![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
![]() |
The Cure Award |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thank you for the edits on the page Khalilah_Rose as well as for your advice that i not edit it anymore. Another editor sent me a message that i should "You need to reformat the references to show your source, I've done the first two for you. The format is [1]". I'm looking for advice whether i should just post the suggestion on the page's talk page as is or if there is a special process in suggesting edits in cases of COI. I want to make sure that i don't offend anyone because it seems i may already have done so unwittingly. Thanks again Lilianarice ( talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Accusing an editor of edit warring without addressing the very valid concerns Semitransgenic talk. 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear User talk:Jytdog, We are in no way would want to violate Wikipedia policies. Just following the recent US government guidelines on editing Wikipedia pages. I am from IMS Health and I have disclosed it in the profile page. I have submitted a username change as you have suggested. Thanks again for letting me know about the violation. Also, I have disclosed about my affiliation with a link to my company's website, and FDA guidelines which was published in 2014 for full transparency. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thanks.
-- WikiCorrect-Health ( talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see you commenting at the AfD. In my opinion you are gutting the article of material that is needed to demonstrate notability, and I also don't see the relevance of MEDRS in a bio - especially since you are also requiring the citations of her papers to be removed. Please speak to the issues in the ongoing discussion (where I have also referred to your edit summary demand for quotations and translations of the foreign-language source - now supplied). Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
removed content regarding "decreased risk"[edit] Removed the content regarding decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement and was inappropriately in the wiki article regarding increased risk NOT decreased risk. Perhaps a new article should be started for this PHARMA advertisement? Maybe we have enough on television? In fact the information cited in the content I removed was from an article sponsored and with data SUPPLIED by the pharmaceutical industry. Here is the footnote from the very article the section cited and used.
"Additional Contributions: Data were supplied by the National Institute of Mental Health (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study), Wyeth, and Eli Lilly and Co.
Financial Disclosure: Dr Gibbons has served as an expert witness for . . ."Wyeth, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in cases related to antidepressants and anticonvulsants and suicide. Dr Brown directed a suicide prevention program at the University of South Florida that received funding from JDS Pharmaceuticals. Dr Mann has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.173 (talk) ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. An user has expressed concerns about the lead of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing what was summarized by you. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. Would you mind deleting the words "making legal threats" from this title, since I demonstrably did not make legal threats, and since legal threats are not the purview of the COI policy pages? Thanks The title as it stands now: "Sean J Savage editor making legal threats and editing about a family member" Seanjsavage ( talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
On the case of the page Carmine Miranda Thank you for the note on my page. I only ended up editing it because another user John Nagle changed the words i suggested and wrote that Carmine came last in a competition and that his award was the lowest. This was not true or well researched so i raised it to his attention but nothing was done. So i figured that i'd make the fix and wait for another editor to review it. The other edit i made was adding the new album record. I thought this at least would not be contentious since it is as factual as it gets. I have requested several edits on the talk page but only a few have been implemented as yet. So i am stumped as to how i can get this done. Is it possible i could get approval to make the edits then have them reviewed? This way it is not like i'm putting the Wikipedia editors to work for nothing when i am getting paid for the article. Lilianarice ( talk)
With respect to your recent edits at Ezetimibe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Six-year_study.2C_reported_at_the_annual_meeting_of_the_American_Heart_Association User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see my response to you on my talk page. Doctor Franklin ( talk) 10:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
So glad this Rolfing article was not deleted. A lot of people put a lot of work into it. I will check the dates in the future so that I don't make the same mistake twice. Thank you for being so gracious about my mistake.
Pack it in. You know what you are doing is edit warring. Stacie Croquet ( talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikthestunned is not replying on talkpage and he is saying on his talkpage that he is not interested to discuss and still he does not like this draft. If lock will expire can you keep check that no one revises page without talking? What is the use of debate if he will revise it after lock is expired? -- TheSawTooth ( talk) 20:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ahoy Jytdog. You recently advised me, re: the Gary Hart talk page: "If the page starts going out of whack you can get more eyeballs on the issue by starting an RfC or using other dispute resolution tools but please keep your own nose clean on the COI issues."
(Reminder: I have a stated family connection to one of the journalists involved in the Hart coverage.)
I think any dispassionate third party editor will agree that the page has, indeed, "started going out of whack.
