User talk:Jytdog/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

I hope everything is OK

It looks like you haven't been around for several days. I hope everything is OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

as do I...many times things happen that are beyond ones control, so therefore you have to go with logic (and objectivity), you've always followed logic so just keep going (keep editing)...your colleague and friend (BTW this [1] came out today, it might make a good article section we could work on)...also this is coming up [2] Philadelphia area--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hope you're ok, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fourthed. You do important but arduous work here. I hope things haven't worn you down, though I'd understand if you needed a rest. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fifth. Illegitimi non carborundum and all that. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're starting to worry us. It's not like you to go AWOL - I checked! You haven't made diffs since September 30th and before then I don't think you missed a single day this year. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, hope you're O.K. Corinne (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

While we might not always agree, I further all the above comments. Your work here is critical. Hope all is well. Ping me if you need anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You missed the window for ArbCom evidence...hopefully you've just decided to take a hiatus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

LasVegas' comment

I tried to post this in response to LasVegas' workshop comment, but the page is locked:

This is a dangerous way to evaluate this situation. If someone wrote a program to highlight every single usage of a dirty word by an editor, should that give him a way to win advantage in an arbitration dispute? If you set that precedent, the reputation management companies and companies that pay editors will have a permanent advantage over ordinary volunteers who can't download their own copy of the database and create dossiers on people. Therefore, I say you must show an ordinary incident of incivility against one or more particular editors that you feel is actionable; indeed, it should be something people would perceive as actionable at the time they first encounter it. This list of links may be a useful way to hunt for such an incident, but it is not itself a rationale for punitive action. (Even if you find a handful of incivil incidents, that still may not justify any sanction; it is necessary to look at the overall effect of the editor's involvement) Wnt (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry I have been away, all. Thanks to those who left notes here or emailed me.

On Sept 30 I left a job where I have worked for the past 15 years and started a new job with a startup company. Very hard to leave so much I have been invested in for so long; so exciting and such an honor to be part of a great team working to bring new medicines to patients, not to mention value to investors.... not to mention being responsible to those investors, and ultimately to patients, to use the money we have raised efficiently, which means not wasting any time.

Everything is needed yesterday. I didn't know it would be like this; it has been all-consuming on many levels, and I have had no time for Wikipedia. I had a pile of evidence I was going to submit at Arbcom, but that time has past and I am just letting the case carry on without me.

Anyway, thanks again for the notes, and sorry to have worried folks. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Great to hear all is well. Hope to see you back with use some day soon :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

seconded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Priorities. I understand and admire your attitude to all this. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Glad to hear it was for a good reason. It can be a bit frightening to make such a sudden change - I know; I've been trying to make the leap from the job I have for the past 10 years into graduate school. Problem is, every day I think I know what I want to do with myself, I can talk myself out of it. Glad you found an inspiring direction. Oh, and BTW, you still have a few hours left on the Workshop if you desire. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your work here is critical to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.37.216 (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Whew! Jytdog, I am so glad that you are back (and yes, I was worried). I think that you should e-mail ArbCom, if you have not already done so. Disappearing abruptly just as evidence started and reappearing just as the workshop closed is likely to be misconstrued, because people tend to see patterns even if it is a coincidence. Frankly, I think the ArbCom case could go pretty badly for you, and I certainly do not want to see that happen. But, nonetheless, welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, remember me, we knew each other when times were simpler. An unrelated issue brought me back temporarily and I have just spent a quiet evening reading the saga that is surrounding GMOs. Just wanted to say before I head back to the real world that no matter what happens now, I think you have done an amazing job on those articles. All the best. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. OK, Trypto I will email Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, need your assistance, vandalism

Hello Jytg, I believe you are one of the editors who was present when there was a host of confusion on the Andre Marin article, a living person. It's easier to navigate noe thankfully, but given your knowledge and experience I'm asking that you please go back to the page and give it a look over. Believe it or not the article wound up being balanced, well sourced and reasonably concise. Unfortunately what apppears to be a very angry advocate with something very important to say has vandalized the page and started an edit war (yep, I know) even went on my page and implied I am COI (lol, no, there were two individuals who were, I was not one of them, this was established a long time ago). It appears another admin got roped in now unfortunately and they do not knowing the edit history. You've obviously seen this type of problem before I was wondering if you'd take a risk and come back and see the page? The previous edit was better, neutral, etc., the person the article is about met notability requirements, all things were good. Now it's been vandalized. I believe a revert is needed and a stub; the last editor took off the COI tag. The timing couldn't have been worse. Thank-you for your patience and if you have no interest in returning I understand. CheckersBoard (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the editing history and your disruptive role in it, CheckersBoard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion Jytg, I was speaking to you, not speaking to the individual who is helping the situation escalate to an editing war. If it persists I will have to look for someone who will try to avoid this. And Neil, if you do read this, next time if you want to attack me, at least leave it on my page, not Jytg's. Thank-you. I'm now wondering if you have some type of COI too seeing as you aren't helping, only making personal attacks. If you don't like that insinuation then perhaps you could address the same one which was issued towards me by the editor who started this pointless edit war.

CheckersBoard, no personal attacks, just observations based on your edits (making a mess of the article, disruptively tagging it for speedy delete multiple times, consistently calling edits vandalism when they aren't). You explained on my talk page about the problems you've been having mobile editing but Jytdog told you months ago to "work at a desktop or laptop, if this is really important to you." Incidentally, I became involved because I handled a report at WP:AIV asking that you be blocked but I declined to do so and warned you instead. However edits like this show a distinct lack of understanding about how biographies are written on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Paronychia

I was just skimming the article on Paronychia (gotten to by way of Edema, linked in Trajan, which I am editing), and I noticed that something was not right in the notes at the end of the article. If you have time, can you look at it? Corinne (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. I advocate you continue to avoid the paronychia and the paranoid drama. Enjoy your new role. Jrfw51 (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jrfw51 Thank you for making the correction. (I often spot errors but don't know how to fix reference errors.) However, I don't know what you mean by the rest of your comment. Corinne (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinne The rest of my comment was a poor attempt at a pun addressed to Jytdog and not you. Thanks for all you do. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Kbruksch0213/sandbox

Hello, Jytdog. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita

Hello, Jytdog - I just wondered if you agreed with this edit to Cucurbita, today's featured article: [3]. Corinne (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That looks like a sensible edit to me. WP:PATENTS discusses how they are not RS and I've searched for other possible sources for cucurbitin inhibiting histidine decarboxylase and not been able to find any. SmartSE (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! I had no opinion about it either way, but was surprised because so many editors had worked on this article for so many months. Corinne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

See [4]. Corinne (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Jytdog. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your statement on the GMO case talk page

A section of your statement has been suppressed and I have commented out another large part of it. Using your statement to present personal information (which looks a lot like opposition research) about other editors is wholly and completely unacceptable behaviour anywhere on Wikipedia I caution you very strongly not to do anything like it again. Regarding the section of your statement I removed, the evidence phase of the case has well and truly closed so it is inappropriate to present evidence against other editors. If you continue to make comments such as these you risk being banned from further participation in the case or blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Thanks for your note. I understand that "opposition research" as described in WP:OUTING, is bringing things into Wikipedia from off-Wikipedia. What I wrote about Minor4th was based 100% on in-Wikipedia diffs - statements by her. Yes I went looking in-Wikipedia for a connection between GregJackP and Minor4th when it became so clear behavior-wise that they were acting together and yes I did find a clear statement of that in Wikipedia. I do understand that the evidence phase is over and understand that basis for suppressing what i wrote. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You included one thing about her that was not disclosed on-Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, that is not true. The part that was suppressed was not found on wiki, as Callenecc is aware, I'm sure. And Tryptofish, you included the same claim that also had to be suppressed. Minor4th 23:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying i think. The dif says: "Note -- GregJackP and I know each other in real life and sometimes work on articles together. Since we are being called co-authors of this article, we would both be expected to vote keep irrespective of any off-wiki connection. " Nothing there saying you are actual (Redacted) real life. There are however piles and piles of diffs showing your coordination with him on content (native american law, family law, other stuff), as well as helping each other out in spats and admin actions. You are both lawyers, your expertise is in similar areas, you know each other in real life, and you even know how each other thinks (or so you have written on several occasions). Your coordination is very very clear (Redacted). I did say it and should not have. My apologies to all for that).

Big picture, within WIkipedia you are a meatpuppet with GregJackP and while he is gone you continue using Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND. It is blatant, it is ugly, and not what we are about here. It will catch up with you eventually.

Minor4TH your ardent participation in the Arbcom case makes no sense without that piece. Think about that. It is really crazy, when I think about all the time you have put in to weave a story and bring evidence. Why? Why really? That is a question to you, for you. I am not looking for an answer from you. Ask yourself if the way you work with and for GregJackP without disclosing your off-Wikipedia connection fully, is really within the spirit of Wikipedia. You'll do whatever you will of course.

In any case, please stay off my page. After arbcom is over please steer clear of me. I will avoid you for sure, when I have time to come back Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account. This is in relation to materials which has been oversighted, and thus the block is not subject to public review. Please contact the Arbitration Committee. You may also email me (Special:EmailUser/HJ Mitchell, hjmitchell at ymail dot com) if you desire clarification of anything. Due to the nature of the block and its unsuitability to public discussion, your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

Please don't do that again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Two things

Minor: While you were away, I changed your archiving to also go to 365 days, so I suspect that you will want to change that as well.

Major: I would like you to carefully read my entire user talk page when you have the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I read it all. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

special areas in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska

Please see Talk:National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska#special areas in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska CapnZapp (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Tablet hardness testing: wondering if you can help

Hi, I don't know if the article is within your field of knowledge (I saw this thread, and assumed you might), if it is, could you help or give suggestions? If not, that's fine. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jytdog!

Happy New Year!

Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ARCA

I got your ping to me there. Although there hasn't been an issue about it yet, it seems to me that you are getting close to commenting on how the topic ban should apply to other editors, and at some point, that could start to be seen as a violation on your part. You really need to stick to only what applies to yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I consider Agent Orange to be within the scope of my topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

I am advising you that I am raising an Arbitration Enforcement case involving you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

As I said already to someone else, I will not modify a close just because it's important to do X: if the discussion is in favor of doing X, closing as "don't do X" is disingenuous, and if the discussion opposes doing X, it's wrong to close it as "do X" even if many of the "do X" proponents say that it's important. Closes must reflect what was in the discussion, not affected by anything else unless there's some overriding policy that would weaken or invalidate the discussion's decision. You're welcome to request an outside review of my assessment of the RFC, or if you want to convince me that I mis-assessed the consensus, I'll listen and be willing to discuss the points you raise, but changing the discussion for a reason other than "you misunderstood the original consensus" or "this would go against some higher policy" would be badly inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll consider and respond in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion that pertains to you

Hi, this is a message to inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

You may wish to review the Wikipedia guidelines on Neutrality before thoughtlessly reverting someone's POV dispute. If there's any article on the whole site that deserves to be flagged, it's the creationism one. Please back off and don't try to start a revert war with a legitimate dispute. --Kanbei85 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

Please do discuss the issues with other editors before tagging. Calmly. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are removing cited material critical about the dangers of Prozac on the basis of "OR"???

