User talk:Jytdog/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Thanks!

For the markup wrangling on my TP ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Typo

I'm assuming good faith when on the Jensen article's talk page your mispelling of my User ID just so happens to be a slanderous play on words. I would appreciate it if you'd correct that. Thanks. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Wierd I cannot imagine what a slanderous play on your name would even be. I will check and fix it. Sorry for the mistake. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

done Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps that misspelling could have been misconstrued as "pediophile". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest your check out their talk page trypto. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

removes fin foot from mouth... woops! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I moved 2014 Cochrane & need assistance

We were tweaking Cannabidiol > Schizophrenia and I took out the 2014 Cochrane/McLoughlin et al. review. It was at cross-purposes with Leweke, and its CBD info was almost an afterthought.

I moved/updated McLoughlin et al. to Cannabis (drug): much more in line with the actual content of the article: A 2014 Cochrane Review showed people receiving additional targeted psychological therapies, specifically about cannabis and psychosis, were no more likely to reduce their cannabis intake than those receiving treatment as usual. Targeted psychological therapies, specifically about the patient(s) reducing their cannabis use, were also no more likely to reduce their cannabis intake. This McLoughlin et al. document was inconclusive about the anti-psychotic effects of cannabidiol,[85]

Assistance: I made a new sub-heading: Higher-ratio CBD-to-THC, lower psychosis but then saw it was under the Adverse Effects > Neurology section. I could use help putting it where the advantage of a CBD-dominant strain over a THC-dominant strain is defined or illuminated. Thank you. Listenforgood (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ack. will look. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Big concern about gutting "patient lift" article

Hi Jytdog,

I have some serious concerns about your removing 80-90% of the "patient lift" article.

I have been developing and working with transfer and mobility devices for a number of years. The information you removed was accurate and the US patent reference in the article was a valid source which you also removed (I thought you claimed you only remove unsourced material).

I estimate that 50% of Wikipedia content is not "properly sourced" by your standards and you can go around removing much of Wikipedia's content thus removing valuable, accurate information while feeling pretty good about it.

But caregivers who deal with dependent patients such as nursing aides and family members desperately need this removed information about “patient lifts” to help their loved ones when they become disabled. It is essential for them and literally a matter of life and death that they have accurate information about these complex medical devices in order to make informed choices.

I believe you have a strong commitment to Wikipedia's accuracy but unsourced does not mean inaccurate. And sourced does not mean accurate. The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to inform users, and eliminating content that you believe "may" be inaccurate does a disservice to these users.

It is a sad day for Wikipedia when people see it as their civil duty to remove content that they do not understand because it has no proper references.

How about doing a little research and adding new sources instead of taking a wrecking ball to an informative and accurate article?

Congratulations on following the rules and making the encyclopedia irrelevant to users thus endangering the mobility-challenged by leaving them uninformed about their choices with respect to this important form of medical device technology.

Jjdd11 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss the article on its Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have started a take page under user my login if you want to correspond. Best, Jjdd11 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles are best discussed at the article talk page. Here: Talk:Patient lift. That way anybody watching the article can participate. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers

Hey,

I'm not sure if you still plan on improving the article, but I'd like to take a stab at writing it. Of course I'll apply better sources and stay entirely neutral. I did want to direct you towards WP:SELFPUB if you're not familiar already; that self-published sources are okay to cite as long as you don't use them for any exceptional claims. I agree they were used too heavily; further text I will write will cite independent sources. I have plenty of time and willingness to tackle this; hope you won't mind. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 14:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the tiniest bit. that is actually a really important company in the history of the stock market. i was so surprised by what i learned when i found sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Wasn't edit warring, just needed your attention, which I got so this process is now fair. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You were edit warring. And if you mean what you wrote there, you are telling me that you were being WP:POINTY, which is disuptive behavior that will get you blocked. Don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

no, jytdog, still no

Accurately describing your comment with a touch of humor and suggesting ARB should deal with you is sure not a personal attack but of course you wouldn't know. Anyhow, I asked you just recently not to post on my talk page and hope I don't have to install a "no jytdog" banner for you to remember as you clearly still are not paying enough attention.--TMCk (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Warning you about personal attacks is appropriate on your Talk page; I will of course not show up there with random comments or anything not formal. And I meant what I said. I have almost enough to bring an AE case. Just please cut down on commenting on contributors, especially with snark. You may think it's funny or light-hearted but tone is impossible to control in writing and in a contested article, it is just unwise to go there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Posting that you will file a case against me and then shortly after redacting again b/c there is according to yourself "Not quite enough yet to really nail this" is nothing but soap boxing. Don't do that, "don't be a pixel waster" on my talk (to use your own words). That's the end of your drama from my side.--TMCk (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just giving you fair warning. You will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cousin Marriage

Hello Jytdog. You reverted some stuff in Cousin marriage recently because it was based on primary sources. The original material seemed to me to be in good faith and although it might have needed tidying up, it was genuinely useful to an encyclopedia and didn't appear to me to be contrary to WP:PRIMARY. Or was it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I did this because yes they are primary and also they are not good faith, but an editor promoting their own work - see Special:Contributions/Mfareedk. If you feel that the content adds value and want to "own" it, feel free to restore. I don't use primary sources when I edit unless I absolutely have to. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it - very clear - thanks Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bipolar disorder

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on Motivação's disruptive behavior. At least the slow-moving edit war is highly visible; the rapidly made edits that are usually marked minor, but that show no understanding of the particularities of each subject are more of a concern to me. I'd estimate several hundred edits should not have been made because of problems of accuracy, MoS, or nuance. Many will need to be cleaned up.

If there is some way to get Motivação to read these articles—and communicate on talk pages, then we could have a productive editor. But until... I don't think any amount of discussion will help. I will follow developments. Thanks again. (I feel I know you by way of long term tp stalking at DGG — Neonorange (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aloe vera. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Paul venter (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:PA

Jytdog, you're a smart guy, but you're really bad at resolving conflicts. As a matter of fact, you're pretty talented in escalating conflicts, and you're doing it right now.

1. "Your POV is showing" is about the worst in that Kim's message, and I wouldn't qualify it as an attack. Kim is pretty frustrated with (what he sees as) your repeated avoidance of substantive engagement with his arguments, and pretty much WP:IDHT attitude of yours.
2. Even if it is too personal, it is really bad manner from your side to remove a comment that has been replied to meanwhile, and that only you perceive as a PA. Leave that to others per the principles at WP:INVOLVED. WP:RPA is highly controversial practice and should be reserved only for most egregious cases. You have not only removed the "PA" but the substance of the post as well.
3. If you feel that strongly about that comment, talk to Kim about it first. You know that templating the regulars is considered rude and is frowned upon. Doing what you did (remove the comment pointed at you, then template the editor) is really likely to infuriate the editor.
4. On top of that, you now template me (something I have politely ask you not to do earlier) and threat with an AE.

I don't really care about the e-cig topic (and don't mind that AE), but sorry, you are the one who comes across as escalating and getting in the way of work being done: your statement that people are passionate and they allowed their passion to spill into [...] that got in the way of getting any work done comes across to my side as pretty ironic.