In following your advice I've read up on the dispute resolution options and an RfC does sound like a good option. I think it would clearly fall under "pol|media|bio." But I'm overwhelmed as to which neutral claim/request to make. To "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct" I need to choose from a LOT of issues going on here: controversial unsourced claims being posted, personal attacks, POV policy violations, potential sock puppeting, fringe beliefs, etc. In a nutshell: Dispassionate eyeballs on the page will spot multiple issues. (Slightly larger nutshell: There are several edit requests I posted that, IMHO, seem objectively legit, and editors are posting responses to them that don't directly address the actual claims but go off on one or several of the tangents above.)
What would you recommend using as an RfC statement that would make this most efficient and waste the fewest editors' time? Thanks Seanjsavage ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I'm amused that I added that rationale after reading User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. "It's important because it's a source of health information" seems rather bland and uncompelling, if the real reason is that we don't want people to get hurt. -- Beland ( talk) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jyt - I went ahead and granted you autopatrolled and reviewer, since looking at your contribs I see no reason why you couldn't be trusted with either. Admittedly, neither is a parituclarly big deal. I also went ahead and extended the semiprotection at Gary Hart since the IP's post on my talk page indicated that it's unlikely they will desist anytime soon. I'll keep an eye on the page and block any autoconfirmed socks they end up using as well. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 14:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I'm checking if you saw my last message on the South Beach Diet Talk page. I know your back-and-forth with LaMona didn't quite resolve last week, but I'm hoping to still move forward with some new changes to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 23:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jytdog, Can you convince Drbogdan that the below was a good faith edit? It's time we had a photo on this web site!
Synthetic biology
Please explain why you undid my posting of an existing Wikipedia photo on a 2nd Wikipedia web site (synthetic biology, which presently lacks any photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.144 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(above is what poster copy/pasted here Jytdog ( talk) 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.216 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 November 2014(UTC)
Thanks for undoing the deletion by Diego Grez ( talk · contribs). That account went on a revert spree. It's now blocked, assumed to be a password compromise. John Nagle ( talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you break off discussions, I will be forced to go to WP:AN/I for removal of sourced material from multiple articles. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Your third opinion is requested on the question "is MDMA neurotoxic". We have agreed that you would be a knowledgable and neutral third party, and respectfully request your input. Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What are your plans for carrying through on the MEDRS discussion? I thought that we had gotten a reasonable consensus to use treatment guidelines first with the caveat that Cochrane's views would be noted when out of the majority. Then we moved into a discussion of whether Cochrane has any place at all in identifying scientific consensus, and though there were some good arguments here, participation in that discussion was low precluding formation of a compelling consensus. I recommend that we go back and add the "Treatment guidelines are the preeminent source for sceintific consensus, but note Cochrane's dissent when it occurs" wording that seemed to be closest to the consensus when participation in the conversation was active, and add it to MEDRS. I often think Cochrane is a little out there and I see your points, but simply moving away from quoting Cochrane in Wikipedia's voice in every drug article seems to me like it would be a major improvement over what we have now. I'd like to do something that would not be immediately reverted. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
[[
Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]]
Your recent editing history at Organic_farming 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it. Uncivil messages will be deleted. |
Can you help me understand why you removed the phrase "but some authors have argued it is unsafe due to" in favor of "is unsafe"? What would be adequate evidence of safety or unsafety per WP that would allow us to conclude one way or another? I've noticed that the author being cited, Andy Parrott, has himself given MDMA to human volunteers. Thanks! 173.228.54.200 ( talk) 07:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't hat discussions prematurely and don't make edit summaries in all caps. Go get a beer and grow up. Cptnono ( talk) 09:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You've managed to break all five of them regarding your various edits surrounding the Organic Farming article. Since you've seemed to have forgotten what they are and why you are here at Wikipedia, I've done you a favor and linked it to you below:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Please read it and read it well if your ego can allow it. Cowicide ( talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Organic farming. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article. You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"), and might be interested in commenting at the new discussion. All AFD commenters are being contacted now. -- do ncr am 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Jytdog, I am posting this template because I believe I am required to do so, not because I believe you have done anything wrong. I have sought advice at WP:AN (not WP:ANI) regarding how we should handle a blocked sock/IP who raises questions at BLP/N about an article of which the blocked sock/IP user is the subject. You are not mentioned by name in my WP:AN post, and I took care to say that I don't believe anyone did anything wrong. Please interpret this as what it is: a good faith request for advice. Your participation in the AN discussion is welcome and solicited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:54, 2 December 2014
Jytdog -- as an editor frequently supporting WP:MEDRS as you did today on the Antioxidant page, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. This would also be educational for me, as well as other users. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.-- Zefr ( talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog -- I can live with your edit and your advice. Thank you. Just to be clear here.....primary sources used were simply to establish a relationship, one that has been known for approximately a 100 or so years. That there are thiocyanates in cabbage and that thiocyanates inhibit a specific pummp are not controversial positions, for which I was providing original research. These compounds are commonly used in the lab to do just that.