You are removing cited material (cited to an FTA publication) on the basis of "OR".

diff Please come to the talk page to fully explain yourself. Seems contradictory. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyclobenzaprine

Not sure I'm doing this right, but wanted to say thank you for removing the spam/self-promotion on the cyclobenzaprine page. I saw it pop up on the bing search preview, but when I went to confirm it I saw someone had pulled it down. It's appreciated! Thank you.

Edit: It appears user Biswak adds a great deal of content favorable to TONIX pharmaceuticals. 96.90.43.118 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor

Thank you for your persistence in demanding secondary sources. In reference to the BDNF entry, here are two review articles that support the edits that I made:

Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Oct 17;36:59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2015.10.001. [Epub ahead of print] Activity-dependent signaling: influence on plasticity in circuits controlling fear-related behavior. Hill JL1, Martinowich K2.

Bioessays. 2007 Feb;29(2):116-9. BDNF variant linked to anxiety-related behaviors. Hashimoto K1.

As a clinical neuroscientist, as you might agree after reading these which I can put in if you prefer, my position is that Wikipedia is currently misrepresenting the important role of BDNF in "stress-related disorders" which affect hippocampal development and functioning and which include both mood disorders (i.e. depression) AND anxiety disorders. For example, to think that SSRIs in the studies cited are strictly "anti-depressants" is wrong and not consistent with an entire body of literature. Wikipedia should be keeping up with the current state of knowledge while I agree not latching onto trends that are based on as yet unreplicated findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanjalo (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for replying, Tanjalo. If you would be great if you would re-post this comment on the article Talk page so that other editors are aware we are talking, and it is there for reference later - woud you please do that? When you do I will be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

As far as I know you are currently under a community-imposed topic ban for matters related to COI, per this, which started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. You have violated that topic ban several times in the past week or two. I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? Don't make accusations without evidence, thanks. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't making accusations. I was reminding you. Here are some of the diffs however:

Here
here
here
here
further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1.

As I said I am not planning on taking any action at this time. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You Are Not Welcome on my talk page

Given those ArbCom findings, you are on notice that you are not welcome on my talk page. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (original signature duplicated; contribution was signed when made)

Above comments were made in this dif which I condensed by removing the repetition of the copy/paste of my comment on Elvey's talk page. I also placed the unsigned tag.

~~Elvey you are not welcome on my Talk page either.~~ Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (striking talk page ban - I'll leave space for dialogue open for longer Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC))

Actually, that's not all you removed. You also removed this:

== Reminder ==

As far as I know you are currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted. ArbCom found
#that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
#Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

You have done more of the same in the past week or two. I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you.

with a misleading edit summary

--Elvey^(t•c) 16:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes I did accidentlally remove that. Thanks for restoring it. I missed it since you so closely parrotted the reminder that I left on your page. Thanks again for restoring it. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tag-Team Editing

I have nothing to say with regard to Elvey's initial request and I would appreciate it folks did not fuel this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC))

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

Re. Jytdog and Alexbrn, it's said here : It's fairly obvious that their strategy is to "share" their reverts amongst themselves, so both appear not to have overstepped the 3RR limit on any single day. The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds), which, together with the evidence presented above, strongly suggests a disruptive pattern of tag-team editing. Can you please comment on that (including the evidence given)?

Do you have any alternative accounts? (see WP:ALTACCN)--Elvey^(t•c) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hah, an editor known for POV-pushing using a disguised account name made that linked-to comment, ironically. It got no traction at arbcom, probably because it was a fiction. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC); amended 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there documentation that the editor Elvey (who is who you are referring to) is a sock puppet? That's what you're saying there. If that's documented then why is their account active? And if it's not then why are you making this accusation? Incidentally, sometimes things don't get traction at ArbCom because ArbCom doesn't always make the best judgments. I don't have copious confidence in ArbCom finding justice after my experience with the GMOs case. Anyway, wondering about why you're calling Elvey a sock, but they're still editing. SageRad (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh arbcom's always at least approximately right. Personally I think they should have perma-banned a lot of the people in that case. The fact that "RoseL2P" was in fact the user "A1Candidate" (who, I think one could say, was known to have their fair share of issues with reality-based editors) was I believe discussed somewhere in the huge walls of text during that arbcom case - you're welcome to dig back if you want. Anyway, the appearance of editors acting in consort often happens for editors who actively watch noticeboards and/or certain articles and/or each other's User Talk pages: you could make the same "case" for a large number of editors: for example Elvey seems to be having problems inserting their POV into Levofloxacin of late, and might argue that other editors are "collaborating" to stop it. But in reality, it's simply an example of the community protecting the Project, and it's a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom is not always right in my view. I'm a "reality-based editor" though i bet you'd say otherwise. I understand your point about appearance not being proof. Still, you didn't answer my question -- do you have evidence that Elvey is a sock, which is what you said above? If they're a sock then why are they editing, and if they're not a sock then why do you call them that? SageRad (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was a "sock", and not Elvey. The issue with RoseL2P was I think a name-change and/or a legitimate switch of accounts rather than socking: nobody would have known they were really A1Candidate without digging. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well that clears that up. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Crickets in terms of a reply. Just a retaliatory talk page "ban". @Jytdog:: to not respond is unCIVIL. Do you have any alternative accounts? (see WP:ALTACCN) I assume that since Alexbrn says the RoseL2P comment is a fiction, you would say it's a fiction too. (But I find the claim that the "The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds)" is a fiction to be not credible. So there's clearly some nonfiction in there!)

And since your unfounded ad hominem attack is on one who accused you too, and (perhaps not concidentally) draws attention elsewhere, I refocus: Alexbrn: Do you have any alternative accounts?

Thank you SageRad for encouraging Alexbrn's retraction/clarification. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly you want Alex to retract/clarify? Seems odd. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Friendly warning

E-cigarettes are under DS imposed by Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 19:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

About.com

If you want to discuss the validity of about.com as a credible source for BPDFamily, please open a discussion on Talk:BPDFamily.com. The citation refers to an article written by a National Institute of Health Researcher on a website owned by the New York Times.(see acquisition) . There are over 5,000 about.com citations in Wikipedia articles. About.com has a Wikipedia article. Please do not revert without further discussion. If there is a valid reason to dismiss this resource at Wikipedia, of course, we should act on it. 166.173.186.155 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to reply on the article's talk page - please post there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fklatt active again

I'm not sure what to do about Fklatt (talk · contribs). You had a go-round with him previously. He's busily editing articles about rotating electrical machines again. Some of this is a COI problem; he really wants to put mentions of his doubly fed electric machine in many articles. The bigger problem is that his writing is almost unreadable. It's like reading a machine translation of an academic paper in German. The sentences are painfully long. (Example: "Many confuse the singly-fed slip-energy recovery induction and the field-excited synchronous electric machines with two electrical ports as doubly-fed but only one port or winding set actively participates in the energy conversion process and as a result, these electric machines are not designed for operation to twice synchronous speed with a given frequency of excitation.") I have some EE background and can mostly understand what he's trying to say, but I'm not a rotating-machine EE, and can't really revise that text. He's throwing in various statements which are true, but don't contribute to understanding. I've tried to get some help from the electrical engineering project [5], and got a little help, but nobody with the right background is available for serious rewriting. Not many people work on rotating electrical machines today.

I've done some work to clean up armature (electrical engineering), singly fed electric machine, and other more basic articles. But Fklatt just edited "armature" [6], and made it less comprehensible. I just undid something he added to doubly fed electric machine, and don't want to stalk him, undoing his edits, so I haven't undone what he did at "armature". He's editing in good faith. He's not wrong. Most of his edits are not promotional. He just can't express ideas clearly, and makes things worse when he tries. Suggestions? John Nagle (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i noticed that and was debated what to do myself. I will do something today! Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've figured out the problem. See Talk:Doubly-fed electric machine#Field.2C_armature.2C_and_all_that. Now I see what he's getting at. It's a nomenclature problem; the usual meanings for "armature" and "field" don't apply to the new doubly-fed machines. Flkatt is technically correct. I think we can fix this by simply avoiding using those traditional terms in the doubly-fed machine article. This follows the usage in a paper from MIT. A brief mention in "generator", and maybe "armature", that doubly-fed machines exist and use different terminology would allow us to stay with the traditional terms in the main articles. Students who want to understand how an ordinary motor or a generator works don't need to face the full complexity of a modern doubly-fed wind turbine generator, with its exotic bidirectional AC-DC-AC converter and complex control electronics and strategies to deal with wind gusts, in the introductory text. Flkatt isn't wrong; he's just so deeply into those unusual systems that he confuses everyone else. I learned something from figuring out what he's trying to say. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Why MEDRS? essay

the comment below was left on my User page in this dif and i moved it here Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC) It is an excellent essay! Although I have already learned many years ago about the details of DNA biology which you covered, I found your clear, concise and erudite organizational insight on that subject, to be quite helpful.

Thank you for your comments on the Aerotoxic Syndrome Talk Page. I fully agree that the WP:MEDRS standard is essential, if Wikipedia is to achieve its lofty goal of being the most accurate online encyclopedia, available to all, over the entire globe.

I fear the unstated implication of putting "consensus" first and foremost -- as the most lofty goal to be achieved among editors -- is that it is better to wink and look the other way when agenda COI editors invade and are determined to use Wikipedia to promote and advance their own political agenda, than it is to produce an encyclopedic article which is devoid of OR and POV, as is humanly possible. Talk about selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage... EditorASC (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you liked the essay and appreciate the importance of MEDRS. And I agree that working in Wikipedia is hard. All we can do is stay calm, make arguments based on policies and guidelines, and use the dispute resolution processes that the community has established. I will keep my hand in the article and try to help. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. My apology for posting on the wrong page. I thought I had clicked on your talk page, and the screen was filled up with that one post, so did not see I was on your user page. EditorASC (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's OK. I just reviewed the whole talk page of the aerotoxic article. First, a word of advice. Please review the talk page guidelines. Things will go much better if you write shorter posts focused on one bit of content, and if you tone it down (less bolding, less all caps, fewer exclamation points). Please try to do that. Second, several times you make claims of COI editing. You do not specify what editor you believe has a COI nor why. In general appeals to COI that are in made in this way are not helpful - generally, instead of casting light they create more heat and smoke, neither of which is helpful in trying to improve articles. Please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish shamelessly looks for own COI

Neurological disorders, eh? Any chance you could use a paid consultant? (sound of evil laughter) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You just made my head explode so the evil laughter is appropriate! If that was risque joking please clarify, and if there was any seriousness, please clarify. I don't want to say more than that, as i am aware of wiki-politics and what people make of things. And my earnest head is just exploding as I value you so much as a wise Wikipedian. I think you would appreciate what we are doing so even if you are only joking please feel free to email me (although I know you keep strict boundaries); I would love to tell you what we are doing which I will not do on Wiki. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish your head a speedy recovery, and I don't really need any pay (and wasn't seriously looking for it). Maybe I'll email you about it sometime. ("Risqué"? Did I say something off-color without realizing it?) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Risque is not only sexual. :) In my wikipedia world where a cadre of stalkers fervently believes I am here to corrupt Wikipedia, and where I work so much on COI matters, COI analyses are never far from my mind nor are wiki-politics. So in my Victorian-with-regard-to-COI wiki-self there could not be a more "daringly close to indelicacy or impropriety; off-color" thing for someone to joke about with me on-wiki, than RW business relationships. But you perhaps didn't know that about me, you naughty fish. btw I stumbled across Exploding head syndrome a few months ago. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood. ~~Yes, teh Wikipedias is serious bizness. No humor here.~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

sorry :( Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh goodness no! You thought I was saying that sarcastically. I wasn't! I'm the one who is sorry. I thought I was just making fun, in a lighthearted way, of your stalkers, who look to make something serious out of nothing. I was joking. I didn't mean for you to take it negatively. Oh well, this is a textbook example of how humor does not always work in the digital world. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry! I would love to play but i am just too earnest and plodding of a dog for such sophistication and daring. That is my lack. I see the fun folks have on Drmies or Bishzilla's talk pages and marvel at the wit but that is just not me. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, and so, just to be sure, I want to say in all seriousness that I was very interested to learn that you are working on an aspect of neurological disorders, and maybe sometime soon we will communicate more about that privately, and that in no way was I ever making fun of you or trying to stir anything up with any other editors who might watch your talk page. I meant everything in a purely friendly way. OK? See also: Talk:Phineas Gage#Race to the bottom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy! yes. (and thanks for the link which made me laugh!) Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts 2

Dear Jydog.