I hope you will take my message as a friendly advice, the way I intended it. But no, I don't plan to self-revert, that kind of beats the point. No such user (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I hear your perspective. However you haven't even acknowledged the context of DS here, and why those DS are in place. I struggle with that. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that these discussions tend to become heated, but as far as I follow them, they have been much more civil lately than before the Arbcom. I would attribute that largely to removal of QuackGuru. However, one should not use presence of DS to create a chilling effect: you need to give some leeway to good-faith editors to express their opinions and vent a reasonable amount of frustration, not run to mommy AE for every perceived transgression. I would rather leave that to most egregious cases. Obviously, it is all a question of good measure (and that's where reasonable people might differ, I'm deeply averse to "zero-tolerance" approaches), but I believe that communication between good-faith, experienced editors, can resolve most issues. To repeat: I'm not endorsing Kim's comment, but your further actions just added fuel to the fire. No such user (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing - the exact thing - the DS are meant to chill are personal attacks like "Your POV is showing" and people making arguments not carefully grounded in sources and the policies and guidelines - not to chill discussion about content at all. Not at all! I recognize the likely futility (and possibly tension-escalating effect) of me doing the removing and warning, but it is only fair that someone do it. I really am very close to filing an AE and people need to be aware that the DS are coming into play again; folks are losing their self-discipline. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jytdog, it's really preferable not to remove what you consider (debatably) to be a PA against yourself. Really. Compare WP:RPA. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you bishstalker. Message received. You know I was just talking with someone about going vigilante against community norms and I need to STFU and listen now. So thanks both of you. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Minimum inhibitory concentration

Thanks for cleaning this article up. The students have been driving me crazy. I've removed their copyvio multiple times, and they just re-add it, along with random additions of "instructions" written in the 2nd person and/or 1st person plural and overwriting the existing article. Their copyvio additions to Minimum bactericidal concentration also had to be rev-deleted. I had asked the instructor to work with their students on these problems three days ago, alas to little avail. They kept right at it. Interestingly, in the course of my ministrations, I also found and removed preexisting copyvio. Anyhow, I assume this is now on your watchlist and I can take a rest. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have struggled mightily. Thanks for that! It is on my watchlist now and i will check the other. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for a template:

To replace the one currently at Carol Wayne - its been BLP tagged due to BLP violating info about a third party being added to the article, however the subject herself is long dead - so the template as it stands is incorrect. Is there one that says something along the lines of 'Material regarding living people' rather than 'this biography of a living person'? Or would it be worth creating one? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oy. I would say {{Refimprove}} or even better {{Unreferenced}}; that one ref is just so not enough.. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at Refimprove, it doesnt really take into account the additional burden for BLP sourcing. Merely being a reliable source is not enough to include material about non-notable people. Essentially the BLP includes the contentious bit that makes it clear what is required, its just the first line that refers to 'this biography of a living person' that is the problem. I might look at doing a new half-way one for use specifically where BLP material has been an issue, but the article is not itself a BLP. I was just wondering if there was one like that out there already, guess not. I suppose I could do an edit request on the BLP one and see if that gets consensus first.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

OH I completely misunderstood you. Yes I think a new template would be very useful! OR just tweaking the language of that one. I suggest bringing up that change so that it is more broadly useful at the template talk page. yes! Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death - We have one! It is here: Template:BLP others. There is nothing new under the sun in WP... Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah great! Now I need to go remove the post at the other template before people think me completely incompetant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note: I am of the opinion the name of the male companion in the Carol Wayne article who was accompanying her when she died probably should not be in the article for BLP concerns - firstly because he is not notable and secondly past wording in the article has implied/inferred he was responsible in some way. As it stands now, his identity has no bearing on the information given the (lack) of reliable coverage of her death beyond the basic 'was found dead in shallow water'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ecoboy90

You probably saw that he and his sock were indeff'd. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, went to leave a talk page notice and saw. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

PJ Media typo

OMG! How did I miss that typo.

Yes, I intended to change 2014 (which was also probably a typo) to 2004, which is the correct date. Thanks. Fish Man (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being bold and helping clear up that COIN case! Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

thx, sorry for not helping earlier. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Deflation vs inflation

Might I humbly suggest that you get the difference between deflation and inflation straight before you add claims to articles that certain activities are "deflationary".--greenrd (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

Hello. I am writing you to ask if I can go to other editors, on their Talk Page, editors that have contributed to William L. Uanna and get their advice? Am I all alone in this now? Can I request advice and help from other editors? This is my last question. BrownHairedGirl suggested I read the policies, I will. I am sure somewhere in them is the answer to this question. But, can you tell me this? I would appreciate it? CIC7 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Attribution when copying within WP

Thanks for fixing Pethidine. I knew I needed to provide attribution, but did not know how. I found the instructions within Wikipedia confusing. In desperation, I made the translation obvious, and hoped someone would either complain or fix it.

Next time, I will know what to do.

Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding your objectivity. The thread is (Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN. Thank you.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.28Enforcer.29_Jytdog_has_lost_objectivity_in_COIN Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing material on other Charter school pages

If you keep on talking about the laundry list of schools on IDEA Public Schools, why don't you do the same for YES Prep Public Schools, who also happens to have a similar list of schools on their page? Eastwood Academy also has a laundry list of universities that students have been accepted to with a reference to a self published article, why don't you delete that portion from their article? De88 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of puddles of bad content, alongside the puddles of good content. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then fix it, since you basically rewrote the whole IDEA article, might as well contribute to other Charter school articles. That would only be fair at this point. De88 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me reiterate myself: You rewrote the article IDEA Public Schools to make it "less promotional". There are other articles with laundry list of schools and universities such as YES Prep and Eastwood Academy. I am asking for you to change those edits since you did the same to the IDEA article. None of this "bad content", "good content" BS. Comprehend? De88 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on IDEA Public Schools are extremely sloppy. For someone criticizing the promotional tone on this article, your edits are not of any help either. Try to improve your edits on this page. De88 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Motivação

Hi, concerning this revert of Motivação replacing mental disorder with psychiatric illness, see also a similar edit, and I recall having seen them do the same thing to other articles: [1], [2]. Also reverted: [3]. To me the difference is not obvious, so I will not revert. I thought you might like to know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes that user keeps making these idiosyncratic edits. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Poor, sloopy edits on IDEA Public Schools page

Your edits on the IDEA page are extremely sloppy and "rushed". Please fix grammar and punctuation. Some info is also vague. De88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat like putting "sloopy" in a title I suspect. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Edit ; Site Deep Sky Browser

This edit[4] should have not been made, and I would request an explanation on why this was done. It is clear that this editor was doing WP:PROMOTION, but reverting this just reinforces this User's own deliberate actions. There is more going on here, and by saying "Hi Sebagr. I work on COI issues along with Lemongirl and Platypusofdoom.", I can only conclude you have ignored the deliberate avoidance of this User to promote his page. User: Sebagr, based on the evidence, has deliberately avoided telling about the association with this site, which is an objectionable offense. (By closing the WP:COIN, allows this sanction to be avoided.) User: Sebagr statement "Ok, I didn't mean to promote it..." is a falsehood, as with many other statements with the section stated within "Wrapping things up" on that User page. Regardless of the "disclosure", which this User has deliberately avoided, means this site cannot be added into any Wikipedia pages. This is made more prevalent, especially if the User's claims of a "consortium" exists. Although I have overwhelming evidence this is COI, I have even more than exposes the purpose of these edits. I have more IMO, this User should be automatically banned from editing pages on astronomical topics altogether. Please justify these actions, or I'll be posting an WP:ANI for avoiding proper protocols in solving this issue. Clearly disappointed.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I do understand that promotional editing is upsetting. I get that.

However...

Per your link Sebagr did finally disclose and they also posted at WT:AST as we requested, to see if AST is open to the link or not; I see that one person has said thumbs up and two have said thumbs down. It will be interesting to see how that develops - we do things by consensus here and if folks at WT:AST are OK with the link being added, then it can be. Also, based on their contribs they have not continued adding the links.

Arianewiki1, Sebagr is doing what we ask editors with a COI to do. Many many people when they first come to Wikipedia use it for promotion like Sebagr did, and don't understand the whole COI thing and need educating. When we try to educate them, some of them don't/won't "get it" and just plow ahead, and they generally get indefinitely banned. As I acknowledged on your Talk page Sebagr was indeed resistant at first, but as I also noted and as I've described above, they came around.

I have been working on COI issues for a pretty long time, and I don't think you or I could get consensus for a TBAN of any kind for someone who comes around that way. And if you bring an ANI against me that too will probably go no where, since what you are asking is not realistic. You are of course free to file it. As I also noted on your talk page, you are taking a really confrontational approach, and that is, in my view, good for no one. I will now add explicitly that it is not good for you. Hounding people who are actually complying with the COI guideline and PROMO policy - now that they are aware of it - can come back to bite you.

If I have missed something (like maybe the links are going back in under an IP address or something) please do tell me.

If you want me to try to explain anything more, I will do.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about Information-theoretic death article

I mentioned in passing in the "Medical definition of death" AfD discussion that I was preparing a rewrite of the Information-theoretic death article, which at that time had been reduced to a redirect. In the meantime, I see that a cryonics zealot with no apparent knowledge of the editing history of this article, and no good sense about how cryonics must be treated in an encyclopedia, restored the article text with all its problems. This triggered your understandable deletion nomination. My question is: Shall I wait until the article is deleted before recreating a better version, or shall I substitute a better version while the present deletion discussion is still underway? I know that the latter is encouraged by Wikipedia, however if I'm able to finish the new version at all before the discussion concludes, it would be very late into the AfD discussion, and would likely still be deleted on strength of all the Delete votes cast against the previous version. A fair hearing would then be impossible because recreation of the new article for evaluation on its merits by interested parties would be grounds for Speedy Deletion because of the previous AfD decision.