I think that my frustration stemmed from the fact that my edit was wholly undone. If, an edit such as the one you have done to that section had occurred, I would not have felt the need to reply as I did. And although of most of what I wrote there was also true, as it served a didactic purpose, I do apologize for a claim of "vested interests" on part of the other editor. AliMD7176 ( talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
hi. quick note. if you look up the pubmed ID (pr "PMID", which is at the bottom of every Pubmed abstract, all you have to write is "PMID 15572417" and the Wikipedia software automatically creates a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract. Nice, right? OK, with regard to sourcing, one of the many "policies and guidelines" I linked to, was WP:MEDRS. Please read that - it is our guideline for sourcing health related content. Bottom line, we classify sources using historiographical terminology, as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sources present actual experimental data (bench, clinical, or epidemiological); secondary sources are reviews, treatment guidelines, etc; tertiary sources are textbooks. What we always aim for, are recent, independent, secondary sources. What you cite above, is a 10 year old primary source. Not good. There a zillion reasons why we stay far, far away from primary sources. Some of them are described in a draft essay (draft, b/c it needs a lot of trimming) I wrote called Why MEDRS?. But believe me, you are almost never going to get content sourced to a 10 year primary source to "stick". Hope that makes sense. Jytdog ( talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip for protecting Quercetin. Was going to take care of that, but got diverted by work. Doc James stepped in to create a block on the student editors.-- Zefr ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Intellectual property is a topic distinct from intellectual property rights. I believe there is enough material on this subject to make a nice article. Let me work on it for a couple days, and see how you like it.
No need for alarm, warnings, etc.
Wikipedia is unbreakable. Everything can be undone. If you don't like the intellectual property article after a couple days of me working on it, I'll be happy to request deletion of it myself. The Transhumanist 03:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your editing and paraphrasing.. however, I would appreciate more if you give the reason especially when you delete entirely. I would like to know what perspective you want to discuss in toxicology page since I have an interest to edit more to the page. Thank you. Myat T. Aung ( talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You do good work. I know it can be wearing at times, and might seem thankless, but it truly is appreciated. bobrayner ( talk) 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Good work indeed. There's a lot of unneeded crap to deal from some editors in topics you deal with especially, but articles typically end up better when you're involved. Hopefully users learn a bit in the process too, especially when you try to steer them in right direction on how to deal with scientific content. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey I saw you had to remove a number of Talk page comments per
WP:TPG, I thought that was the correct thing to do, if more like that keeps happening let me know and I'll try to help deal with it.
Zad
68
04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate.
I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article (i.e. MDMA). As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article.
Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in?
It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in.
Thanks for your thoughts and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.139.121 ( talk) 07:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to advise new editors in a patient way. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
I note you blanked a significant amount of content on that page and then set a "bot" to blank content from the talk page as well. Please return to the talk page and explain yourself. Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Would be good to tone things down a bit. You have made comments such as "you took out content that everybody but you agreed to; and above you are personalizing the discussion. Both are out of line." with bolding. Than when the RfC comes around [2] the community is not in favor of your position. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog I owe you and everyone (likely many of your stalkers here) a reply at the
WT:MEDRS discussion, I simply haven't apportioned enough time yet to do it. Still lots to read.