Re: Unfiltered Breathed In - a documenatry film I think I know quite well what I'm doing and it is 100 percent in line with Wiki rules. The article where you reverted changes is not a medical article it is about a film and stands for itself. You may agree or disagree on it message and content but this is a film and this does not allow you to interpret the film and insert stuff that is not even discussed there. So please refrain from doing so. Thank you very much--Medidog1951 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion on your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

On a fun scale of 1 to 10, editing wikipedia was 0 today. Please consider how you would feel if you sit down to an article and want to improve content, and another user bursts on the scene and generates for you a bunch of edit conflicts and merges. Your edits are lovely, and accurate. I also myself went to correct the 'clinical trial success' note I had added immediately after creating it, realizing it was phase I safety only that is complete, and WHO license submission is on spec. Please, consider I also am an experienced wiki editor and you came in and stormed my session. I had also make a version to change "developed" to "discovered" (you changed to 'created' which is fine..) and took the time to add a citation, and had to abandon that version because you had a subsequent page edit. This is frustrating, to take the time to read, modify, cite, and have it go for not. Much of what you did, again, was great, but please consider a slower typer and the fact that I was seeking to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2009 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2016‎ (UTC)

My apologies! I had no idea you were continuing to work - I did miss this edit note - sorry about that! Glad you liked what I did though. :) btw, if you intend to make a series of edits and want to let other editors know that, you can place an {{in use}} or {{under construction}} tag on the article to let people know to hold back and give you space Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your very friendly response and sharing info about the in use tag. Yes, your edits were great. Best, January2009 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jonathan Fernandez concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jonathan Fernandez, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Message from Merseymale

Hi there! It seems that, for some reasons, Merseymale (talk · contribs) has posted a message for you on my talk page [7]. Could you reply (if necessary)? Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks! done Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing link to archived page

I notice there isn't any "Archive 1" link to the archived talk page for "Unfiltered Breathed In" article. I don't believe I have ever seen that before. Is it deliberate, or just some kind of software error? EditorASC (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

it is there, right above the archive box. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see any archive box either. Are we both looking at the same page? Here is the one I am looking at [[8]] EditorASC (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

hmmm wierd - it was there a bit ago. i fixed it now. nice catch! Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a word

I came across the ArbCom case you were involved in, and I just wanted you to know that I think topic banning you was a great loss to the project. You were doing good work, and even if you got overly mouthy about it... Well, you should see how I deal with these people IRL. I'm in no position to judge you. Results matter, and you were getting them. I look forward to the day when you can appeal it, and if you remind me, I'll back you up then. I'm just a little sorry I wasn't there to back you up in the ArbCom case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Be civil

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.

Check my talk page and be civil. If you do not like my contributions, make a case. I am not a paid editor, nor have I ever been nor plan to be a paid editor. If you don't like my commenting on COIN or ANI, suggest that I be banned from the pages or simply don't post there. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to take a breath. We can talk more later when you are not upset. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't put your incivility back on me. Anyways, I left you a long rant on my talk page. Once you redact your accusation - if you are so inclined - I will be more than willing to return to being civil. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't be redacting anything. I described your editing and asked you a question. There is no point in continuing this discussion in two places, btw. Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood, keep your incivility on your talk page. You made an accusation and it seems you are sticking behind it. Is that the case? If so, let me know so we can deal with it at ANI. You absolutely made an accusation against me and have only deflected your behavior by stating that I "have a lot to learn" and calling me talk at ANI a "sideshow." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

(talk page stalker) You just spoke to me at my talk about COI and related, and by coincidence I also saw this conflict while I was looking into some other stuff. As some friendly advice, please remember what I told you a while back about Javert. In my opinion, you did come on a little strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Jytdog. Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: COI/Advocacy and other stuff

If you believe that what i was asking JzG about[9], was POV,advocacy or in any other way out of line (ie. not adhering to WP's rules/guidances/etiquette), then i'd like you to explain exactly how... otherwise the unnecessary pointing out of my disclosed COI is intimidation/harassment. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss it, that your COI and advocacy is exactly what Guy referred to twice already? You clearly did because you blew right past it there, and now a third time here. You were too busy pressing your point - it is not your PAG point that is at issue anymore, but rather the fervor with which you were/are pressing it. Just dial it down already, please. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that advocacy is against PAG? So if you are going to claim advocacy, you should be ready to put down the evidence for it. Otherwise it is harassment. What both you and Guy seem to forget here, is that having a disclosed COI is not against the PAG, but accusations of personal misconduct and assumptions of bad faith actually is. And that is what i'm pointing out. And while i might have pressed the point, it was because i assumed good faith with regards to Guy's writing, and that he had written something (possibly in frustration), that hir might regret in retrospect. --Kim D. Petersen 09:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is about a side conversation on a user Talk page. To press on and on, long after the fact is plain that there are different perspectives on X, is just rude. The normal thing would be to say "oh gee i am sorry i got carried away". Now please go away. If you press on further I'll have to ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that at any point Guy actually commented on the MEDRS issue, which was why i pressed on. So i have to disappoint you: At no point was it obvious that there was a difference in perspective on X. But thank you for your views, albeit rude. --Kim D. Petersen 10:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read the conversation at JzG's page in a few days and imagine being him (and take note of the parallel comments by Albino he was receiving at the same time.) You guys were both dialled up all the way and not listening to him. With regard to your issue, he told you directly what was important about the characterization of the source to him and you were ignoring that. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly i couldn't care less about the parallel comments by AlbinoFerret, they are completely unrelated to my comments, and not even about the same topic (otherstuff exists argument). But i will take your advice, and reread them in a few days... but i suggest that you do so as well, since you seem to think that he answered my questions, then compare it with the actual reference that is given, since i'm curious as to whether you would consider that letter in any way or form an official (or even unofficial) letter from the institutions of the authors. --Kim D. Petersen 13:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture this. You see three people talking. Two of them are talking intensely to one of them, poking their finger at his chest, pounding away, about different but related things. He is trying to respond to both and looks clearly exasperated. What do you think? You are one of those two guys and you don't care? That says plenty about you and what is important to you. (and do you actually think you could persuade someone in that context?) I warned you not to press on and you have even now turned your pointy finger at me. I won't be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental trying to hide COI tag again

Ylevental is removing the COI tag from Jonathan Mitchell again as well as removing a valid neutrality tag originally placed by someone else. That person was apparently a sock, but the neutrality issue is not resolved. As you have previously warned Ylevental about removing the COI tag could you address him again about it please? Can you also address the neutrality claim if possible? 203.17.215.26 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion. He needs to be banned from the article if possible for a short period to get the message across if he persists. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration clarification request archived

The Genetically modified organisms arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 05:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Current work. Wiki policy?

Hello Jytdog, I have come across a page with a section on current work. I'm not 100% on the policy here. Should it be removed? Saslos (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm, not sure what you mean. If there are reliable sources (WP:RS) and it isn't promotionally written (WP:PROMO) or making some forecast about the future (see WP:CRYSTALBALL) or giving too much weight to what is recent compared to what has already happened in the past (see WP:RECENTISM) then it is fine. Lot of qualifiers there, right? :) If you want me to look at something specific I would be happy to. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's on the Es Devlin page. There is also future work mentioned and possibly various other problems. Saslos (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh man that article is a nightmare. created over a declined AFD and crap from day 1. This is what an article looks like when someone with a conflict of interest or out-of-control advocacy has been working on an article for a while without anyone catching it. Wikipedia has been hijacked to become a fansite or personal promotional page. All that unsourced cataloging of her career needs to go, and be replaced with encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably best for someone with more knowledge in handling than me? Otherwise I can do some of the less bold items. Saslos (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oof. Maybe best to give that some space - but then again, if you are never WP:BOLD you never learn. If you decide to go forward, just be ready to talk with other folks. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Saslos I cleared away some of the clutter so you have something that looks like an encyclopedia article, if you want to go to work on it. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How are these "very questionable" sources?

Could you explain how these sources are "very questionable," as you put it in your comments when you removed about eight citations from the article in our discussion?