Whatever I do, I don't want to get on the bad side of a Wikipedian with 30,000+ edits (i.e. you) by handling this inappropriately. Assuming the rewrite will still require a few more days to complete (good sourcing is lots of work!), what do you think I should do for the rewrite to get a fresh appraisal? Cryobiologist (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; it's a good question. I've been wrong before as we saw with the targeted cooling merge I wanted to do, so it could be that a whole article could be created that is neutral. I would suggest starting to build the content in whatever article it would be a natural subsection of. If that subsection grows naturally to the point where it needs to be split into its own article, that can be handled in a WP:SPLIT discussion at that article's Talk page. No need for drama and things can unfold in whatever time they need.  :) Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a redirect to Cryonics (as a jargon term), noting though that Cryobiologist (if anyone could) is working on a good version - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

David in my view that increases the likelihood of a no consensus close, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I just went ahead and published a new version of the Information-theoretic death article. There ended up being too much material to shoehorn into the cryonics article, and it would have been an awkward fit anyway because the idea has crept too far into other places. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers

Hi again Jytdog,

I am working on the draft to merge and improve both Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers Group, and I thought you'd be interested in the result. There may yet be things to tweak or add, however I'd like your thoughts and comments if you would. The draft is located here: User:Ɱ/sandbox30. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw now that you're working on improving the wording at WP:COI. I appreciate that, as the wording has always been very negative and scorning towards the process, when it can yield some good, when done properly. Even right now, it looks as disdaining and accusatory as an anti-GMO website. Just saying, glad someone can see things clearly. And, yes, management is very important to note; it's not covered very well elsewhere, which may lead COI editors to do things the wrong way. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Empty nose syndrome

Hi, I saw you took an interest in the Empty nose syndrome page. I'd really appreciate your advice on how I can get some editors with proper expertise to look at the page and help me get it into shape and keep it that way. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I will do! I am all intrigued. Got caught up in the salt articles which is going to take me a bit of time... Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated whenever you can. I feel like the little Dutch boy except my finger is up a curiously capacious nostril. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm admiring your work from afar. Please let me know what I can do to support it (including keeping my mouth shut on the talk page if you think that's what's needed). Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do as you will! There are three very recent reviews so revising wasn't difficult. We just have to keep the sourcing level high per WP:MEDRS and hew closely to MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your reverts to remove advertising/brochure tags at Stanford University. The entire article reads like a sales brochure and problems need to be fixed; if you don't wish to fix the tone and work towards a more balanced article, then please leave the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I and MelanieN have each been actually editing the article to WP:FIXIT. All you have been doing is making drama. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

CiproKills

I've already reported this name to WP:UAA after some of the earlier edits. Meters (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back at the article again, but I'm signing off (and out of my depth in any case). Meters (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Maria Lewis

Hey Jytdog. I know you do good work with COI editors. Could you take a look at Maria Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Gretz2471 has admitted to a COI, and I suspect other editors of the article may also have a COI. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Response to edit war warning

Ok I will add the subject to the talk page. I forgot I added that to gene drive didnt see the revert . And you left this comment on my Userpage - please don't write on anyone's Userpage - they are for users alone. Thanks. Quantanew (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. btw, left both my comments (the edit war warning in this dif and the moving of your reply here) on your User Talk page. You made a comment on my User page (which is different from a User Talk page) here. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanford University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kappa Alpha. 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) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For your scholarly rewrite of the Empty nose syndrome article and sang froid in the face of the backlash on its talk page. Dubbinu | t | c 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Metamizol

Hi Jytdog,

As I'm getting more familiar with Wikipedia, I realize I should have used this talk page. I apologize. I've read the suggested stuff and reviewed my contribution thoroughly.

I guess we both agree that the previous "History" based entirely on the activist book "Bad Medicine ..." was inappropriate pharma-industry bashing. The IAAAS was not "commissioned" by Hoechst. Not every type of support from pharma industry is bad.

There is broad consensus that the two Swedish studies differed from all the other studies, which were much larger. People disagree re the study methodology. Kramer et al. started a "response war" with their criticism of the IAAAS. Several articles (and reviews) note that the second Swedish study included cases co-medicated with known risk drugs and treated longer than the approved use for, e.g., kidney stones and surgery (typically: one day). The review by Nikolova also reviews a study suggesting that Scandinavians may have some special genetic risk factors, but that's not broadly accepted and, thus, I didn't include it.

The regulatory back-and-forth in Sweden is also just a fact and of interest, in part, because it rarely happens that regulatory agencies reverse themselves twice on the same drug.

The question now is where to put this information. My suggestion remains to put the estimates at the end of the first paragraph and describe this regulatory history under "History".

I really don't understand why you call asking for advice "warring".

Kmwittko (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your problem

What is your problem man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.59.12.46 (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning re Stone

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Randolph Stone. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do discuss your edits on the Talk page - you jumped in and started making changes while the discussion was still under way. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

tDCS

Dear Jytdog, please find comments to the revisions (in bold) that I suggested to the tDCS article:

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of neurostimulation which uses constant, low current delivered to the brain area of interest via electrodes on the scalp.

This statement is not true, as it is unknown whether and where the brain is stimulated when attaching electrodes to the head and delivering very weak currents. 99% of the current flows over the skull, while 0.9% is shunted through the cerebral fluid and 0.1% of the currents actually enters the brain (but probably not immediately underneath the electrodes). Thus, stating that currents are delivered to the brain area of interest is misleading. Please also read the recent article in Science Magazine on this issue: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/cadaver-study-casts-doubts-how-zapping-brain-may-boost-mood-relieve-pain

It was originally developed to help patients with brain injuries or psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. tDCS appears to be somewhat effective for treatment of depression. However, there is no good evidence that it is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people, memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, pain, nor improving upper limb function after stroke.

This whole paragraph is misleading. First, tDCS was already applied by the ancient Egyptians using electric catfish and found its way into the literature about 200 years ago (http://www.aipass.org/files/TDCS_State%20of%20the%20art.pdf). It was certainly not purposefully "developed" to treat brain injuries. The underlying mechanisms of tDCS are widely unknown (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368894/) as it was impossible to record brain oscillations (brain electric activity) during tDCS. However, recently, a new method was developed that allows for in vivo assessment of brain oscillations during tDCS (published in Nature Communications, one of the highest impact journals in the field). Given the controversy around tDCS effects, stating that the mechanisms are unknown seemed appropriate, and referring to recent neurotechnological advancements that promise to uncover these mechanisms did not occur to me being "spam referencing".

Also, use of terms like "no good evidence" or "somewhat effective" seems vastly imprecise for an encyclopedic article. Either there is evidence or not, so why not better provide the actual information about effectiveness (or its absence) by referring to the effect size as calculated by Horvath et al. It should be noted, though, that Horvath's let to substantial controversy in the field due to methodological issues. I have thus toned down the paragraph by revising into:

While there is limited evidence that tDCS is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people (probably due to ceiling effects), memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease,[4] schizophrenia, pain, or improving upper limb function after stroke, tDCS appears to be effective for treatment of depression.