Zad
68
03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was just reviewing the "Domestic Violence" sub section on the PTSD page. I want to know why you reverted the work that I contributed. I understand that we should not use primary sources but those sources were not primary as they were literature reviews and meta-analysis. I am new to wikipedia and would like a clarification on this. JambaJuicy ( talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to restore my edits; I warned the student, and pending discussion, was just identifying primary sources inline so they could be addressed later. Don't let a student upset you into 3RR ;) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I had my most of my article on TAS-102 deleted and the explanation was "remove load of content based on primary sources". I was wondering what that means? I felt the information was relevant to the drug and explained studies pertinent to its development and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The sources I obtained my information from were also from legitimate scientific journals. -- Ukystu85 ( talk) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I added a good infographic to this article because there doesn't seem to be much about the public health impact. It was immediately removed. I have left comments on the talk page about plans to try to improve the article. Changes will have to be a piece at a time. I am open to comments and critique. juanTamad 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad ( talk • contribs)
Dear Jytdog,
I'm not a sock of Nuklear. What's the problem with him? I just know him for creating dozens of drug syntheses PNGs.-- Kopiersperre ( talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I've been curious since I've seen this name come up a few times in reverts, but never saw an obvious reason in the reverts at a quick glance that would indicate a sockpuppet. Is there an archive somewhere that explains what's going on with the user? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I have asked you to please stop reverting my edits, but you continue. Consider this a friendly warning. You have no valid reason for reverting any of my edits, including your take on MEDRS because the sources I cited are from reliable, peer-reviewed journals, including PLOS. If it is your intention to keep reverting my edits, and preventing me from correcting a BLP violation and updating the article, please tell me now, and I will save us both some time by taking the issue straight to ANI as a conduct issue. Atsme☯ Consult 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, It is Mbcap. I have just seen that you reverted my work on the levofloxacin page. Thank you for posting the link about the pharmacology guide. I had a read through the BNF and online sources and agree with you. Could you possibly enlighten me about drugs that have a lot of brand names for future reference. Obviously this case is simple because there are a few but what about others. I am a new editors so trying to learn the ropes and I would grateful for your advice. Mbcap ( talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed this morning that you had edited and implemented a new version of the History section very similar to what I'd proposed. I really appreciate that. If I can be of any help to you with a project in the near future, don't hesitate to ask. Just as I want editors to help me out in these kinds of circumstances, I also always intend to be available to help in return. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Origin and development section was already present with empty section tag. The content I added about the discovery can be about the molecule not its medical properties. The link is referred by this article which is a secondary source. Also the section has potential to have more content. So I hope you let the content added to remain. Ephrone ( talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog,
I noticed the changes you made to the phenoperidine page. I am a new Wikipedia user that wanted to improve a stub article. Is there any advice you can offer concerning the way I had created the page that resulted in your changes? In terms of content, layout, sources, etc. ? I really appreciate your suggestions.
Thank you, Java76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java76 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not warn people against edit warring who have made exactly one edit on the page in 5 weeks. You yourself are exhibiting WP:OWN with this pre-emptive criticism of others. That is not civil behaviour. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please review the 3 revert rule. You could be blocked for violating the policy. Kindly do not wiki-stalk other editors and do not edit war. Please do not remove footnoted and sourced material. Go about your own contributions to the Wiki encyclopedia but do not disrupt and antagonize others who edit in good faith and have well sourced material. Cheers! MickeyDonald ( talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Common use of that juice is Milk. But we aren't here for Marketing. Remember the 2 of the 5 pillars : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view & Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Milk by definition comes from mammal. Words were created avoid any confusions. Truth and science >> Marketing. Let's stop lying to the population with invented meaning to sell more stuff.
Hey, Jytdog. I hope you've enjoyed this year's holiday season. I'm stopping by your talk page because I've been meaning to ask if, similar to how you've helped out with the Reproductive coercion article, you wouldn't mind helping out with the Domestic violence article when you can. It has sourcing issues, WP:SIZE issues (including WP:Class assignments expanding the article), and, like the Reproductive coercion article, it can be controversial because of the domestic violence against men/gender symmetry aspect, which I recently commented on at the article talk page. If you feel that you have too much on your plate to help out with that article, I understand.
On a side note: I currently have your talk page WP:Watchlisted; so there's no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo to see your reply. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
One edit and one revert is an edit war? OK, YOU don't make any more edits then. Good God, you have a whole history of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 ( talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
One change does not make an edit war. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's
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.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Psychedelic therapy may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible the question is fake? It appears the entire RFC is fake. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop being impolite. It's really unnecessary and just makes you look bad. I also see nothing from the pages you linked stating that we need to write in "Wikipedia's voice" and that there's something stylistically incorrect about saying where the information comes from (e.g., from the 2014 meta-analysis). Last point-you have changed what the authors (and study) said (and we're not supposed to do that, we are supposed to reflect what the source says). Here's a direct quote of their conclusion: "Tea consumption might not be associated with the risk of fractures. The following large-sample and well-designed studies are required to confirm the existing conclusions." Notice it says "might not". This is not a definitive conclusion yet as the paper stated there were some data suggesting a protective trend that did not reach statistical significance from the studies they examined. If we're going to refer one another to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'll refer you here WP:Etiquette and here WP:Five pillars. Thanks, I hope to see more collaborative efforts from you in the future. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been going through Category:Conspiracy theorists bios. So far, from the A's, J's, N's & P's, only Michael Collins Piper has a CT as a descriptive in the first line. A fairly representative sample, but I think I will check the others too. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for replacing the Danish languaged refs with English languaged sources on the Organic Food page.
However could you please write up the refs in proper coding?
RhinoMind ( talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why. I see the reasons you gave, but they don't make sense to me.
I'd like you to consider rolling back your own rollback. Let me know what you think.
