do find the aproach of certain people, and by that i really do mean a sizeable group of people in many different areas, rather problematic to put it mildly, very mildly even. Ah whatever, no need for me to ramble on here, just wanted to say sorry for just getting involved in something that had nothing to do with me. Just felt the need to say something, for better or for worse. Have a good day anyway. 91.49.78.64 ( talk) 14:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that, should have looked beforehand, my bad. -- Yalens ( talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In regards to this edit of yours, I'd ask that if you have issues with Barbara, please discuss it with me. I'm a colleague of hers at Pitt and I'm interested in avoiding personality conflicts so we can all edit peacefully. I don't disagree with your warning but I think coming from you, that warning isn't well-received. I'd be glad to help communicate the message if you could stay off her talk page. And yes, I spoke to her so this isn't coming out of left field. Chris Troutman ( talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, why is the detail on Head & Shoulders celebrities considered Trivia when other brands are doing exactly the same thing ( /info/en/?search=List_of_Nike_sponsorships) is it the way it is structured? less than 5% of these celebrity or team endorsements are cited. If I add citations to the list and remove less notable persons would this be tolerable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.132.244 ( talk) 11:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I added some criticisms of Coinbase yesterday, which you have removed. I am in no way a wikipedia expert who spends all day on here, I just effectively want to warn people of how poor coinbase is after my own personal experience and also the experience of pretty much everyone I have ever met, within the crypto community. I don't know what you would consider "reliable sourcing" in terms of references etc but I think wikipedia should give a fair and accurate representation of the company and to have absolutely no criticism of coinbase at the moment is entirely inaccurate. They are completely failing in their role as an exchange and have literally no customer support. The site IS constantly down whenever there is a big market swing. Those are absolute facts. I will happily look for more articles and link to multiple articles about it if that's what you think is appropriate but as I say, I really think it is fair to have criticism of the company for their complete failure to function as intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeynesey ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi
You reverted my addition about the synthetic rubber (Buna) plant at Oswiecim. This is a very well known and documented story. Perhaps you were not aware that Oswiecim is simply the original Polish name for the town the Germans called Auschwitz. At Auschwitz were three camps; Auschwitz I (the original concentration camp), Auschwitz II (also called Auschwitz-Birkenau, an extermination camp) and Auschwitz III (also called Monowitz, and a forced labor camp). It is this third camp which supplied the labor to the IG Farben synthetic rubber plant and other plants associated with the camp. In fact, the camp was created purely for the purpose of supplying labor. If you read the first para of the WP entry for Auschwitz III you will see this explained. Or there are several excellent books on the subject, such as that by Andreas Kilian. Thanks. PointOfPresence ( talk) 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For fixing up Altor BioScience after I moved it from AfC. Thanks a lot! Cerebellum ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. When you notice new content that is not properly sourced, you can ask the author to source it, rather than simply reverting it. When you ask for sources, you allow other people to contribute and improve the content. Simsong ( talk) 01:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This is well known Biblical cannon. Abraham gave birth to Isaac, which gave birth to Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Jacob/Israel gave birth to 12 sons and one daughter, the fourth son's name was Judah. Taking a look at The Online Jewish Encyclopedia ( http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm): "[...] technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time [...]" 68.225.237.140 ( talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you have improved that section, I just wanted to let you know that it also was added to Answers in Genesis, in case you'd want to also edit it... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 05:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog! I have noticed the talk page from solvation shell and the sourcing discussion there. Is there any problem if I insert some citation for that content from NON-ENG sources? (Romanian and/or Russian souces). Thanks.-- 82.79.115.107 ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! And thanks for reacting to the changes I made. I know about the rule of not linking to blogs, forums and the like. Yet, though hosted on a blogspot platform, EvT is an academic project and contains some valuable research and tools for those interested in the subject of Jewish angelology and demonology. I am not sure whether the author of EvT is a " recognized authority", but he is far from being anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetgar ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytog, i see you removed the updated information i added on Anneliese Dodds for being un-sourced. If you clicked on the link(s) that were added you will see they lead you to the election pages where the results from those elections are displayed. Her name for instance in the 2010 election is quite clear on the Reading East (UK Parliament constituency) page. Are you suggesting that i use the linked page as a reference? cheers Dexcel ( talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
I would like to know why you consider CRYSTALBALL hype the section about nucleoside therapy referencing papers published in high-impact, peer-reviewed international journals such as EMBO Medicine, and led by scientists at Columbia University and other top scientific institutions.
Since this is a subject of high interest in relation to this case and the scientific aspects of it, it deserves an encyclopedia article with reliable information. All the scientific references I added come from PubMed, with just one reference to a Washington Post article about Arturito Estopinan, which is the first known human patient.
Which are your credentials to censor peer-reviewed scientific informations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry ( talk • contribs) 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog:
That was the version pro ante, and the article should stay that way until consensus. Please don't mistake it for edit warring. Saronsacl ( talk) 01:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creatively searching for those sources within such a short space of time. I'll help to use parts of them to improve the article. I also read your opinions on your user page at NPOV part 1: secondary sources, and agree with your understanding and definition of what Wikipedia is. Thanks again. Edaham ( talk) 05:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{
PD-notice}}
after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
12:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As Sancho Panza I'd say this would never succeed at AfD. Wiki realpolitik means we're stuck with this shitty article. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog you have history of edit warring. What is your problem with people adding information. Down's syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadarson ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)