Best wishes! Elias A. Rosenberg (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We should discuss this at the article talk page - if you would be so kind as to copy your content there, I would be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

D.V. Rao Speedy Deletion

As I noted on the talk page of the aforementioned page, the reason the article was marked with speedy deletion is the result of consensus at the AfD discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. You cant speedy an article already at AFD. Mainly because if an AFD was closed with the result 'Marked for speedy delete' the speedy could then be removed and article sent back to AFD. An AFD can be closed with 'delete', 'merge', 'keep' etc. If people think it should be deleted, the AFD will just be closed with delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Glycopyrronium bromide

You accuse me of trying to start an edit war, but that's exactly what you are doing. You have reverted my edit 3 times. Moreover, each of my edits included additional citations. The final edit provided two peer-reviewed citations. It's ego trip "I own this article" crap like this that pushes people away from contributing to Wikipedia. Arx Fortis (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had opened a section already on the talk page, here: Talk:Glycopyrronium_bromide#Ménière's_disease; please reply there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

TechnologyOne Edit

Hi Jytdog, you recently messaged our corporate user Technonebrisbane explaining that we were in violation of Wikipedia's COF guidelines. To try and amend the situation we've created a new user to address the issue (still a corporate representative but with a generic name) and have added a section to the Talk page for review. Can you please take a look and provide advise on whether we are on the right track. We are trying to be non-promotional and include only the facts and would appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

How awesome is that!! I will check in. Thanks very much for working with us. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thank you so much for helping out with our Acquisitions section. We've just added an updated "History" section to our talk page. Could you take a look and let us know if we are OK to publish this? Also, please note, if this is approved we have a "Timeline" section we are going to add which will be an extensive addition to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the History section again on our Talk page. Should be better this time? unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I've updated the Office locations section on our talk page. Would be great if you could take a look and let me know if this is acceptable. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi, Jytdog. Can you please redact the following comment from Josh's AN/I report?

User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 3:23 pm, 15 June 2016, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

That comment was made a full hour after I had already replied and is indeed nested inside of my reply section. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I redacted the weigh in part. You didn't acknowledge that you made a big mess of things. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog. OK. Thank you for that. Which part of the mess was big? In my reply I acknowledge and apologize for the messes I made. Those messes were quickly fixed by Sainsf, Josh and me. My original edit made no messes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to continue the ANI here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, Jytdog. OK. Sorry. I am not trying to continue the ANI here. I was going to post a PS to you here that I just went back to make a reply and Josh's AN/I report was partially closed so I have asked the closing admin if I can make a closing statement along the line of Josh's. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edits on the Iglesia Ni Cristo Page?

This is the first time I've posted to Wikipedia and I'm still learning of the proper protocols.

First of all, the information that is currently there about its membership size is incorrect. The data I provided came from the official Philippine government's decadal census of 1990, 2000, and 2010 per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22 and The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf). [Retrieved Nov 2, 2015]

Yes, my book is a criticism of the INC religion, but the data I provided is valid and the membership size is based on historical trends of where they were in 2010 by pushing it forward with the natural growth rate of the nation of 1.9%/year per http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics to the end of 2015. I cited my book because it contained the data and tables. 2.76 million is the most accurate number. Not three million, and especially not ten million (which I already heard in 1989, before the 1990 census showed the real number was just 1.4 million). You will note that I did NOT criticize their theology or practices.

You kept Karl Keating's Catholic Answers figures despite that data is pulled out of the sky. If one of my staff posted my information and not myself, would it have been acceptable?

Furthermore, the ethnic composition, while anecdotal from my personal observation when I attended several INC worship services, can easily be verified by just going to one of their churches during services and looking around. AFAIK, there are no formal studies done on their ethnic compositions.

Lastly, what I said about fear by outsiders is absolutely true - just ask non-INC Filipinos, especially Philippine-based publishers. Just google "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "violence" - I've personally experienced attempted intimidation and others I've spoken to told me stories of how it was with the forced conversions during the Marcos era.

Please restore my edits. Thank you. EdwardKWatson (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson

Happy to reply, if you would copy this to the Talk page of the article. You should also check in at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Iglesia_ni_Cristo Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I've reposted to the INC article's talk page and made further elaborations explaining my edits. Please reexamine your decision and restore my edits. Thanks!EdwardKWatson (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson

Wiki Pages deleted by you

It seems quite unreasonable that you had nominated the page Saket Suman for speedy deletion, after which it was ultimately deleted. You found the article "rather spammy" and the references "flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself)". Now what are your grounds for finding the article spammy? That it tends to misinform? Pay attention please, all the links cited in the article were from trusted sources, newspapers which have been running respectfully for over a hundred years. Much older than the wikipedia, in some cases. Yet you find these sources spammy! Please care to explain. Secondly, you state in the nomination page that most references are flimsy because "most are stuff published by Suman himself". Now do you have any sense of how a newspaper works? You could have paused for a while and flipped through the pages of some other "Print journalists" and seen the references. Like an actor is known for his films and roles, a print journalist is known by the "byline" that he earns from newspapers. You have questioned this very fundamental of journalism and deleted the page on grounds that they were written by Suman himself. Exactly, these were the proves of his notability. Widely read articles in India's oldest and most respected newspaper! If you have time, pause, contemplate and think whether you, by sheer arrogance of the authority you command, are misusing it and depriving the general readers of some valuable information that they might be interested in. I grew up reading Suman's articles in The Statesman as a child and then I created this page, not because I know him personally but simply on grounds that many like me have grown up reading his works. He is perhaps the only journalist in India still writing a weekly column on books and literature, will you also suggest that books are irrelevant now? Let me know your thoughts and if you could, suggest ways to improve the page and retrieve it, rather than deleting and sending it to oblivion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(comment) "I grew up reading Suman's articles in The Statesman as a child" Saket is relatively young and has only recently started contributing to the Statesman. Besides, if you don’t know him personally how can File:Saketsumanin2015.jpg be your own work? Anyway, I’ve listed the article at AFD. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(reply) Suggest ways to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

You need to be more clear as in what your referring to as I never added the content or source you are removing. Think you.-- Moxy (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a note on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good and I agree....just so you know I never edited that content. -- Moxy (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

If I understood the whole thing correctly, you probably can't put in a comment, but I'm just curious whether you've been watching what's going on over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Genetically_modified_organisms. None of my business, of course, but after all the fantastic work you had put in on that section, I thought you might be watching. Adv4Ag (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I would expect you'll get no response at all because of Jytdogs topic ban. He isn't being rude if he doesn't reply, just cautious. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy and thanks for asking, Adv4Ag. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Physical Attractiveness

Hi. I appreciate your effort trying to find some useful material in that long section, but I think we need a better source than "Elliot, Candice. "The Pink Tax." Listen Money Matters RSS. Listen Money Matters, 29 Mar. 2015. Web." If Pink Tax is in common usage, perhaps it would be possible to find a better source for that? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

yes, done. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Applied Materials warning templates

Hey, thank you so much for helping out with my edit requests at Applied Materials. Do you think, with the additional secondary sources, that it might be time to remove the primary sources warning template from the top of the article? Actually, the same goes for the COI warning template, which is nearly four years old. Would really appreciate your thoughts on any further steps that might need to be taken to merit the removal of those templates. Thank you, again, for taking the time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr.Zaiva

I noticed that you reverted my removal of Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues from User talk:Dr.Zaiva. The reason I did so is that the user has been inactive for more than a week. It's considered best practice to leave promotional usernames alone if they haven't edited since being told about the username policy rather than blocking, and that category is for tracking active users only. Thanks, James086^Talk 22:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

where do you get this one week thing? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I get the one week thing from the top of the category page. James086^Talk 03:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. So it does say. Makes no sense to me but I see you have justification. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the reason is that if only active accounts would appear in that category, a user could quickly see if they the users are worth blocking/renaming or just leaving alone. There's not much point blocking a forgotten account. I've been trying to clean it out because it has so many inactive and blocked accounts in there so the signal:noise ratio is tiny. Once it's just the relevant users and if we can stay on top of it, the category will be useful again. James086^Talk 05:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your goal. It does seem useful to have a category for accounts like this if anybody ever wants to gather data. I wonder if it would make sense to have something like "inactive accounts with username issues" and instead of just removing, the cat could be exchanged. Even better if the cat were date-stamped and a bot could do that. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, categories like the speedy image categories could work, but I don't have the know-how to write a bot and until this category is cleared, I'm not sure how many users get added per day. If the number is quite low it's probably manageable manually, if high a bot might be worth it. It's probably 2 weeks until that info is available. James086^Talk 05:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well good luck! Thanks for cleaning things up. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I know you meant nothing but the best with your recommendation to read REFB at Draft:Granulomatous-Lymphocytic Interstitial Lung Disease (GLILD). But I thought I should point out that manually marking the footnote numbers, as the new editor did, is a permitted WP:Inline citation format (see the section on "Manual citations").