Riventree ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
![]() |
The Cure Award |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thank you for the edits on the page Khalilah_Rose as well as for your advice that i not edit it anymore. Another editor sent me a message that i should "You need to reformat the references to show your source, I've done the first two for you. The format is [1]". I'm looking for advice whether i should just post the suggestion on the page's talk page as is or if there is a special process in suggesting edits in cases of COI. I want to make sure that i don't offend anyone because it seems i may already have done so unwittingly. Thanks again Lilianarice ( talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Accusing an editor of edit warring without addressing the very valid concerns Semitransgenic talk. 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear User talk:Jytdog, We are in no way would want to violate Wikipedia policies. Just following the recent US government guidelines on editing Wikipedia pages. I am from IMS Health and I have disclosed it in the profile page. I have submitted a username change as you have suggested. Thanks again for letting me know about the violation. Also, I have disclosed about my affiliation with a link to my company's website, and FDA guidelines which was published in 2014 for full transparency. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thanks.
-- WikiCorrect-Health ( talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see you commenting at the AfD. In my opinion you are gutting the article of material that is needed to demonstrate notability, and I also don't see the relevance of MEDRS in a bio - especially since you are also requiring the citations of her papers to be removed. Please speak to the issues in the ongoing discussion (where I have also referred to your edit summary demand for quotations and translations of the foreign-language source - now supplied). Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
removed content regarding "decreased risk"[edit] Removed the content regarding decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement and was inappropriately in the wiki article regarding increased risk NOT decreased risk. Perhaps a new article should be started for this PHARMA advertisement? Maybe we have enough on television? In fact the information cited in the content I removed was from an article sponsored and with data SUPPLIED by the pharmaceutical industry. Here is the footnote from the very article the section cited and used.
"Additional Contributions: Data were supplied by the National Institute of Mental Health (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study), Wyeth, and Eli Lilly and Co.
Financial Disclosure: Dr Gibbons has served as an expert witness for . . ."Wyeth, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in cases related to antidepressants and anticonvulsants and suicide. Dr Brown directed a suicide prevention program at the University of South Florida that received funding from JDS Pharmaceuticals. Dr Mann has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.173 (talk) ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jytdog. An user has expressed concerns about the lead of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing what was summarized by you. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. Would you mind deleting the words "making legal threats" from this title, since I demonstrably did not make legal threats, and since legal threats are not the purview of the COI policy pages? Thanks The title as it stands now: "Sean J Savage editor making legal threats and editing about a family member" Seanjsavage ( talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
On the case of the page Carmine Miranda Thank you for the note on my page. I only ended up editing it because another user John Nagle changed the words i suggested and wrote that Carmine came last in a competition and that his award was the lowest. This was not true or well researched so i raised it to his attention but nothing was done. So i figured that i'd make the fix and wait for another editor to review it. The other edit i made was adding the new album record. I thought this at least would not be contentious since it is as factual as it gets. I have requested several edits on the talk page but only a few have been implemented as yet. So i am stumped as to how i can get this done. Is it possible i could get approval to make the edits then have them reviewed? This way it is not like i'm putting the Wikipedia editors to work for nothing when i am getting paid for the article. Lilianarice ( talk)
With respect to your recent edits at Ezetimibe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Six-year_study.2C_reported_at_the_annual_meeting_of_the_American_Heart_Association User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see my response to you on my talk page. Doctor Franklin ( talk) 10:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
So glad this Rolfing article was not deleted. A lot of people put a lot of work into it. I will check the dates in the future so that I don't make the same mistake twice. Thank you for being so gracious about my mistake.
Pack it in. You know what you are doing is edit warring. Stacie Croquet ( talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikthestunned is not replying on talkpage and he is saying on his talkpage that he is not interested to discuss and still he does not like this draft. If lock will expire can you keep check that no one revises page without talking? What is the use of debate if he will revise it after lock is expired? -- TheSawTooth ( talk) 20:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ahoy Jytdog. You recently advised me, re: the Gary Hart talk page: "If the page starts going out of whack you can get more eyeballs on the issue by starting an RfC or using other dispute resolution tools but please keep your own nose clean on the COI issues."
(Reminder: I have a stated family connection to one of the journalists involved in the Hart coverage.)
I think any dispassionate third party editor will agree that the page has, indeed, "started going out of whack.
In following your advice I've read up on the dispute resolution options and an RfC does sound like a good option. I think it would clearly fall under "pol|media|bio." But I'm overwhelmed as to which neutral claim/request to make. To "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct" I need to choose from a LOT of issues going on here: controversial unsourced claims being posted, personal attacks, POV policy violations, potential sock puppeting, fringe beliefs, etc. In a nutshell: Dispassionate eyeballs on the page will spot multiple issues. (Slightly larger nutshell: There are several edit requests I posted that, IMHO, seem objectively legit, and editors are posting responses to them that don't directly address the actual claims but go off on one or several of the tangents above.)