1) Pennsylvania Council of Churches: http://pachurches.org/Who/Structure/member%20church%20bodies.htm

2) Newletter for Phenomenology: http://newsletter.phenomenology.ro/archive/newsletter_167.htm

I'm simply looking for an explanation. Thanks. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is what the Talk page of the article is for. Happy to discuss there. But if you repeat yourself without responding to what I wrote (for instance about the pachurches website, which you again bring here), you are heading down a darker yet road.... Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have requested administrative assistance.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog stop being a WikiTroll, guard dogging a page

This is the problem about Wikipedia, there are people who feel entitled in protecting "their baby article" and feel strongly about anyone editing/contributing to it. Jytdog your information is wrong and shows your ignorance about it. Revelance on Amgen sponsorship and hosting scholarships and schools? Its Science and its benefactor wants to do not just advertisement but to groom/promote new scientists. You only see it as promo, but you don't see the educational side of sponsorships. Ignorance is not an excuse to delete/revert others CITED work. You can sit and guardog your page all you want, Wikipedia relies on others to contribute. I saw your talk page, you have the habit of reverting other people's cited work. I keep citing more sources and you keep deleting it and enjoy it, and on top of that you cited wrong information on The Wallis Annenberg Building its about two blocks north of Exposition Park where the California Science Center is. Please use Google Maps, research and enjoy your addiction of being an almighty Wikipedian. I stopped contributing for a long while due to people like you. I just might stop for good. Enjoy Jytdog and stop Trolling.Neoking (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you are upset. I stated my objections on the Amgen Talk page and would be happy to continue talking there... Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

Looks like you haven't been notified- there's a discussion at ANI involving you here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

nice image. oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOC

The title of this section is self explanatory. The e-cig talk page seems to draw editors into commenting on other editors. Article talk pages are the last place this should be happening. I suggest you strike all of your comments directed at other editors or remove them. AlbinoFerret 19:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to my warning you about being TENDENTIOUS you give me an FOC warning. And not one to Kimmy - not ever - Kimmy who fills the Talk page and edit notes with sarcasm and insult (just a few examples here ("Does WEIGHT ring a bell?) and here (Can you say WEIGHT?") and here (a longterm wikipedia editor who doesn't understand the difference between formal position statements and opinion - i'm flapperghasted!)) and so many more) Far too often you resorting to wikilawyering partisan hackery. It is sad to see. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This was a friendly reminder to FOC. Kimmy? For a guy? What other editors do or dont do should not stop you from following FOC. We are each responsible for our own behaviour. Need I also remind you that you have an abcom finding against you for such things? But you will do as you will. AlbinoFerret 19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And oh yes you have never left such a friendly reminder for S Marshall either, per your comments on his Talk page, yet he has focused in a disparaging way on other editors, like here and here (that one particularly funny, disparaging me and citing a "consensus" about a proposed text that no one agreed was good once it finally was sourced) many more. Not even when he made disparaging remarks while talking with you - you just hopped right over that. The hypocrisy is glaring, AF. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Need I remind you that you are not far from getting a significant block for bringing a vexatious AE filing? And there was nothing "friendly" here -- -civil, sure. Shoo now but feel free to come back when you show that you are able to edit and be "friendly" in neutral way on the e-cig topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference check

Would the following qualify as an acceptable reference? If it would, I may like to cautiously use it.

Malavolta M, Pierpaoli E, Giacconi R, Costarelli L, Piacenza F, Basso A, Cardelli M, Provinciali M (2015). "Pleiotropic effects of tocotrienols and quercetin on cellular senescence: introducing the perspective of senolytic effects of phytochemicals" (PDF). Current Drug Targets. PMID 26343116. Retrieved 2016-02-06.

Thanks. --Hyperforin 23:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to post these kinds of questions on the article talk page - it is useful to have them all in one place. This article is not classified by Pubmed nor by MEDLINE as a review, which is a ding. And I can see why - it is mostly about building a hypothesis based on the existing data. It does have some review-like qualities in going over the results to date with the two compounds it is focused on, however. So I would say use it for that only, and gingerly.... Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please reduce the personal commentary.

Please adhere to WP:NPA and stick to content issues. And if you really want to call me a POV-warrior[10][11], tendentious etc. Then take it to the appropriate channels. Otherwise i expect you to adhere to WP's rules - thank you. As i sidenote i do not appreciate being called "Kimmy"[12], if you want to be specific about me, then call me KDP. --Kim D. Petersen 06:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the name, I will not use it going forward. Please tone down the POV-warrioring and I will be happy not to comment on it. Your comment at WT:MED was so, so ... unrestrained. I really don't think you have any sense of how sick the community is of the warrioring at e-cigs. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can say that again. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Please tone down the POV-warrioring" - i would appreciate that you took that to the appropriate channels, or left out that kind of accusations. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. You repeat yourself so much! And by the way it is not an accusation it is fact, provable with diffs. You need to dial it down, as I have been saying to you for a few days now. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Endless repetition?

yes, per last set of remarks, endless repetition. Again, we clearly need an RfC Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I do rather object to having my comments arbitrarily classified as 'endless repetion' by you. In WP we try to resolve conflicts by WP:CIVILdiscussion. It is quite aparemnt from the replies that I have had that no one has even understood my objection to 'fad diet'. No one has responded to any of the points that I made in the secion that I entitled 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You have repeated yourself endlessly as have others in response to you. There is obviously an impasse. Please draft an RFC question.

I also fully understand your current campaign to clean up Wikipedia of what you see as POV rhetoric. If you are not aware of it, you are extremely close to getting site banned for the way in which you are conducting this campaign. It makes me sad to see you act this way; you have made some useful contributions in the past. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of being extremely close to getting site banned. Could you please tell me where this discussion is taking place? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to drag around Wikipedia trying to find where your pattern of behavior over recent months has been discussed, but it has been - maybe AN, maybe ANI, maybe SlimVirgin's talk page. I am not sure. It is surprising to me that you are not aware of this. Well, now you are, at least via my representation. You can do with that whatever you like but what I hope you do, is reflect on what you have been trying to do with this campaign, and note how little support you have, and how much frustration you have been generating. It will be a very simple ANI for anyone to bring. I don't intend to bring it, but you are very vulnerable to it. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So you basically made up the statement, 'you are extremely close to getting site banned for the way in which you are conducting this campaign'.

If you are aware of my and others' objection to the use of rhetoric in WP articles why have you not engaged in discussion with me regarding my comments in 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. I have made several points to which no one at all has responded, this is hardly repetition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure you can dismiss my warning. As you will. I and others have responded to you many times and I will not re-open that discussion here. fwiw, the mistake you keep making, is claiming that people who don't agree with you haven't responded to you or heard you. I know exactly what the form of your argument is, as do many others, and I and others working on the Paleo article understand the specifics of it as well, with regard to "fad diet". The problem seems to me that you believe you possess The Truth on this "rhetoric" issue, and are campaigning across Wikipedia in the name of that Truth. And of course, content that is condemned by said Truth cannot be allowed to stand. I get that too. But unless you become self-aware of what you are doing and the attitude with which you are doing it and change, a site-ban is inevitable. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone has ever responded to my points in 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. I am susceptible to rational persuasion so if you were to engage in a civil discussion about the points that I have raised you might be able to change my position. If all you do is to make vague references to topic bans then you will not be able to persuade me that you are correct.

I have no idea what you think that I believe 'The Truth' is. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

About The Truth - my understanding is that you believe that Wikipedia is full of loaded POV rhetoric that is added to articles and kept there by determined bands of editors, and that this is a very bad thing. Your mission appears to be get rid of this rhetoric (but may be deeper, namely addressing the very difficult issue of Advocacy). Your strategy appears to be picking key examples of such rhetoric and trying to eliminate them from an article in which the term appears. Your main tactic appears to be to keep posing the same arguments or small variations of them, always remaining calm, over and over and over. All of this is very transparent and visible. And I have never seen you budge from your opening position in pursuit of your mission. Not an iota. Nothing you have done shows you to be open rational persuasion - only rather that you possess The Truth. And it is impossible to actually persuade one who possesses the Truth that the Truth is not true or perhaps not even important, and especially not with reason. One of my favorite sayings is "Reason is a whore". This is a light paraphrase (and translation) of something that Martin Luther said. It is apt. Reason begins with assumptions that are pre-rational, and the reasoner often has some goal, which is also pre-rational. All reason does, is provide a nice set of stepping stones from the assumptions to the goal. It is a very useful tool, of course. And if the reasoner bends it back on him or herself and uses it to see if everything they are up to is coherent and consistent, it is even more useful. But anyone claiming that he or she is completely persuade-able by reason is ..... out to lunch. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no goal, as you seem to imagine. I have no strong opinions on the PD.

Firstly I note that you still resolutely refuse to discuss the disputed issues regarding 'fad diet'. If we talk we may come to understand each other's argument, which is the first step to reaching a resolution.

I do not believe that 'Wikipedia is full of loaded POV rhetoric' but I do believe that some articles, which I have randomly come across, do use rhetoric, when they should have used normal encyclopedic language to say more precisely what they mean. One problem with rhetoric is that, because its purpose is to convice rather than explain and it is therefore often deliberately ambiguous, it is very hard to have a sensible argument about statements using rhetoric.

For example, if in the lead of PD one editor wanted to say that it was 'nutritionally deficient' then the argument would be a straightforward one of whether that was what RS said. If another editor wanted to say that, 'its main purpose was to make money' that might be a little harder but it would still be resolvable.

The problem with 'fad diet' there is no general agreement on what it means (desspit the fact that the wording is found in many sources). That is another point that I have made that has not been addressed. THis means that it is not even possible to have a rational argument about whether it is true or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RapAuthority

Hello this is RapAuthority I wanted to thank you for helping with the Eric the Prince article, once that is settled, I can start to build profiles for independent artists who meet notability requirements, and update major artists after I do my interviews with them and create articles on Rap.com that we can then cite here. Please do what you can to move the Eric the Prince article to be kept for articles for creation and then help me do it right so that I can do it right with all of the other artists who meet the standards that no one has the motivation to write about 75.80.192.81 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RapAuthority

actually, You have been blocked so editing here under an IP address is not OK. You need to follow the unblock instructions that were left on your Talk page. I can't help you now. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Message from Fyi&otherinfo

It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Fyi&otherinfo (talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, --Edcolins (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks again for notifying me. (forgot to reply here) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

AbbVie

hi Jytdog, I contemplated writing to you yesterday regarding guidance over the 'dispute' over at the Abbvie article, but I wanted to see what else Bmedick said. I didn't realise falsely stating your an admin was a bannable offence but I guess its just gross misreprestentaion. As for the article would you mind casting your eye over it and seeing where we can improve the content /formatting - if its not too much trouble. Thanks for stepping in! (glad your back too!!) XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it happen, most often as one reason among others. I couldn't find the place in policy where that is stated, but it is in the WP:TPG. I was in the process of looking that article over in any case..... Thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Postorgasmic illness syndrome

You just removed a reference to a presentation at a medical conference. Why? How is it not encyclopedic? This is a newly described rare disease with no known treatment. I think a case report from a medical doctor that is presented at a medical conference and that describe possible treatments is encyclopedic. --POIS22 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for reaching out to me. I had wanted to open a discussion with you. Let's discuss article content on the article talk page -- if you just copy your comment there, I will respond there. (the reason for that being that discussions of content should be centralized so everybody who cares, can see it and join in if they like) I will leave you a note on your talk page about the stuff I wanted to raise with you. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Added comment on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by POIS22 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, I will respond there shortly. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the latest revision. It's much more objective and straightforward, even if short, unlike the previous version.

I will look for citations to support the statements I made. I saw your changes to the CCLA article and understand now what you're getting at.

Unfortunately, I've seen the opposite in the past, by other editors, who claimed that if there wasn't any citations supporting the allegation, then the allegation could be accepted at face value. So, my objections to the lack of citations went ignored.

This kind of inconsistency is what creates confusion so I appreciate the fact that you have also provided Wiki policy references.

Best wishes

Tobeme free (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Sure! Good luck, and feel free to ping me if you have questions about Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For having the commitment and kindness to spell out, in detail, COI guidelines and other policies for users who would've been left by the wayside in another situation. Keep it up! ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

that is super nice of you. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I aspire to your level of calm and level-headedness, Jytdog, in dealing with these issues. - Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

please aim higher than me! i have much room for improvement. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Major breakthroughs in AI"

You've been told, 'First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary.'