I'm going to change the format in a moment, because I think it will be easier in the end, but if he reverts me, that's fine, too. (Technically, I should sit down and have a discussion with him first about it, but most new editors are happy to have their efforts look "normal", so I'm going with the odds here and assuming that he, too, actually wants the strictly optional but very popular system of little blue clicky numbers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Great you are helping him. btw I no where said anything about footnote style (e.g use of ref tags)- not here and not here. I added PMIDs and URLs where full text was available, and noted the sources that didn't meet MEDRS; I also pointed him to MEDMOS generally for "people" not "patients" kinds of things. I didn't mind his manual citation style at all. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have checked the history, instead of assuming that the only other person who'd edited it was responsible for something as complicated as a hidden HTML comment. It's in the boilerplate, which means that it's screwing up everyone. It begins, "After listing your sources please cite them using inline citations and place them after the information they cite", and if you follow those directions literally, you're going to get a duplicate list of citations – once in a manual list, and again ("after listing your sources") in footnotes. I don't have time to chase this down right now, but it ought to be re-written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So Which is It?

The revert links to a disamb page. Chronic pelvic pain syndrome, chronic bacterial prostatitis or asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please use edit notes; it saves hassle. I will look and check; it may be all of them. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger page edit

Hi, I went to the wikipedia page for Michael Greger and attempted to clean up a few things in the article. There are two references supposedly criticising him, while one actually encouraged his videos, and the other, one could easily argue rests on a shaky foundation. I made a section specifically for opinions about Greger and clarified that the Joe Schwarcz reference is mostly positive yet skeptical (the article melts it into the Harriet Hall reference to make it look as if Joe's criticism was similar to Harriet's and not in favor of Greger) and provided a counter criticism to Harriet Hall's criticism, while also providing a reference for the largest healthcare organization in the US promoting Michael Greger's website as a resource for its patients.

My edit was reverted with a simple claim that my edit was "non-neutral." When I reverted it back, I was told I was "pov-pushing." I take this to mean that the point-of-view of the person who reverted my comments is the proper point-of-view the article must have, that their point-of-view only allows negative comments about this person, and that if you aren't biased against the person the article is about and attempt to say anything that isn't blatantly against him then you're to be considered "non-neutral" and banned from editing.

Can you explain how I was in the wrong? And particularly, so in the wrong that my entire edit had to be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to respond at the article Talk page - that is where you should have brought this up the first time you were reverted. If you copy the comment above there I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page, still waiting on a reply from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It takes time - there is WP:NODEADLINE here. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the M.O.

That's how it was at the beginning when I begged for your's and SlimVirgin's help to craft an RfC 2 years ago. Editors have taken possession of that policy, seeing themself as self-proclaimed czars, and they slowly edit the policy. Not enough to draw immediate attention, but over time they're able to make serious changes. Now that you've noticed it, they're calling you disruptive for removing it. Careful, because the next step is to claim you're violating the policy. The ad hominems get stronger from here on out.--v/r - TP 02:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, hopefully history won't repeat itself. It is terribly personalized already tho. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wish I could help, but if I got involved, I'd just be a new target of their venom. It's going to take patience. Eventually, they'll cross a line on their own.--v/r - TP 03:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Yes one has to breathe before typing. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And I hope you haven't taken anything personal I said during the Arbcom case. I do tend to get heated, but I mean nothing personal.--v/r - TP 03:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not upset, and I am sorry for upsetting you. We are good I think.Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aptus Article

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I am now planning on working on the article about Aptus Treatment Centre. In the month of March this year, we had a discussion about it on my talk page. I have found one source. Here it is: https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/aptus/?gclid=CL7ppN7Lvs0CFYSDaQod1x8A3Q. I do not know if it is or is not independent from the topic and if there is significant coverage. Can you please tell me? Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

that site is a wiki see here) so no per WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will try to find other reliable sources which are not self-published. Peterye2005 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Visual prosthesis Article

Dear Jutdog, did you have time to review the article in the talk of the visual prosthesis page we talked about a few weeks ago? We would greatly appreciate your help.Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

you left the same message at your user page. one is enough! i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

grounding

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o! jytdog, how dare you revert my edit at my friend's page! that's it, you are grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded for 32 millennia! Go to your room right now, while I call Annerley to punish you Yours truely, your father

199.101.62.73 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, Annerley does have a youtube page, vipersword100, where she's stated she's an avid gamer several times. Eric Ramus 199.101.62.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You cannot add unsourced content to an article about any living person - see WP:V and WP:BLP. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

THen we should delete the thing about her kid too, there's no source for that, even though it's just as true as her status as an avid gamer. Eric Ramus199.101.62.73 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

she discusses her son in the interview that is cited there Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Enteric nervous system into Gut–brain axis. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ack thanks. I usually attribute in the edit note and blew it there. I will go and note that I did that. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

ah, you did already. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought

Since we interacted on Ken Ham, I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Patents and copyright

I saw your notice on revdel-ing one revision of the Electronic harassment article for copyright reasons. While un-credited copying of patent material is definitely plagiarism, and thus not allowed in articles, I'm not sure it necessarily counts as copyright infringement. See http://www.uspto.gov/terms-use-uspto-websites , which says, among other things: "Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions." I'm not an expert or even particularly knowledgeable about any of this, so I have no idea whether or not this is relevant to this specific case, but I think this situation might be worth taking to one of the noticeboards where more knowledgeable people can be found, or to the WMF itself for an opinion, as they have their own in-house lawyers for just this purpose. -- The Anome (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Followup: I've just taken this to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, per the recommendation of the text in the template itself. Thanks for spotting this issue: it's well worth discussing, whichever way the decision goes. -- The Anome (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for watching

I just (finally) noticed that my user page has been edited several times in the last few months, and that you and Seppi have been taking care of it. Thank you. I do sometimes invite people to mess around in my sandbox if they want to see how the visual editor works, but I don't really know why some IP from Saudi Arabia would be making that kind of edit. (The vandalism warning from Canada is just par for the course; I must have removed someone's pet theory or other dubious contribution.)

Thanks for "watching" out for me.  :-) I appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Posting Personal Information Online

Your recent edit violates Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information and is considered a SERIOUS violation of Wikipedia's policies. A AN/I thread has been opened for you to respond. While your COI work is welcome, posting personal information is not welcome. 2607:FEA8:2A5F:FF4B:BD1B:9C64:3806:C8 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. added on behalf of another editor -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

coi

unfortunately, COI is a much more difficult area than regular editing. While many of us edit, there are people like Jytdog who make certain COI is being watched and handled so that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a sponsor for one of these paid editors, I don't pretend to know all the details in this one case that led to his block, but I would hope you take into account the difficult nature of what Jytdog job is everyday, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog

Sorry you got blocked. For the record, that user was here under his own name therefore WP:OUTING , in spirit , could not have been violated. For example, I don't edit with my real name on Wikipedia, and never have, so if someone were to post, anywhere on Wikipedia "KoshVorlon's name is XXXXXXXX " that would be outing, however, if I've ever posted my real name on Wikipedia, I would be unable to claim outing if someone else posted my name anywhere else on Wikipedia. The user in question edited an article about his company, he used a username composed of his first initial and last name and therefore the connection was obvious. Using just straight common sense, how else would it be possible to prove a COI other than to mention that fact. You should be unblocked and the blocking admin needs a trout, to say the least! KoshVorlon 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem like sometimes the WMF expects us to enforce their conflict of interest policies wearing a blindfold over our eyes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well it is not a WMF issue. The policy is quite clear on what is allowed, and nothing Jytdog did is against the harrassment policy. It appears members of the oversight team do not have an understanding of the policy they are enforcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I noted the withdrawal of Jytdogs rights to edit this page soon after JD had closed the above thread as some sort of doubling down on the original 'punishment' block, and couldn't quite believe it. By the original blocking admin. This, along with all the other crap JD has been subject to in the last couple of years, is not at all good. Is there anything that can be done by ordinary editors at this point, or should we wait for further developments? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick note that it is standard to remove talk page access for oversight-blocks. I forgot to do so, and another arb pointed it out to me. I mentioned this to Jytdog via email, and told him it was nothing to do with the conversations here, but rather just common practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Tempted to open a COI investigation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Against whom? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's extreme, and I hate to utter it given how often people with various agendas call for it whenever an admin does adminny things at all, but the option pretty much is ArbCom to remove admin privileges for issuing blocks that themselves violate outing policy. One time slip ups-can happen as I believe admins are human too (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but that approach would require an admin consistently justifying blocks by selectively ignoring the parts of outing policy that relate to COI and editors that have already disclosed their real life identity in some reasonable fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be substantial disagreement with your assessment from senior admins and at least one arb. Roxy, it's in the hands of the arbitration committee. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Can I just say that outing is a serious violation, and that editing under your real name is not an invitation to have someone connect a real name (and many dogs are called Sadie) to a LinkedIn account and post that information on a wiki page that can be seen by everyone? We are discussing the case, but I'm puzzled that this outing (and mind you, outing falls under harassment) is downplayed so easily. For the record, I get along pretty well with Jytdog, I think, and I appreciate their work--but that work has to take place within our policies.