What would you recommend using as an RfC statement that would make this most efficient and waste the fewest editors' time? Thanks Seanjsavage ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I'm amused that I added that rationale after reading User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. "It's important because it's a source of health information" seems rather bland and uncompelling, if the real reason is that we don't want people to get hurt. -- Beland ( talk) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jyt - I went ahead and granted you autopatrolled and reviewer, since looking at your contribs I see no reason why you couldn't be trusted with either. Admittedly, neither is a parituclarly big deal. I also went ahead and extended the semiprotection at Gary Hart since the IP's post on my talk page indicated that it's unlikely they will desist anytime soon. I'll keep an eye on the page and block any autoconfirmed socks they end up using as well. Best, Kevin Gorman ( talk) 14:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I'm checking if you saw my last message on the South Beach Diet Talk page. I know your back-and-forth with LaMona didn't quite resolve last week, but I'm hoping to still move forward with some new changes to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 23:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jytdog, Can you convince Drbogdan that the below was a good faith edit? It's time we had a photo on this web site!
Synthetic biology
Please explain why you undid my posting of an existing Wikipedia photo on a 2nd Wikipedia web site (synthetic biology, which presently lacks any photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.144 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(above is what poster copy/pasted here Jytdog ( talk) 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.216 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 November 2014(UTC)
Thanks for undoing the deletion by Diego Grez ( talk · contribs). That account went on a revert spree. It's now blocked, assumed to be a password compromise. John Nagle ( talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you break off discussions, I will be forced to go to WP:AN/I for removal of sourced material from multiple articles. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Your third opinion is requested on the question "is MDMA neurotoxic". We have agreed that you would be a knowledgable and neutral third party, and respectfully request your input. Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What are your plans for carrying through on the MEDRS discussion? I thought that we had gotten a reasonable consensus to use treatment guidelines first with the caveat that Cochrane's views would be noted when out of the majority. Then we moved into a discussion of whether Cochrane has any place at all in identifying scientific consensus, and though there were some good arguments here, participation in that discussion was low precluding formation of a compelling consensus. I recommend that we go back and add the "Treatment guidelines are the preeminent source for sceintific consensus, but note Cochrane's dissent when it occurs" wording that seemed to be closest to the consensus when participation in the conversation was active, and add it to MEDRS. I often think Cochrane is a little out there and I see your points, but simply moving away from quoting Cochrane in Wikipedia's voice in every drug article seems to me like it would be a major improvement over what we have now. I'd like to do something that would not be immediately reverted. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
[[
Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]]
Your recent editing history at Organic_farming 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it. Uncivil messages will be deleted. |
Can you help me understand why you removed the phrase "but some authors have argued it is unsafe due to" in favor of "is unsafe"? What would be adequate evidence of safety or unsafety per WP that would allow us to conclude one way or another? I've noticed that the author being cited, Andy Parrott, has himself given MDMA to human volunteers. Thanks! 173.228.54.200 ( talk) 07:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't hat discussions prematurely and don't make edit summaries in all caps. Go get a beer and grow up. Cptnono ( talk) 09:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You've managed to break all five of them regarding your various edits surrounding the Organic Farming article. Since you've seemed to have forgotten what they are and why you are here at Wikipedia, I've done you a favor and linked it to you below:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Please read it and read it well if your ego can allow it. Cowicide ( talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Organic farming. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article. You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"), and might be interested in commenting at the new discussion. All AFD commenters are being contacted now. -- do ncr am 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Jytdog, I am posting this template because I believe I am required to do so, not because I believe you have done anything wrong. I have sought advice at WP:AN (not WP:ANI) regarding how we should handle a blocked sock/IP who raises questions at BLP/N about an article of which the blocked sock/IP user is the subject. You are not mentioned by name in my WP:AN post, and I took care to say that I don't believe anyone did anything wrong. Please interpret this as what it is: a good faith request for advice. Your participation in the AN discussion is welcome and solicited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:54, 2 December 2014
Jytdog -- as an editor frequently supporting WP:MEDRS as you did today on the Antioxidant page, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. This would also be educational for me, as well as other users. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.-- Zefr ( talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog -- I can live with your edit and your advice. Thank you. Just to be clear here.....primary sources used were simply to establish a relationship, one that has been known for approximately a 100 or so years. That there are thiocyanates in cabbage and that thiocyanates inhibit a specific pummp are not controversial positions, for which I was providing original research. These compounds are commonly used in the lab to do just that.