Now have a look at mw:API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also:

Reasonator and Autodesc are tools that create machine-generated articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

Here's an example of such an article: [13]. Here's another: [14]

meta:2016_Strategy/Knowledge#Approach_Six specifically refers to the idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content." Just sayin'. --Andreas JN 466 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It may interest you to know that Lila Tretikov has opened a Q&A page on Meta: meta:Knowledge_Engine/FAQ. Also note [15]; conversations over there are a lot more pleasant. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted there. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: [16] Andreas JN 466 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent . . .

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.

. . . contributions and insights re. the KE at JW talk. Much appreciated. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Whatever Jimbo's hiding, he's certainly hiding something, since almost every question he's being asked could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" yet he's frantically throwing chaff. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

yep, it is transparently clumsy. sad. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I am answering you fully and with detail. I am not hiding anything. My answers and clear and honest and transparent. I encourage more specific questions, and I stand ready to answer with all that I know. Listening to a chorus of people with a huge long track record of insulting me rather than honestly engaging me isn't going to lead you to understanding, and that's a very straightforward fact of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. I am doing my own homework. I realize that there are all kinds of people who have strong feelings about you and the WMF, for very many reasons, and ~some of them~ are loony.

I very much want to understand what is going on.

Your responses on your Talk page have been profoundly unhelpful and in response I have indeed grown increasingly fierce. It would be a big waste of time to track diffs but if you look you will see that I have been dialing up the intensity of my responses, step by step.

I realize I am just another face in the crowd to you, but you don't seem to understand how dehumanizing your responses have been. I would love to hit the reset button and have a real discussion. Maybe your note here is a sign you are ready to do that. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you becoming more fierce, but I also don't think I've been "profoundly unhelpful". I've tried to answer all your questions clearly and with full information. Here's an idea - if you're up for a "reset button" then how about starting a new section, with a clear set of specific questions? Try to keep the questions from making accusatory assumptions, just stick to factual questions that you'd like answers to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try that. Thanks! I hear what you say about leaving out accusatory assumptions.

And I ask you to consider, when you are framing your answers, to consider that there is a lot of bad feeling and distrust even from mainstream (?) people like me over this. Please hear me when I say that however you intended them, your answers have felt curt and dismissive. I wrote the section about power relationships because I experienced a feeling of powerlessness throughout this drama (since James was dismissed from the board), and when I thought about ways the community could hold the WMF board accountable, I realized that there were none.

Please hear me, that your style of responding has only re-inforced that feeling of powerlessness for me, and the sense that you and the WMF board don't even feel like you are accountable to us. The feeling of that.

But please try to speak plainly and honestly in a way that addresses what has been upsetting. Not like Lila did here but rather like what Max wrote in his comment on that, here. I will post something in a bit. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Kudos

		The Original Barnstar
		For your set of polite, persistent, and acute questions about where WMF is at and where it is going at Jimbotalk. Thanks for your efforts. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the barnstar I came here to award. Anything additional would feel cheap, so I'll just add my +1. Keep up the good work. -Pete (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you both. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Our discussion at WT:HA

That discussion is making me think of something that I'd rather discuss here instead of there. You are framing a lot of the concerns that you express there in terms of your desire to be considerate of other users by discussing things with them before escalating it to a dispute resolution board. In general, that's a good impulse. But there are limits. As I said at the other talk page, regular editors really should not attempt to investigate things that checkusers are responsible for. But more broadly, having too much pre-discussion can backfire, because the other person feels like you are bugging them. I gave you some advice at my talk recently, about how you might want to stay away from dispute resolution boards for a while. It occurs to me that approaching someone one-on-one is fine initially, because maybe they will respond positively and the two of you can work things out. But if they react negatively to your initial approach, my advice would be to drop it right there. Say woops and just let it go. Getting into a protracted argument with a disruptive user can get you into the kinds of situations where you've had trouble before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I hear where you are coming from. I am going to say now that I do not view my situation as dire-ly as you do. The case against Elvey finally was closed and he was was 3-months-banned and his TBAN extended, and we were finally able to get his disruptive close at WT:MED reversed. There are escalations I am still very much pursuing. I am pursuing them carefully. I agree that if I end up all over ANI that would be a very, very bad thing. The period leading up to the arbcom case was a very bad, and very extended time (I cannot say more, of course) and I do not anticipate getting involved in any kind of content dispute like that again any time soon - I don't even see it on the horizon. I do very much appreciate your advice, and I listen to it. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy to hear that. (And, ahem, the Elvey thing worked out largely because of the information that yours truly provided there.

) My main point here is that it is possible for you to get into extended discussions with disruptive users where you have the best of intentions, because you are trying to fix things by yourself, but where it can backfire when the other user is a bad actor. If you reach out to someone who appreciates it, that's great, and that person will be thankful for your help. But reaching out to someone who is acting in bad faith leads to that person trying to paint you as a trouble-maker if you pursue it. And please don't underestimate the extent to which there are editors looking for a reason to say "see, Jytdog is doing it again!". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your input there was very helpful, as it is almost everywhere in WP. And I am very aware of my haters, and probably even some mainstream editors who look at me with some askance now. But I do hear you about being careful about getting into entanglements. I do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jonathan Fernandez

Hello, Jytdog. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jonathan Fernandez".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete away. I was helping some editor with that, and they abandoned it, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time page extensive edit

Hello jytdog, I see you've overwritten all of my edits on the page. While, I agree and apologies for the way I provided some information, I would appreciate if you stop taking away the content and replacing it with irrelevant information such as linking two public figures together and to the organization for no apparent reason. Can we agree to leave the page as it is now, i.e. unbiased introduction, logo and organization's manifesto. I strongly disagree that publishing organization's manifesto constitutes self-promotion. It is a relevant information, and ultimately it is for a reader to interpret it, not a single abusive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please ask me, on the article's Talk page - I would be happy to discuss it there. It is best to discuss content in a centralized place so everybody who is interested can see it and participate. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Mashlonik

A tag has been placed on Nicholas Mashlonik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks for taking care of that. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Feldenkreis

Did you read the latest edit of the Alexander technique? Alexbrn did it, and my edit of Feldenkreis copied it! If you read the Australian meta-study, my edit here and Alexbrn's @ Alexander reflect it quite accurately. Please get back to me here on this. Thanks. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added another point to the Talk: Feldenkrais Method linguistic discussion. Tapered (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robbie Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hansen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you! Thank you! You cannot imagine how many people you have helped by editing the misophonia page. Because of you people will no longer be misinformed. Misinformation leads to misdiagnosis, mistreatment and misery. Thank you.

Drjobrout (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

sure. thanks for all the "thanks" too! Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REFUND#International Misophonia Research Network. Looks as though you're doing a good job on the main article. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for letting me know about that refund request. this is so messy, on a few levels too. ack Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The MEDRS thing

There's got to be a way for us to come to a meeting of minds on this, and I'm sorry if I came off as unnecessarily testy. I'm skeptical that you can't see the distinction I'm drawing or recognize that it's real, so I'm wondering what the issue is. Two theories come immediately to mind (1. there's so much fringe crap, we can't do anything to ever undermine, even slightly, the perception that mainstream medical authorities are authoritative, even if they sometimes really aren't for everything, especially when politics and money are involved; 2. it's hard to distinguish in a definitional way between an AMA-or-whatever publication that is essentially a literature review produced in-house and which is rather or even entirely neutral, from a position statement that is clearly reflecting political priorities as well as or instead of medical science ones). But for all I know it's something else entirely. You tell me. I don't think either of those two problems are insurmountable, if either of them are the source of the friction. But until this direct policy conflict is resolved, I have to keep treating MEDRS as a weak document, WP:MED's biased, WP:PROJPAGE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS masquerading as a guideline, which cannot actually be followed or taken very seriously. And I'm very firmly anti-FRINGE. Is it worth it to lose the support of editors like me, for nothing but the convenience of not having to deal with a definitional problem about source types? I'm hardly the only editor who has less respect for MEDRS than it could earn. I don't think it does WP:MED or WP any good whatsoever to drive natural allies back across an artificial, pointless line MEDRS's editorial camp has drawn, to the side where their mutual enemy is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to try to talk. I will ask you to try to read the first two sentences of what you just wrote through my eyes. You are saying that i am purposefully not addressing your question. Please think about what it is like to read that. It is not happy. And I suggest you completely chuck that out the window. And on the level of WP:MED - the project has been very careful not to build a walled garden, so please don't treat WP:MED as though it has. It is really corrosive, on a lot of levels. So basically please be more rigorous in AGF on both levels.

What is happy is that I think you are onto something with the definitional issue you start talking about. You seem to be drawing a distinction between different kinds of statements put out by MSMBs. What I would urge you to do, is build that out. And I will say that if you cannot clearly define categories, and provide examples of each, you should back off the very strong statements you are making, until you can. You should not be pushing so hard on something that is maybe true, but tentative.

we can probably have a productive conversation (as in, getting somewhere in community) trying to see if there is a usefully-makeable distinction among kinds of statements. That conversation is very unlikely to happen if you are demanding changes to the guideline and accusing WP:MED of being a walled garden.

As you have been around way longer than me, I shouldn't have to say this to you, but I think that if you want to build consensus for change, the way to do that is by drawing people in to see the problem and asking for help solving it. "Hey all - MEDRS says X. But when I look at X, I see two kinds of things, A and B. Here are examples of A, and here are examples of B. Stuff in B, in my view, is really outside the purview of reporting "accepted knowledge" and instead provides "judgements about social issues." I think we should make this distinction in MEDRS. Do folks see the difference I am defining, and agree that we should express that distinction in MEDRS? Do you maybe see yet other categories within X?" That would start a much more productive discussion that could drive change. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just did Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Resetting Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

All fair points, which I will absorb, and I appreciate both the measured response here, and the efforts to realign the discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for talking! And thanks for surfacing this issue - i think there is maybe something there. sorry i didn't hear it before. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your request

I'm checking. I won't have anything until tomorrow my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

danke! Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on my review, I'm unwilling to take any action, against the named account or the two IPs. Any disruptive conduct will have to handled through non-SPI forums. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. was what I did OK, process-wise, in your view? Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you handled it very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

great thanks for the assurance. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia user group, with a bank account and its own fundraising banners...

representing the people who make and run the WMF's cash cow? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that would end well. Once there is a smell of money, the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start (cf. WM UK). But it is entertaining to imagine the competing fundraising banners: "No, don't give them money, this is the real Wikipedia... " JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start" that's WMF to a t. I'm not saying we'd be any better (though I think we might) but at least then they'd be coming to us for resources instead of us to them, cap in hand ... and if they take another five years to get the visual editor right we can just sack them, and give the contract to Google.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

the specific idea is funny; i don't know that WMF would allow our banners. :) it does fit with talk of a union of editors or the like - some kind of entity that could actually hold the board accountable (but only through work slow downs or strikes). Without such an entity the board is not accountable to us in any concrete way. It would mean building a whole additional layer of infrastructure here in addition to all the governance we already have, and then figuring out how to actually govern the thing. that is daunting. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like very hard work. Probably the easiest approach would be just turning the WMF into a membership-based organisation, where the members elect the majority of board members and the board appoints expert members. It's being discussed on meta somewhere. The present situation isn't optimum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI post removed by intention

Hi,

You seem to have good connections in the ANI area. Dishonesty is a requirement? Anyway, please keep my recent posts removed as I intended. -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, you mean this change you made. You really should WP:REDACT - oy. DePiep you are too cantankerous for your own good. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with harassment and vandalizing of OCLA page

Hi Jytdog

You helped out with this page Ontario Civil Liberties Association and I agreed with your final edit.