  The talk page block, BTW, is part of the oversight block/process, as far as I understand; I don't have a problem with it being restored since I don't think Jytdog will abuse the privilege. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not outing per the policy and posting links to profiles on other websites is explicitly not forbidden by the harrassment policy. Editing under your real name for a company that you are publically linkable to *by name* is the basis on which a COI investigation starts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Drmies, I'm curious to know if you would find it acceptable if Jytdog had said something like, "I know you work for xxx Corp. Please abide by our COI policy." without linking to external sites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • That's better. What was proposed as a question in the ANI thread was still unacceptable (for me--but I think most of my colleagues on ArbCom agree with me), as far as I'm concerned. If xxx Corp is the title of the article, I guess I'd be OK with it. But here's the thing. If we ever think that such a question is answered truthfully, then it doesn't need to be asked with all the details: they know that you know. It is not up to us to provide the evidence on-wiki. Plus, we have to ask what the rush is--this editor made four edits, they weren't spamming all over the place. An email to an admin would have sufficed. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Drmies, this is not an infrequent situation. I strongly suggest Arbcom come up with a clear procedure of what to do in these types of situations and incorporate it in a policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Neil, we have that policy--the procedure is clear as well. REMOVE THE OUTING! But what also needs to be removed is that one strange sentence which, it seems to me, is taken to be a valid exception to an important rule, even though it says "under discussion". Drmies (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Drmies, this provides exactly zero help to editors trying to deal with COI editors. I just had yet another look at WP:OUTING. "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... work organisation" So the statement I suggested above, which you said was better, could lead to my indef blocking. There needs to be more clarity. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
            • NeilN, they didn't post any personal information. They apparently used their real name. Which could be a not real name. They didn't post anything about their work organization, as far as I know: this was done for them. That this means Jytdog and others can figure it out doesn't mean it should be posted. I just don't see how it is unclear that one should not post personal information, why one should seek the possibly frayed edges of the policy. It seems to me this is yet another consequence of trying to make laws that are too much like fine-toothed combs, but that's a side note, I guess. Drmies (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Drmies, so are you withdrawing your "That's better" to my question if "I know you work for xxx Corp. Please abide by our COI policy." was acceptable? Are you now saying it could lead to a block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you recreate a promotional article about the place you work for the 4th time, that is more or less stating were you work. We do not need to bend over backwards pretending that the rest of the world does not exists and we as editors are allowed to use common sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drmies, we'd run into problems with this approach though too. We actually are required to present the evidence in appropriate forums per WP:ASPERSIONS. Otherwise people are free to sling around unfounded COI accusations. We get cases like this pretty often (i.e., not spamming all over the place) where a new editor edits under their own name or a slight variation of their formal name, and it is taken care of by any editor telling them about COI along with the appropriate level of evidence for that COI. That settles the problem right there usually. Plain as day cases like this for a new editor don't have any need for an admin. It would be a different story if someone had to do some major digging beyond what WP:OUTING allows in this case, and that would be an instance to get a hold of an admin if there were pressing matters requiring admin action related to the COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think they (oversight) came down too hard on him...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree.... and I point to this incident where I was accused of outing. Please note I never said who the owner of the account was, and in that ANI report, pay attention Mendaliv's response you've already admitted to who you are on-wiki long before Koshvorlon said so. Even without that admission, you've established a path by which we can connect the name Cambios to your real identity by having linked to your personal blog in other articles. This is not outing. (emphasis is mine ). A path was established by which the name could be connected in my case, and is so in this case. I will point out there is overwhelming consensus (by my count ) , even among admins, that this block was wrong. I call for GorillaWarfare to yield to consensus and unblock Jytdog promptly.KoshVorlon 16:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Oversight blocks are appealable only to the oversight team or the ArbCom for good reason: they are able to view the edits in question, as well as any other private information that may be relevant. I sent an email to the oversighters directly after making this block (as was decided should be common practice after the change in how oversight blocks may be appealed); your "consensus" of a few folks who are not able to access this information does not match that of the oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare arbcom is still however required to follow community consensus / policy and is not allowed to create their own "rules" to follow. We are not discussing this case specifically but we are discussing what the policy is and by extension where or not policy was appropriately applied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare actually, yes. | you placed the block and coded it as an Oversight Block, that was your prerogative as a Sysop. However, consensus on this page is that it was a bad block, that no outing occured. I understand you want to do everything right, no problem, however, you made a mistake, hey, it happens sometimes, but the bottom line here is you blocked Jytdog for outing when no outing actually occured, the Oversight Commitee did not, however, since you are part of that Oversight Committe and since you did place this block, you can and should make this right by unblocking Jytdog as no outing occured. By the way, you're right, I don't know what the consensus is for the oversighter team, nobody does except the oversighters, so the only consensus I and pretty much everyone else is aware of is the consensus right here. Why not tell us what the oversight team is saying so we can be aware of it too. In short please observe community consensus and unblock Jytdog. WinkelviI see no discussion about this on the Arb page, so it appears as no other discussion is taking place on Wikipedia about this. This doesn't preclude discussions happening on the Arb listserve or the oversight listserve, which, if that's happening we wouldn't be able to see, so this would be the place to discuss this, where Jytdog can see this

This is not the correct forum for debating this. The AN/I and earlier discussions were closed. Discussions relevant to the user are now handled by the Arbitration Committee; any complaints or thoughts regarding WP:OUTING can be discussed there. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet, (at least) one ArbCom member is commenting here, no one but you is objecting and it hasn't been shut down, so - I don't think it's as inappropriate as you believe. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to draw the attention of editors here, to Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Clarification: "Posting links to other accounts". I'll try not to repeat too much of what I already said there, but I want to make a few points here. It's abundantly obvious that the community is far from having a consensus as to what is, and what is not, outing. And this is an unacceptable ambiguity. The fact that the way that Wikipedia deals with this is to block clueful editors so that there can be a private discussion in which the editor is "re-educated" before unblocking is, pardon me, stupid. It's stupid because the policy remains unclear, and no one else gets to "learn" from the private discussion with the blocked editor, so it's just a matter of time until someone else misunderstand the policy and has to be blocked, too. Rinse and repeat. And it's stupid because the ensuing discussions, here and at ANI, end up creating a Streisand effect that makes many more observers see what was supposed to be private information. At this point, anyone who looks at what has been posted can figure out the approximate real name of the possibly outed user, and can find the other webpage that apparently has the private information. Great job of protecting that person's privacy, right?