I think that my frustration stemmed from the fact that my edit was wholly undone. If, an edit such as the one you have done to that section had occurred, I would not have felt the need to reply as I did. And although of most of what I wrote there was also true, as it served a didactic purpose, I do apologize for a claim of "vested interests" on part of the other editor. AliMD7176 ( talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
hi. quick note. if you look up the pubmed ID (pr "PMID", which is at the bottom of every Pubmed abstract, all you have to write is "PMID 15572417" and the Wikipedia software automatically creates a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract. Nice, right? OK, with regard to sourcing, one of the many "policies and guidelines" I linked to, was WP:MEDRS. Please read that - it is our guideline for sourcing health related content. Bottom line, we classify sources using historiographical terminology, as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sources present actual experimental data (bench, clinical, or epidemiological); secondary sources are reviews, treatment guidelines, etc; tertiary sources are textbooks. What we always aim for, are recent, independent, secondary sources. What you cite above, is a 10 year old primary source. Not good. There a zillion reasons why we stay far, far away from primary sources. Some of them are described in a draft essay (draft, b/c it needs a lot of trimming) I wrote called Why MEDRS?. But believe me, you are almost never going to get content sourced to a 10 year primary source to "stick". Hope that makes sense. Jytdog ( talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip for protecting Quercetin. Was going to take care of that, but got diverted by work. Doc James stepped in to create a block on the student editors.-- Zefr ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Intellectual property is a topic distinct from intellectual property rights. I believe there is enough material on this subject to make a nice article. Let me work on it for a couple days, and see how you like it.
No need for alarm, warnings, etc.
Wikipedia is unbreakable. Everything can be undone. If you don't like the intellectual property article after a couple days of me working on it, I'll be happy to request deletion of it myself. The Transhumanist 03:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your editing and paraphrasing.. however, I would appreciate more if you give the reason especially when you delete entirely. I would like to know what perspective you want to discuss in toxicology page since I have an interest to edit more to the page. Thank you. Myat T. Aung ( talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You do good work. I know it can be wearing at times, and might seem thankless, but it truly is appreciated. bobrayner ( talk) 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Good work indeed. There's a lot of unneeded crap to deal from some editors in topics you deal with especially, but articles typically end up better when you're involved. Hopefully users learn a bit in the process too, especially when you try to steer them in right direction on how to deal with scientific content. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey I saw you had to remove a number of Talk page comments per
WP:TPG, I thought that was the correct thing to do, if more like that keeps happening let me know and I'll try to help deal with it.
Zad
68
04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate.
I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article (i.e. MDMA). As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article.
Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in?
It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in.
Thanks for your thoughts and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.139.121 ( talk) 07:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to advise new editors in a patient way. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
I note you blanked a significant amount of content on that page and then set a "bot" to blank content from the talk page as well. Please return to the talk page and explain yourself. Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Would be good to tone things down a bit. You have made comments such as "you took out content that everybody but you agreed to; and above you are personalizing the discussion. Both are out of line." with bolding. Than when the RfC comes around [2] the community is not in favor of your position. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog I owe you and everyone (likely many of your stalkers here) a reply at the
WT:MEDRS discussion, I simply haven't apportioned enough time yet to do it. Still lots to read.