However, an IP address keeps coming in and making ridiculous changes to the page.

I have filed a complaint in the Admin forum HERE and am drawing it to your attention.

Hope you can help resolve this?

Tobeme free (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

This would be a good time to use "page protection". I will request it, and will link there, so you can see how to I did it. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

done here If this were a registered user, the edit warring notice board would be the way to go but it is little use with an IP editor Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Learning a lot from you. Appreciate the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim of "harassment" or "vandalism" is ridiculous. See my response at Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association#OCLA.2FCCLA. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

forumshopping is a kind of harassment, and your hands are not clean here. Please don't act like they are. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My hands are clean here. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Refrain from Allegations of Bad Faith

Warning: Please refrain from your repeated allegations of bad faith: [17] [18]. I warned you at the talk page here to stop and yet you have continued. I also mentioned in that diff that this may be a violation of your topic ban on GMO's. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning about my TBAN.. I don't agree that I have stepped over my topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 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, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia's head of state

I've struck out my concerns/protests at Travelmite's page. The WP:POLITICS rfc concerning Australia's head of state topic, can get frustrating for some. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

as you will. maybe there was some basis for this email claim thing, but nyytend only referenced travelmite's behavior, which was not good. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your efforts to engage with the issues around the Knight grant, the Knowledge Engine, and the involvement of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees have been highly valuable. Here is a small token of my appreciation. Pete (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that we had, was not the outcome I wanted. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Derr. Because you didn't do it right. Here, for next time: [19] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That is what it was like. Thanks for that. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

:) The effort is worth it regardless. If you're wearying of engaging with Jimmy directly on his talk page (I personally have little patience for that), may I suggest this new page on Meta Wiki? Good place to collect existing statements and discussions, IMO. meta:Revolution of 2016 -Pete (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

spa

[20]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite

See my note to GoodDay; Skyring asked me to look into something with Travelmite, but the block was for unrelated issues. I wasn't comfortable levying any sanctions (or recommending that anyone else do it) based on the evidence in the email, but while investigating what he said in his email, I found the statements that prompted me to make the block. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

makes sense, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing Sanders RfC

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? With something like 60 participants, I don't think that would go over well, especially as Malik's conduct is currently under the microscope. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

yep, i do! the RfC is a zero-sum game that so, so did not have to exist - the yes/no is what is driving the acrimony in my view. and all i' am doing is asking. malik is the one who has to decide to do it or not, and would take the heat, unfortunately. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, when people inevitably object, don't say I didn't warn you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fine taking some blowback. I appreciate your concern for me. I do! 02:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Still not ok -- psychology edit

Hi, would you mind letting me know what you meant by "Still not ok" when you removed the section on Genes and Environment on the Psychology page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrie0006 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I already left a note on the article Talk page, explaining it. btw discussions about article editing should go on the article talk page, as that is where everyone who cares about the article can see it, and participate. These user talk pages are for talking about stuff not specific to an article. see you over there! Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your cleanup at SierraSil and I award this barnstar to you because it seems as if you are always turning up in my watchlist, trimming articles of poorly sourced claims and various promotional content. Deli nk (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! and i must say i see the same in your editing. Thanks for all you do. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A gem of a user

		A Gem of Wikipedia
		I present you with this award in recognition of your unique contributions to Wikipedia. Your work with COI editors and dedication to helping all users join this project is truly remarkable. You are an indispensable asset to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No barnstar was sufficient to recognize your contributions so I went and made this. I hope to use it more, but gems—users whose work of so unique and so needed and so far beyond expectations—are rare. Anywho, thank you for your work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

so pretty!! thank you so much. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

El (deity)

I have started a discussion on the talk page of El (deity). Israell (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia-talk namespace usage guidelines

Maybe we should duplicate the part about Wikipedia-talk namespace given in Wikipedia:What is an article?#Namespace also in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I mean, the part about "Meta-discussions about editing belong in Wikipedia-talk space or User-talk space, not Article-talk." After all, the former is a member of just Category:Wikipedia FAQ, while the latter holds a stronger membership in Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If you actually read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages it is clear. Note the title of the section, the text in italics at the top, and relevant to our discussion, the second bullet there. The confusion you had about what an "article" is, is not common. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe clear for the initiated. I've added a bullet making your point explicit. Please improve wording if necessary. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnievinski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I've started a discussion about your recent edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. Dialectric (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Occupational safety

I write to praise you for your quick reversal of the commercial additions to the occupational safety site. Iss246 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And I appreciate you did to clean up the encyclopedia entry Occupational safety and health. Iss246 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean "Maggie"?

[21] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ack! yes, fixed it. thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Pharmacological torture, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Pharmacological torture". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sfn/doc

Please revert your edit. Per WP:BRD, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) was bold, I reverted, it should now be discussed. Instead, we have three users (the third is Izno (talk · contribs)) going against WP:EW. More at User talk:WhatamIdoing#Template:Sfn/doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BRD is optional, as you know. But I'd be happy to host the discussion, if there's more to discuss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I self-reverted and opened a discussion on the template talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) (reflect my actual status. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

As a talk page stalker, it occurs to me to ping EEng and Mirokado, both of whom I know to be interested in the subject. And the real reason for me to post here is that it gives me an excuse to make a joke, which is that I very much hope that Jytdog has not really everted himself! Ouch!

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

is that even a thing? let's see ... oh ack! "to turn outward or inside out.". well, there is learning by making mistakes for you. fixed above, to avoid causing alarm. i am rightside in. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And with that, I will link to Sea apple#Defense! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Now there is a trick i would like to learn. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries

No worries about Gamma-Aminobutyric acid, good luck with its improvement, — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment

On 9 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment was founded by Billy Graham's grandson to help evangelical groups prevent and deal with sexual abuse in their midst? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

hooray! Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Response. Page "Homotaurine"

I add even more sources. All you do is prevent knowledge also what you have erased about alzheimer is completely valid. Instead of deleting all, you should look a little google and contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonsy74 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Moved from user's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EverygreenFir. Fonsyn, this is for discussion at the article Talk page - happy to respond there. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list

changed the header from "Gaslighting" to "Mailing list" Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This refers. I'm interested in whether you have always had this opinion of Jimmy or whether it was the recent events that prompted your reaction. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You view that as gaslighting? Hm. Didn't mean it that way; I tend to be direct and simple in Wikipedia as tone is too hard to control. Recent events, including my effort on his Talk page to actually talk with him about what happened, which failed. I never paid him much mind before. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, it was this post which refers to gaslighting. I followed your discussion with him on his talk page, but very hard to understand the narrative. I fully support your effort to get an election, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Great. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation on and off, not with great attention, but with a lot of befuddlement and dismay. Is it really the case that Jimmy Wales has said in writing that DocJames has low emotional intelligence? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

here is the email from Jimmy to James, copied to Pete, that Pete published on the mailing list. Jimmy is kinda sorta trying to be nice, but it is very much "does your mom know you beat your wife" - claims are baked in that make it unworkable for authentic dialogue. Jimmy says he can't figure out James' behavior and wonders if James' behavior may be due to low emotional intelligence or something, among other things. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I remain befuddled and dismayed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I was for a long time too, with the "he said she said" of this, and wanting to be careful not to judge. Jimmy's behavior has led me to believe he has not been talking in good faith. I have judged now. He has done lots of great things and probably will in the future but he is acting with no integrity in this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Jimmy, and also asked James, where this was 'publicly stated'. I always worry when J says 'I won't supply exact quotes'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

. Two "J's here. hm. I am not too interested in nailing anyone to the wall on any specific thing, because most of the specific things that have been said are denials, distraction, etc etc. There is a gaping hole, where there should be a clear and coherent disclosure with regard to what actually transpired with the KE (what was planned, by whom, the lack of transparency around that (within the WMF and with respect to the community), and how that played into James's dismissal and Lila's failures). All that stuff is one story.

Peter - please hear me - trying to pin down any specific statement is playing whackamole and in my view actually helps Jimmy's efforts to distract everyone from the gaping hole. In my view, we need to stay focused on the gaping hole and call out anything else for the garbage that it is. If Jimmy worked for me I would have fired him after our second exchange. It was bullshit - in the Harry Frankfurt sense of "speech intended to persuade, with regard for truth"; it is an expression of profound disrespect for the person to whom it is delivered, or complete sloppiness, and neither is helpful for solving problems. The truth matters- knowing it, is the first step in solving problems.

We have a gaping hole where a description of the problem should be, and so it is hard to fix it. The persistence of the hole has itself become a problem, so we need to fix that. And since that is not forthcoming, we need to fix the source of the hole. We have to get the board elected. That is what I think.

But please don't get distracted by things in the donut around the hole. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I do get distracted by things like that. I am fascinated by the philosophy of lying. I write about it occasionally. Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see we are both fans! Wonderful. Those two books helped me, a lot. Such clear thinking, and such great focus on what matters. The point you pull out there is really interesting, and you hang him on his own language. The key thing, is to be looking in the right place, and to discern what is there, as best you can (to know "the truth" about that). Liars insert a falsehood at that place, yes. What you point out very well, is the bullshitter is trying like crazy to get you to look past that point, and buy what he or she is selling, and you really should be looking at the place when you evaluate their pitch. You are right, it does matter to the bullshitter, that you don't look there. Nicely done. ( i studied medieval history in college and fell in love with Etienne Gilson's Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. haven't thought about that book in forever....) And thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I also like to document things very carefully. I have just looked at my notes and what really puzzles me is the extreme anger with which Jimmy pursues Heilman, contrasting with the fairly mild statements Heilman has made, always carefully qualified and always going to the sources. On the other hand, we can't get round the fact that there was an 8-2 vote. It's very puzzling. Peter Damian (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is weird. I think the public fierceness of Jimmy is proportional to the amount he knows he acted badly in private. That is often how things go. I see the usefulness of identifying specific contradictions, especially with people who are committed to digging deeper instead of climbing out. everybody has their part, i guess! Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

edits at Jimbo's talk

Hi, jyt -

You said you were done at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please make that for at least a month.

Jimbo leaves moderation of his talk page up to others. I've moderated his page about 3 times now. I try not to over-do it. I've been taken to Arbcom about 3 times on this and it's been upheld each time.

Hope to see you in a month or so.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your intentions. I'll do as I will do. I do not intend to engage Jimmy going forward but I do intend to speak with other editors there, nor do I intend to address his behavior further. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." ArbCom has made it clear that this applies to Jimbo's talk page as much as, perhaps even more than, other users' talk pages. Jimbo has made it clear that other users should moderate his talk page for him. He has made this clear several times in particular concerning my modertion. It is obvious that nobody wants to welcome somebody to his talk page who just outright calls him a liar. So you are not welcomed on that page and I will remove all your additions there.