Zad
68
03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was just reviewing the "Domestic Violence" sub section on the PTSD page. I want to know why you reverted the work that I contributed. I understand that we should not use primary sources but those sources were not primary as they were literature reviews and meta-analysis. I am new to wikipedia and would like a clarification on this. JambaJuicy ( talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to restore my edits; I warned the student, and pending discussion, was just identifying primary sources inline so they could be addressed later. Don't let a student upset you into 3RR ;) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I had my most of my article on TAS-102 deleted and the explanation was "remove load of content based on primary sources". I was wondering what that means? I felt the information was relevant to the drug and explained studies pertinent to its development and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The sources I obtained my information from were also from legitimate scientific journals. -- Ukystu85 ( talk) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I added a good infographic to this article because there doesn't seem to be much about the public health impact. It was immediately removed. I have left comments on the talk page about plans to try to improve the article. Changes will have to be a piece at a time. I am open to comments and critique. juanTamad 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad ( talk • contribs)
Dear Jytdog,
I'm not a sock of Nuklear. What's the problem with him? I just know him for creating dozens of drug syntheses PNGs.-- Kopiersperre ( talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I've been curious since I've seen this name come up a few times in reverts, but never saw an obvious reason in the reverts at a quick glance that would indicate a sockpuppet. Is there an archive somewhere that explains what's going on with the user? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I have asked you to please stop reverting my edits, but you continue. Consider this a friendly warning. You have no valid reason for reverting any of my edits, including your take on MEDRS because the sources I cited are from reliable, peer-reviewed journals, including PLOS. If it is your intention to keep reverting my edits, and preventing me from correcting a BLP violation and updating the article, please tell me now, and I will save us both some time by taking the issue straight to ANI as a conduct issue. Atsme☯ Consult 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, It is Mbcap. I have just seen that you reverted my work on the levofloxacin page. Thank you for posting the link about the pharmacology guide. I had a read through the BNF and online sources and agree with you. Could you possibly enlighten me about drugs that have a lot of brand names for future reference. Obviously this case is simple because there are a few but what about others. I am a new editors so trying to learn the ropes and I would grateful for your advice. Mbcap ( talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed this morning that you had edited and implemented a new version of the History section very similar to what I'd proposed. I really appreciate that. If I can be of any help to you with a project in the near future, don't hesitate to ask. Just as I want editors to help me out in these kinds of circumstances, I also always intend to be available to help in return. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Origin and development section was already present with empty section tag. The content I added about the discovery can be about the molecule not its medical properties. The link is referred by this article which is a secondary source. Also the section has potential to have more content. So I hope you let the content added to remain. Ephrone ( talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog,
I noticed the changes you made to the phenoperidine page. I am a new Wikipedia user that wanted to improve a stub article. Is there any advice you can offer concerning the way I had created the page that resulted in your changes? In terms of content, layout, sources, etc. ? I really appreciate your suggestions.
Thank you, Java76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java76 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not warn people against edit warring who have made exactly one edit on the page in 5 weeks. You yourself are exhibiting WP:OWN with this pre-emptive criticism of others. That is not civil behaviour. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please review the 3 revert rule. You could be blocked for violating the policy. Kindly do not wiki-stalk other editors and do not edit war. Please do not remove footnoted and sourced material. Go about your own contributions to the Wiki encyclopedia but do not disrupt and antagonize others who edit in good faith and have well sourced material. Cheers! MickeyDonald ( talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Common use of that juice is Milk. But we aren't here for Marketing. Remember the 2 of the 5 pillars : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view & Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Milk by definition comes from mammal. Words were created avoid any confusions. Truth and science >> Marketing. Let's stop lying to the population with invented meaning to sell more stuff.
Hey, Jytdog. I hope you've enjoyed this year's holiday season. I'm stopping by your talk page because I've been meaning to ask if, similar to how you've helped out with the Reproductive coercion article, you wouldn't mind helping out with the Domestic violence article when you can. It has sourcing issues, WP:SIZE issues (including WP:Class assignments expanding the article), and, like the Reproductive coercion article, it can be controversial because of the domestic violence against men/gender symmetry aspect, which I recently commented on at the article talk page. If you feel that you have too much on your plate to help out with that article, I understand.
On a side note: I currently have your talk page WP:Watchlisted; so there's no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo to see your reply. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
One edit and one revert is an edit war? OK, YOU don't make any more edits then. Good God, you have a whole history of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 ( talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
One change does not make an edit war. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's
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.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Psychedelic therapy may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible the question is fake? It appears the entire RFC is fake. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop being impolite. It's really unnecessary and just makes you look bad. I also see nothing from the pages you linked stating that we need to write in "Wikipedia's voice" and that there's something stylistically incorrect about saying where the information comes from (e.g., from the 2014 meta-analysis). Last point-you have changed what the authors (and study) said (and we're not supposed to do that, we are supposed to reflect what the source says). Here's a direct quote of their conclusion: "Tea consumption might not be associated with the risk of fractures. The following large-sample and well-designed studies are required to confirm the existing conclusions." Notice it says "might not". This is not a definitive conclusion yet as the paper stated there were some data suggesting a protective trend that did not reach statistical significance from the studies they examined. If we're going to refer one another to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'll refer you here WP:Etiquette and here WP:Five pillars. Thanks, I hope to see more collaborative efforts from you in the future. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been going through Category:Conspiracy theorists bios. So far, from the A's, J's, N's & P's, only Michael Collins Piper has a CT as a descriptive in the first line. A fairly representative sample, but I think I will check the others too. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for replacing the Danish languaged refs with English languaged sources on the Organic Food page.
However could you please write up the refs in proper coding?
RhinoMind ( talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why. I see the reasons you gave, but they don't make sense to me.
I'd like you to consider rolling back your own rollback. Let me know what you think.
Riventree ( talk) 09:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)