Of course, if Jimbo says you are welcomed there, I won't remove your edits. Feel free just to ask him. Or ArbCom. Just to be sure you understand - I will remove any edit you put on that page, until I hear otherwise from Jimbo or ArbCom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo gives a flying fuck if I post or not, and I won't beg his leave. He has thoroughly disrespected me enough by pretending to have a conversation with me. And I have no idea why I would talk to Arbcom about your playing gardenkeeper for Jimbo. I am, in any case, uninterested in getting into a dramafest with you. So I bow to your asserted will. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

rendered moot

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Question to tps... so apparently there is some kind of appeal possible via Arbcom over what Smallbones has done. What he says is that he is banning me b/c I said that Jimmy was lying. Which he was. In my view it is not uncivil to say someone is lying, when they are indeed lying. So if I were to bring this to Arbcom, it would seem to me the question there would be whether Jimmy was indeed lying. Which could be interesting. Thoughts on this? Via email or he, whatever you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

To make my question easier to consider..

The relevant section of the jimbo's talk page is User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_we_left_the_discussion, which was summarizing the conversation, now archived here, which I initiated at Jimmy's invitation, here.

This question was about where the board was, in their role as the people to whom Lila was accountable, with regard to Lila's acknowledged mistake of not engaging the community on the Knowledge Engine.

In an iteration of the question, I wrote this and added a bit more here:

it is not answering the question because it leaves a perfect hole where a direct response would be; my sense is you are asking me to read between the lines of "broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure" and "no one told her not to" and the only things I can put there are things like: "Lila refused to bring this to the community although the board told her to do so, and we didn't make it clear enough that her job depended on her doing that and doing it well" or "we actually didn't know the kind of plans that were being pitched in the WMF's name; and if we had, we would have driven community engagement sooner". Please don't ask me to read between the lines. I am asking you to please tell me where the board was, on overseeing Lila as she made the ongoing mistake of not engaging the community. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

he responded with this:

The board has broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure, and I'm unaware of anyone individually giving her advice to hide anything about long term strategy. Going into slightly more depth than that, I didn't see anything particularly unusual or controversial about the concepts being presented to us about the evolving ideas around improving search and discover, and I simply assumed that there was community discussion and consultation about it. The grander concept which, as I now understand, Damon was pitching via cloak-and-dagger PGP encrypted files (one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick because Damon didn't trust the public keyservers), didn't really get traction and was quickly abandoned. By the time of the board meeting in Mexico City, we specifically discussed that this would not be anything like a "Google competitor". As to the exact details of every single discussion with funders, obviously the board is not privy to those as a practical matter. Certainly had we understood that a disconnect was going on, and that the community was not being consulted, we absolutely would have pushed harder for community engagement sooner. As it is, I think most likely other board members, like me, simply assumed that it was being talked about and not treated as some kind of super top secret thing. Is that helpful?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

to which i responded with this, calling saying:

Thanks for replying. With all of the sturm und drang that is detailed in the Timeline - much of which concerns transparency (which includes engaging the community of course) - and it is all right there, from the funds dissemination committee in May, to James email in October, to Asaf's response to Lila in November, especially the Funds Dissemination Committee note on November 23 ("They state that they are "appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF's approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof)" ..... all the evidence says that Board was well aware that Lila was not engaging the committee. I started this in the hope that this could be an authentic engagement and you could move toward regaining the community's trust. You. are. lying. You are displaying the arrogance of power and demonstrating the reality that you and the Board are not accountable to the community. And that is where we are. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I was treating Smallbones' thing as annoying and blew off the drama, but it just struck me that maybe it would be useful to take him up on that, and have Arbcom look at whether my statement was justified. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo restored the statement here, 7 hours after i posted the above. hatted it. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a note of appreciation for pursuing clarity at Jimbotalk by asking questions to which "the community" is entitled to straight answers. Writegeist (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ELS

Hi Jytdog, I was wondering what "inappropriate embedded ELs" - I googled it but a little confused. I want to make sure I avoid them for sure. Thanks!KHBibby (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @KHBibby: It stands for external links. Brianhe (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits

I'm finding many of your edits at the Stone article and at the Energy therapy article problematic and borderline disruptive. First, adding a source to an article isn't spam. Second, I've asked you to please wait until the AfD discussion has completed for you go and delete massive chunks of content from the article, and add templates that have the potential to poison the well. The article may be deleted anyway, so leaving it alone isn't hurting anything, but chopping it to pieces and templating it as you've done gives an impression of personal bias and is disruptive. Thanks for your consideration. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How interesting! I just left a note on your Talk page. I work on articles about health all the time, so am very familiar with how we approach these topics in Wikipedia, including the sourcing guidelines and the way we apply polices and guidelines to health topics. I also work a great deal on conflicts of interest issues, and the Randolph Stone article was profoundly affected by the COI of its creator - it is plain as day. I opened a discussion about that at the talk page, here. I'd be happy to discuss further, if you like. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's concerning to me that you may think assuming bad faith is a normal course of action. I guess it doesn't surprise me too much, with what Wikipedia has become over time. My only desire here is to see the AfD run its course, with people presenting their evidence in an objective manner, without playing dirty well-poisoning tricks or trying to smear a new editor. If the article is deleted, then it's deleted, and we can all move on. Until then, I would like to see a new editor helped instead of pilloried, and an article that may very well be about a notable subject receive actual review instead of votes to delete because it is about quackery. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep coming at me with accusations of trying to poison the well, and you do so here. That is not the case. I do not view AfDs as some kind of existential battle. If someone fixes the article during the AfC, i will be very happy. If you want to fix it, then fix it. You will note that in my !vote I suggested that the article could be moved to draft space or userified. The subject may well be notable but this article should not exist in anything like its current form. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave you the courtesy of a response here, but you still have not replied at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

basta

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.

Wales is no stranger to rewriting history. He claims to be the sole-founder, but he was busy with his other project called the Bomis. See History_of_Wikipedia#Early_roles_of_Wales_and_Sanger. The first search engine Wales worked on was "The Babe Engine". All his search engine projects failed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

there is no reason to be mean, now. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

But I'm rolling my eyes over "The Babe Engine". Same way Zuckerberg started "The Facebook". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Babe Engine was less a search engine, and more an unholy hybrid of an old-style webring and a linkspam site (although their search page is good for a laugh, complete with "swollen red baboon ass" as a "fetish"). Jimbo's old T-shirt page is always good for a laugh, too. ‑ Iridescent 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a blog based on Slashcode?[22] I am sure a reporter could gather all the evidence over the years and write a shocking story. Larry Sanger did not create Wikipedia?[23][24] QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

now, now, everybody comes from somewhere. enough of this now. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[25]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

COI

I've never been involved in a COI case, so I don't know how to begin it. Since you are a regular contributor over there, I thought I'd bring your attention to Andy Tomlinson who purports to be the author of a source he wishes to cite, and who edits frequently in his field (which is not a COI in and of itself, I know), and who is currently making some highly questionable COI-ish arguments at the reliable sources noticeboard. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SELFCITE which is definitely part of the COI guideline. I will check out the RSN discussion and perhaps open a discussion on their talk page. These kinds of discussions are delicate.... Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs in case they help

I haven't followed everything on Jimbo's talk, but a current issue seems to be whether someone mentioned removing Board members in the period leading up to the Knight vote.

James has said that did happen, and that it made him feel under pressure to support accepting the Knight grant (not only support it, but propose it). People have asked whether Jimbo was present when the remark about removing trustees was made. Jimbo said on 10 February that he was checking with every Board member, and that he had reached a "preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie." [26]

James later said it was Jimbo who made the comment: "Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during the days before the Knight grant vote." [27]

James had earlier confirmed that just one trustee had made such a remark: "One board member stating that they wish to remove other board members I believe applies pressure and is a fairly specific example." [28]

It would be worth asking another trustee whether they heard Jimbo say that. It's a serious matter, because James is not someone to whom pressure is easily applied, so this has implications for the independence of the trustees. It's one of the issues that makes me think an independent inquiry would be helpful. Pinging Peteforsyth, Doc James, Nocturnalnow, Smallbones. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary, SlimVirgin. I can add one more piece, maybe helpful. I had a conversation with Doc James on Oct. 28 21, 2015; I remember the date distinctly because it was during Open Access Week; I was on the UCSF campus for an Open Access event, ~~on my way to~~ the week before an OA panel discussion I moderated at the WMF offices. James and I had communicated a little prior to this via email, but this phone conversation was the first time I got a broad sense of how worried he was about things going on with the board. James was careful not to share too many specifics with me, which as I saw it was entirely appropriate since I assumed there were confidential issues at play. (For any who don't know, I had briefly run for the board myself in the race where he was elected. So I had thought a good deal about the topic of dealing with confidential information while working for change; and I was pleased to find that James' words seemed to align with how I would probably approach it in his shoes. FWIW, I stepped out of the running before voting opened, and endorsed James among several other candidates.)

One specific thing James did say, though, was that he was concerned that if was too outspoken about his views -- within the Board of Trustees -- that he was worried he might be removed from the board. I told him I thought that was ridiculous, that while I understood the discomfort of challenging prevailing views, that no reasonable board would ever remove a colleague for following his own conscience -- that indeed, it was his duty to represent what he believed to be in the best interests of the WMF. I pointed out that his position as a community-selected Trustee strengthened that position, that his colleagues would be even less likely to eject him for representing his views, since it would be interpreted as a rebuke of the community. He told me that the Board had the legal right to do so, which came as a surprise to me. (I took his word for it in that discussion, but checked the bylaws myself as soon as our panel discussion was done.)

James did not tell me that any specific Trustee had threaten to remove him specifically; but that was entirely consistent with the care he was taking not to breach confidentiality. I would have been very surprised if he had told repeated to me what a fellow trustee had told him in confidence.

But clearly, the issue was very much on his mind as of October 28, to the point where he was familiar with the bylaws' exact provisions about removing trustees. There are many issues for a Trustee to read and think and learn about; in James' first few months, that was one of the issues that commanded his attention. There must be a reason for that, and the most convincing possible reason I've heard since is that Jimmy Wales brought up the possibility of removing Trustees prior to October 28. In fact, it's the only possible reason I've heard articulated. -Pete (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment regarding the potential removal of board members occurred on Nov 7 or 8th. But there was of course disagreements among board members before that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Pete, that is very helpful. I have asked Dariusz whether he heard Jimmy or anyone else make such a remark. [29] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicotine page edit

Regarding your edit on nicotine, on see p. 8 of the Cancer Research UK report^[1] which is clearly referring to the safety of un-regulated doses of nicotine from e-cigarettes. (FYO, it is well-known that users self regulate the amount of nicotine consumed.^[2])

Some of the most significant evidence on the safety of nicotine comes from low-toxic versions of smokeless tobacco, which deliver hefty doses of nicotine but are not associated with cancer or heart attack.^[3]^[4]

References

- Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 11:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this! It really belongs on the article Talk page - happy to discuss there. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

30 Dec email

Perhaps I missed this being published but Doc mentioned an email sent by Jimmy on 30 December 2015 that he was going to publish. Was it published? Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

who is "he" in "he was going to publish"? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

'He' being Doc James. Pronominal back-reference heh! Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I did make a comment that I would publish one of my own emails and that email is this one.

With respect to publishing other people's emails such as one that Jimmy sent me Dec 30th, this is something I have given him permission to do but not something I will do myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. On 18 January 2016, Doc James asks Jimmy to publicly share the email he sent to Doc on Dec 30th, 2015. As far as I know, Jimmy has not publicly shared it.Peter Damian (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes that has been brought up several times in the mailing list, too. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Re edit: please join the discussion: WT:FRINGE#Independent reliable sources required. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment

No problem. I am happy to improve it. But please cite some examples of what you allege to be "almost impenetrable with jargon", otherwise your contribution is unhelpful, being itself unfounded, but simply a sweeping accusation. It is not a matter of being protective. It is a matter of commitment to improvement, which I am struggling to implement without example. This is especially so given that the terminology of the article is consistent with other articles in the field of neuroscience. Again: which terms have you identified as jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 6:27, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I'll reply at the Talk page Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Please be advised that I have reported your threat at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section Grave threat of harm made by User: Jytdog). Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WARNING

This is not acceptable editing: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=710238548&oldid=710238425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI mess

Hey, I was going to ask if Tracescoops was also socking as "CharlatangGourou". But was had some difficulty after QG made this edit, in the middle of your comment, messing this page up (and hence the multiple edits I made after after trying to sort it out). Hopefully you can out what he trying to do... good luck to you. - ^theWOLFchild 23:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I don't know. CU has made only two linkages:

Tracescoops to Rowssusan in this block log, and
CharlatanGourou to..... this blog log. Hm the blog log appears to have been changed. Drmies did it, you can see their block of OverAverageJoe here - that was the sock that was originally identified in the block log for CharlatanGourou. Drmies also blocked Renameduser024 at about the same time per this. So right now we don't know who CharlatanGourou was a sock of, and we don't know if there is a connection between the two (or three?) sock-strings at this time. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what this edit did to the SPI page. Look at the diff, before and after, and where it was placed. - ^theWOLFchild 00:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on that. I think the page more or less makes sense now. It is hard to organize well with all the possible socks. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Joint statement

If the section is automatically archived and Wales does not respond to the section regarding the disclosure of the KE than I want you to cut and paste both of our comments in a sandbox and we (and possibly others) can work on the text and make a joint statement. I'm not letting this go. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was archived. Please cut and past it into a sandbox and then we can work on reposting it. It must be done right this time. Each comment must be put in a separate section. A specific subsection is for Jimbo and another subsection for other replies. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Am thinking. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I will return in a few hours. I hope by then you pasted the content into a sandbox. Our statements will still be separate. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You can copy/paste what I wrote into a sandbox, if it is urgent to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please update your comments and post it at Jimbo's talk page. See User:QuackGuru/Foundation#Disclosure_of_the_full_scope_of_the_Knowledge_Engine. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and just created a subsection at his talk page. please feel free to add to it. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

But what about your comments in the sandbox? QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I already said all that stuff once. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I posted my comments. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am confused by Wales' response. He did not address my specific questions. What is going on here? The mystery (and secrecy) over the KE project continues. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering

Hey Jytdog, I wanted to check in and see if you're still interested in working on edits to the MSK article. I appreciate all the help and work you've put in so far, and understand if you're busy.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits

please discuss on the article talk page Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi, I noticed that you are editing Calvin Cheng. Thank you for having a look at it. Just thought to mention this incident to you for context about the socks appearing (or probably going to appear soon) on that article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

yep, I have noticed all that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Your recent edits on Calvin Cheng are amazing. Completely encyclopaedic style and neutral. It takes someone with the will and professionalism to go clean it up instead of just tagging. The only thing to still watch out for is the persistent inclusion of a 'controversy' section that violates NPOV and implies that the person is guilty of a crime or charged with one. Thank you again. You should remove the 'problem with article' templates after your amazing work!! 180.255.248.215 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Najib Razak

Hi. As mentioned, I am a fan of politics. There is a huge NPOV issue on the Prime Minister of Malaysia's page Najib Razak. I think it also needs the intervention of an objective foreign editor 180.255.248.215 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but i have no interest in that. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Bot to detect and tag advocacy editing

I have started working on the bot per above, see User:LambdaBot. You have said there that you have a list of "features" (statistical variables that may indicate COI), so your help with developing these features is appreciated; just edit the "Other features" section on that page. Since the bot uses machine learning, the features should merely be statistical variables. Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Messages and References

Hi, I saw your message after the edit, and am just getting used to the talk page. I wasn't sure if you would get a response on my talk page, so I just figured I'd let you know I responded here. Thanks. Ceceliamch (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Ceceliamch

Thanks very much for the nice welcome and information on my talk page, by the way. Would've saved me some stress if I had seen them all earlier, lol. Ceceliamch (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Ceceliamch

ack. yes, sorry that neither nor anyone else provided those messages to you earlier! I have the article and your Talk page watchlisted, so I will see where and when you respond. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Report at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giving you notice that an IP editor has filed a report.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at Randolph Stone

Regarding this [30], can you please indicate to me where in the article it already says that Stone retired and moved to India? If you're referring to the clinic he had there, I believe that was in operation during the same period he had his practice in Chicago. He couldn't have been retired if he was running a clinic in India or elsewhere. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - that is where discussions about specific article content should go, so that anybody who is involved can participate. If you'll just copy your question, there, I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fasoracetam

@Jytdog: Please, can you tell me why "http://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800003134" is not a reliable primary source for the article "Fasoracetam"? Thanks! :) Redyaco (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Redyaco (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - that is where discussions about specific article content should go, so that anybody who is involved can participate. If you'll just copy your question, there, I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Craig Walendziak

Please discuss either on the draft talk page, or at the Teahouse. I will let someone else review. Please provide a link to the sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I don't know if you are asking for the link here or there, so I'll provide in both places. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Craig mack378. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak, etc

Hey Jytdog, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I assumed you were maliciously attacking my article. I worked with other admins to try and correct any unverified sources, etc. I did not realize the 'history' of this article until you brought it to my attention. Perhaps you could have done that without calling me a sock, and deleting the rewritten article I posted. Why don't we let that whole process play out, and I'm sure you will see I'm just a guy that likes horror movies and punk music. I think you jumped the gun. Assumed the worst. I'm trying not to do the same. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TheVictorCrowleyyou put this comment at the top of my talk page. I, and everyone else in WIkipedia, looks for comments at the bottom. So before you go unloading snark at me at the SPI, understand that you have no idea what you are doing in here. I'll consider replying here once you strike the garbage you wrote at SPI, attacking me for your mistake. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog I actually posted this first, then saw the stuff you wrote about me on the SPI thing. Why would I delete the stuff I wrote on the SPI forum when you said all those things about me? This is what I mean. I'm not trying to fight with you. But it just seems like you 'shoot first', and delete things. I am confused. I do feel attacked -- and I'm trying to figure out what I did to you? (sorry for ending that in a question again). Peace? TheVictorCrowley (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Jytdog I added a note on the SPI page stating that I inadvertently put my question at the top of your page. My fault. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have no malice toward you or Walendziak; you have been taking this personally and arguing instead of asking questions and trying to learn. That has been hard to watch. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Quotes like "That has been hard to watch." aren't productive, and are the kind of thing I'm referring to. Additionally, I spent four hours on that thing. You went after it at first because you assumed I was a sock. Now here we are. Of course I'm taking it personally. No hard feelings. Let's just move on. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are always 2 pieces to things here in Wikipedia, content and behavior. I tagged both articles for speedy based on the content; they failed notability and were thus promotional. I believe there are behavioral issues here as well, but they are separate. You do appear to be a sock and I believe that is how the SPI will play out. But we'll see if others agree. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jyt's "little respect for people".

Re your totally unprovoked comment aimed at me: "As for you, I have little respect for people who shoot their mouths off about things they know nothing about" on my talk page as well as the unredacted 4 letter word you left. I really appreciate you undoing your text later on with only one intermediate argument from you. I now better understand where you stand. No hard feelings nor the need for us two to ever converse again. Thank you very much for the revelation. Gongwool (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot alter other's people's comments. Don't do it. And do read that Atlantic article so you understand the quote you are making fun of - there are serious issues behind it. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I see you removed the shooting-off-your-mouth thing from your Talk page. Better, yes. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Am sorry to be short with you at XyZAn

…but I am not at all convinced that this effort, which is gathering steam, is (i) rigourously correct in application, or (ii) best for these articles.

Vis-a-vis (i), clade diagrams are intended to convey specific quantitative information in the lengths of every line that appears. I have asked for, because I am not clear on, what business historical information is being conveyed by the segment lengths in XyZAn's efforts. If XyZAn manages to capture actual information, will others be as rigourous to do this correctly? And if he does, is this not all a grand example of WP:OR?

Vis-a-vis (ii), if XyZan does not capture any real quantitative information, as is normal for clade diagrams, then their use as a graphical presentation needs to be weighed against longterm ease of maintenance. On this, I am not at all convinced that adding all the graphical apparatus in the markup—which may even be meaningless from a formal clad diagram perspective, that is why I have queried XyZan—is worth the:

possible future editor error with the markup;
disincentive it creates for novice editors to add to what is normally simple tabular information;
variability on content it invites, versus a table with a clear, limited set of table headings, that unequivocally indicate what content is to be extracted from each summarized source.

Finally, with regard to the "best for these articles" point, I have to say I am not a big fan of unlabeled graphs, and that is what a novelly used clad diagram likely has become. What, even, are the labels of the ordinate and abscissa of this graph?

In a real scientific application of clade methods, all of these are defined. Please help me get him to state the maths and principled basis for applying this, here. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are applying a ridiculous standard to something that is just a simple graphical way to show the history of a company. Chill. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So is it your supposition, that there is no usual information contained in the vertical and horizontal elements? If this is true, then the concerns in (ii) apply. Have you worked with these, or read Tufte? And, like it or not, I am perfectly chill, even when arguing firmly. (Please acknowledge apology received. I do not explain my self in paragraphs like this, to those I don't respect.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful to open a neutral thread at WT:WikiProject Companies asking what other folks think of the diagrams, providing links to a few article where they have been implemented, and be sure to notify Xyzan. Including one to the GSK article would be good - someone moved that diagram to a sidebar; that is another way they could be implemented. Sure, I see that you apologized. I don't care - you overpersonalize things all the time and I expect it of you by now. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. Re-read your intervention. As long as you are aware that you have tendencies in the same directions, I am fine. And I don't expect unfairness from you. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already posted at all the places I could perceive might know about and care about clade diagrams. Those invites all point to the Talk page of his Gladogram project page. Invite any further you wish. The more the merrier. 02:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm good lord i just checked your contribs. you actually posted here and this and this and this and this. Those boards are for people who edit articles about graphic design or about math or about math and theoretical biology or about computational biology or about statistics, not people who edit articles about companies. And here to the talk page of the article about Cladistics. And you actually pointed them to this which you actually created in another user's space. oy. Just like the last time, you are handling the thing that is inappropriately inflaming you in an inappropriate way. just oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/tobacco-harm-reduction.pdf

[2] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9864279?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg

[3] ttp://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-7-36

[4] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22722951

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]