And there's another aspect that concerns me. We are dealing with two kinds of really important problems: outing and privacy, and COI and undisclosed paid editing. I think that all of us, whatever else we disagree about, can agree that all of those things are big deals, important threats to what Wikipedia ought to be. We have editors who step up to do the important volunteer work of searching out and fixing COI and paid editing. And we have oversighters and arbs who step up to do the important volunteer work of protecting editors' privacy. I think we can agree that it's a good thing when someone takes seriously the tasks of enforcing these community norms. But I think we can also see that there have been differing opinions about how much editor "enforcement" is too much, how much becomes heavy-handed or counter-productive. Maybe we need to be less strict, maybe less "self-righteous", about enforcing COI. But maybe we also need to be less "self-righteous", and more practical, about enforcing the outing policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We need to discuss what to do about the situation in question. The community via consensus determines policy. Policy on this question is unclear. While we state that one can link to external sites we do not have policies around when or which sites can be linked to. We should likely have another round of discussions on what we can and cannot do while enforcing our terms of us regarding non disclosed paid editing.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Policies are supposed to be built and then acted on, not built around after the fact (or what has become common practice.
Remember waterboarding? While the world said no, those who thought it's a brilliant idea simply changed the law to legalize what is considered a crime.--TMCk (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Policy and guideline pages are seldom established without precedent and they can change if the community's best practices change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The basic rule here on WP is no to outing and no means no. You don't do it. It's ethically wrong no matter the ends. No policy should circumvent it. Do you out a kid who posts identifiable information while editing their school's entry? No, you don't. You handle any COI problem w/o compromising their identity.--TMCk (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Outing is indeed unacceptable, but it is not rape. The problem is that there are kinds of edits that might be outing, or might not be. There are also kinds of edits that are unambiguously intended to be outing and intended to be malicious, and I think we can all agree about those. However, there are also gray areas, and no particular consensus about how to deal with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say there, is that we do best not to demonize one another. An editor can be acting in good faith to try to fix a problem with COI, and may be right or may be wrong, as can an administrator trying in good faith to enforce the outing policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand your point but those gray areas exist only b/c of ambiguos language introduced into policy by a handful of mostly conflicted editors. And no, of course it's not rape. It's "only" hitting the toddler.--TMCk (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What crock. If an editor uses his real name, or a variant thereof, and a five second Google search reveals that name splashed around the website of the same company whose article he's editing, an editor making the link between the two is not "hitting the toddler". Get some perspective. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, of course it's not "hitting a toddler. It's "only" slapping a real person w/o consent. Real name? How do you know that? You don't!
Problems are all over the place. Basic principles (and not only WP's own ones) are getting perverted more and more and too many are so close that they don't see the elephant sitting on their lap and wetting it.--TMCk (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What we have is a paid editor who basically used their own name to edit the company with which they are associated. Jyt stated the obvious which the user more or less disclosed voluntarily in their user name. We than have an IP sockpuppet who flagged the case in question. We do not need to pretend we are blind. From my reading of our policies what Jyt did was on the line but still acceptable per the WP:OUTING policy. We are here to generate policies that support the writing of an encyclopedia. We are not here to generate policies to create some sort of utopian online society.

The ANI discussion for this case is interesting. User:Keegan appears to feel so strongly about privacy and anonymity that they believe that paid editors (2 global heads of marketing and 6 docs on their pay role) from a multi billion dollar company should not only be able to secretly edit Wikipedia in a promotional manner but should be able to send emails attacking me to about 300 physicians I work with. Keegan appears to be of the position that I am not allowed to discuss this openly, that editors who are being harassed in semi private channels are required to keep it in semi private channels.[5] I of course disagree. To address both paid editing and harassment we need to more openly discuss the cases in question, we need to balance our principle of anonymity with that of transparency. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said people should be able to edit in secret to add promotion. My track record fighting COI speaks for itself. If you think it's appropriate behavior for a responsible, professional adult in your position to retaliate in a content dispute by outing someone in a national publication, then that's on you, just as I'm free to call out your poor behavior in doing making such a decision. As I said, two wrongs never make a right. Keegan (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What you have said is undisclosed paid editors from multi billion dollar companies should be able to harass someone in real life and that person is not allowed to defend themselves publicly. The rest of the world does not have "outing". If you publicly attack someone off of WP you should expect a public defense. (P.S. this is regarding the Atlantic article not Jytdog's case P.P.S. Also please ping me when you mention me at ANI.) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No outing took place. Editor was editing using their own name and editing the article of a company they were associated with. Neither the letter or the spirit of the relevant policy was violated. No 'private' information was disclosed nor was their privacy violated in any recognisable way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The need for anonymity is a problem at the heart of Wikipedia and something that works almost exclusively against the quality of its content. Personally I think it would be better if editors enjoyed no presumption that they can preserve anonymity, but that Wikipedia took very seriously harassment and personalized argumentation unduly based on knowledge of somebody's identity. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• +1 to User:Alexbrn Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• The tension between WP:COI and WP:OUTING is irreconcilable. At present the community (or at least the tiny fraction of the community that is involved in making and enforcing policy) has decided that WP:OUTING trumps everything else. That's a defensible position. But we have to be honest about what it costs. And we haven't been. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, the lifting an oversight block appears to be a motion adopted by ArbCom and affects individual admins lifting an OS block. However, it doesn't appear to negate consensus and ban appeal procedures. It seems that consensus to unblock at ANI would be enough to unblock (but not restore the oversighted material). I find it rather bureaucratic that this page is littered with reference to the editor, the offsite account, that that it's related to employment, and basically every element needed to reconstruct the outing but we pretend that it's oversighted and invisible. If this is about suppressing outing, then none of this should be happening. I did not see the initial edits that were oversighted as OUTING so it seems odd that it took so little effort to reconstruct it. It makes it difficult to discern whether the block was done to protect privacy or whether it was done to set an example of precedence. --DHeyward (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Eric ramus example

I have only known about this user for a few weeks, since he reverted my edit on Annerley Gordon’s page about her being an avid gamer. However, I’ve patrolled a/I for at least 11 years now. I’ve gone under at least 130 IP addresses, and have a fair knowledge of cases that have gone on there. This case brings something to light: In recent years, I’ve given people my full name, Eric Ramus as well as the fact that I work for Westjet and Cathay Pacific as a pilot. On another IP a state that I was born in Manchester and moved to Canada several years ago. I even go into my questionable history on the internet including my “nissae isen’s man” thing here on Wikipedia and what not, but that’s neither here nor there. Let’s say however that I create an account under my real name this time, “Eric ramous” and I start editing westjet articles. Let’s say that I also create a linkedin page stating that I’m a pilot for WestJet. Let’s say I made the ;;WestJet]] article look somewhat like a promo, or delete any accidents or things like that from the article. Jytdog comes along and says “I know you’re Eric Ramus from WestJet, and can you please follow the rules about COI and not advert?” Would I then have a case to say Jytdog should be punished for outing? Even though I have made all these things clear about me before? Yes, my name is Eric Ramus, Yes, I fly aircraft for WestJet, yes, I’m not blind, and Yes, I’m Nissae Isen’s Man and Alien Arceus from Wikipedia’s past. Is it outing when someone points this out? No! Because I clearly state that I am all these things. It’s important to recognize that not all cases on Wikipedia are black and white. There are grey areas that need to be dealt with without punishment. Now perhaps the person in question did not state their full first name, but they edited the article about the company that they work for, a linked in search for the first initial or last name with the company found someone with a match, thus proving a conflict of Interest. It’d be exactly as if I created an account under my real name of Eric Ramus, edited WestJet and Cathay Pacific articles after having created a linked in profile about myself. I’ve been around the wiki world long enough to know that not all cases are black and white. And I think that this is a case that needs serious review. I’m not saying unblock jytdog, but I’m saying review it then decide if an unblock is in order. Both admins and normal users make mistakes, be they big or small. I’d know, I’ve made some ultra-big mistakes. Thing is, I own up to them. As Nissae Isen’s Man and Alien Arceus, I made ultra-big mistakes. But as my real self, I’ve learned from them. So I hope that any admins in this case ensure that they know all the facts here, then consider if an unblock is in order. Thank you.

Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The next question is who should decide on the unblocking? IMO this should be a question the community decides on. The arbitration committee does not in isolation get to decide what only they get to decide on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

yes,community decision would be best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that both Arbcom and the community should be able to decide this along with input by jytdog himself. also let's fint the user in question, have him chyme in this way we have all sides of the issue.

Eric Ramus 199.101.62.73 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So you claim you're Eric Ramus on the freakin' internet and we should take that information as granted? Hilarious.--TMCk (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said to believe it, I'm just using myself as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.73 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

But that's the point: Outing someone on a belief.--TMCk (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you don't have to believe that I am Eric Ramus, but my example assumes that the person outing me would believe I am me. It also explains why I can't claim outing when I've made my name and ocupation clear on this website.

Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's do another example: Let's say I create a user account called E. Ramus, and let's pretend that I've never made it known that I'm Eric Ramus who flies 737's for Westjet and 777-300ER's for Cathay Pacific. Let's also assume that I have a linkedin account with the name Eric Ramus, and I state that I'm a pilot for Cathay Pacific and Westjet.

I log into E. Ramus, I edit Westjet and Cathay apcific articles removing the incidents sections of those pages, and continue to do so. jytdog comes along, and says "hey, what do you think you're doing?" I continue on my behavior, and it leads to jytdog googling people with the last name ramus that work for Westjet and Cathay Pacific. Let's say he finds my supposed linkedin profile, and sees I fly aircraft for both companies. He points it out, presenting the linkedin profile as proof for his findings of a conflict of interst. How is that wrong of jytdog to do? Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• The real "Eric Ramus" sure would have a different viewpoint.--TMCk (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is this "real eric ramus" or are you just playing with me? I edited under a few IP addresses because I'm not always stagnant. and if by any chance there's a celebrity or a local figure in your area with that name then I hav eno clue of their existance. My example still holds though.

Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I'm editing from a different IP from a mobilehotspot right now.

Eric Ramus

209.202.5.163 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

hope that clears that up.

Eric Ramus 199.101.62.73 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 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.

---

User:GorillaWarfare I assume this is about the edit I made at [User_talk:Dladd12]]? Would you please explain how this is not an exception under the COI provisions of WP:OUTING? This person obviously was editing here under their real name (DLadd) and obviously worked for TOBA. Please explain. This is important because I have done this dozens of time, including at AE. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And which provision would that be? Are you referring to "However, if individuals have identified themselves [...] such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." - I highly doubt using it to threaten the editor on their talk page is an "appropriate forum" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to samtar - "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted" is the other key phrase here - I can't see where that has happened in this case. Happy to be corrected on this though. Mike1901 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"This is important because I have done this dozens of time, including at AE." Stop doing that. You don't have to out people to prove a point about COI editing. I have never seen a case where outing was necessary. It's just a cheap personal attack. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Keegan (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Jytdog's edits themselves without seeing them, but this does appear to be a case of COI where the editor in question used a username that essentially was a real life name. They key part of WP:OUTING here is, The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research".

If this was simply a matter of the editor editing under their own name and Jytdog pointing out they have a conflict of interest trying to help them with the COI guideline, there should not have been anything blockable here. Maybe there was something more that went over the line that really moves into "opposition research" (i.e., actual harassment and digging up tons of personal information outside of the COI), but considering Jytdog's history working at COIN, etc. and that this appears to have been a brief interaction, I find that highly doubtful. If my assumptions of what the deleted material likely included are correct, I'm sure Jytdog can provide plenty of examples from COIN of almost identical cases like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: See here [6] for further information & discussion on this. Mike1901 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @Kingofaces43: No, this wasn't a matter of "Jytdog pointing out they have a conflict of interest trying to help them" - I saw the revision before it was oversighted, it contained a link to the editor's not-disclosed LinkedIn profile -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not prohibited by the harrassment policy. Specifically "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." which is there specifically to enable COI concerns. A linkedin profile is an 'account on other website'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then I think some admins (who can actually see the revision we're talking about) should make that "case-by-case" judgement -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the case by case basis still under discussion? or is it now formally part of the policy but being discussed? serious question. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) No not really. It was only 'under discussion' in that someone raised a query about it, and no one responded. I imagine if someone tried to remove it, it would be reverted and end up under discussion *very quickly*. But its a necessary exception to investigate COI. Otherwise people will just discuss it offwiki in mailing lists. Which happened before and basically led to admins blocking people after secret investigations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for clarifying. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Dladd was obviously here as himself, and obviously here representing the company. Sometimes even when it is this clear I hang back and ask such an editor to disclose, and don't express how obvious it is, just to be safe from what just happened to me, and also as part of creating a dialogue. But in this case - as I have others - where the conflicted editor is being aggressively disruptive (in this case, immediately reposting a crappy promotional/copied-from-their-website "article", after their "article" had just been deleted) - it makes sense to be simple, sharp and direct, to head off more disruption. Yes, I linked to their linked in profile, to make it clear to the person that it was clear who they were. I have pulled some situations out of the fire that way.

Folks do need to decide if this is really OUTING. I think it is very clearly not. Dladd is obviously a person's real name, the promotional editing invites looking for somebody named D Ladd at TOBA. There was disruption going on. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I actually did almost the exact thing three days ago, and ended up having a skype conversation with the person. By being direct and simple, I changed a situation where the conflicted editor was completely frustrated and edit warring into one where they kind of understood what was going and didn't feel so bad, and helped the WP volunteer to change course as well. See User_talk:Summer.zadara#Conflict_of_interest_follow_up.3B_username and the section below that. You can talk to Summer too if you want. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: (edit conflict × 1) I agree with you to some degree, even though currently I believe this is a good block - hear me out: Only in death raises a good point on the ANI thread, that if someone asks "are you (linkedin link) working for (that company)?" then that is without a doubt not OUTING. How you worded your message read more as (and this is self-admitted conjecture) "You are (linkedin link) working for (company)". I agree the editor is more than likely COI editing, I'd put that up there in the six nines of certainty, but the issue with me (and I believe a number of other editors) is the adding of that LinkedIn link in a manner which suggests you've already made that link, and would use that "proven" relationship to tell them to stop editing. You're a brilliant editor, and to be honest I expected to be telling that reporting IP to take a hike. Your thoughts? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My reply was edit conflicted - I have no doubts your directness has helped a number of times, and I thank you for sticking with these COI editors. I think the directness and tone on this one occasion was a little over the line, if you don't mind me saying -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I never tell conflicted editors to stop editing. My goal is to educate them about COI and why it matters and how we manage it. From someone like David's point of view, he is here as himself. He isn't trying to hide. As I noted above I often hold back from being that direct only to cover my ass. But it is entirely phony when I do that. To Summer, to David, and many other people -- people, mind you -- the conversation is simple; they work for a company and I am a volunteer at Wikipedia trying to help them. Samtar I appreciate your kind words. This matter is with arbcom now and I think I probably have to email them or something. I am going to close this so it doesn't turn into a free for all. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 27 June 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.

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for all you have done over the years. And hope to see you back editing soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Email

Can you please email the Arbitration Committee? Emails are bouncing from the email address we were previously using. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Under Armour

Hi bru, thanks for your initial edit, it was rather excellently done, I find. Inspiring journalistic writing style. I have a question: Why is 'trophy' not supported, it seems to me that "sport" hunting should be differentiated from the kind of hunting indigenous people, etc, do? I didn't use the term "sport" initially because only the US uses it. Thanks, sincerely Nanorsuaq (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

bru? Thanks for your kind words. As I noted there isn't any support for "trophy" nor even for "sport" hunting. I think it is pretty clear that the people who were sponsored are not living at subsistence level. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes see that is what I mean. Their hunting is not for subsistence, so would we not want to differentiate that? When you say there isn’t any ‘support’ for those words, do you mean on the Under Armour website? As in, they refer to it simply as hunting? Nanorsuaq (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No I don't think we need to differentiate; it is obvious. In any case the three sources that we cite don't emphasize "sport" or "trophy" hunting (they also take it as obvious - nobody reading WP is going to assume that the people being sponsored by UA are aborigines). Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man. Two days later, I find your first edit even more brilliant. Thank you for that example of craftsmanship. Nanorsuaq (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of RfC

An RfC was suggested in the DRN close as the only binding option. It will obviously not be helpful to slog through yet another noticeboard discussion on this topic. Will you please allow the RfC to run so we can stop talking about this already ancient issue? --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a note at the article talk page. Opening an RfC - which is meant to get community input on a question - just two hours after I opened a widely publicized thread at BLPN in order to get community input on that very question, is incredibly disruptive and a waste of the community's time. Why in the world would you duplicate the discussion? Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Also please tell me on what noticeboard the BLPSPS discussion has already occurred. I am not aware of any and I looked and didn't find any. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue was discussed twice at FTN and once at NPOVN. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Launching that RfC was incredibly bad behavior. I have withdrawn the BLPN and removed the notices. Please withdraw the RfC and let's draft it. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about as neutrally worded as possible. Do you object to any aspect of the wording? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for all you have done over the years. And hope to see you back editing soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Email

Can you please email the Arbitration Committee? Emails are bouncing from the email address we were previously using. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Anca Verma Wikipedia page

Hello,

I have escalated the matter to Wikipedia RSN for validation as you suggested.

QUOTE I expanded Anca Verma article on Wikipedia with reliable citation with the text below:

'In 2016 the Romanian press and TV credited Verma as the richest Romanian in the world with a fortune of over 3 billion Euros, based on Forbes magazine survey.[10][11] [12].'

The citations alongwith text above were links from Romanian newspapers and TV sites below. After posting, my edits were reverted by Jytdog (Undid revision 738137705 by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk) no thanks; you will need to go to RSN and get OK for those sources there before adding)

http://www.viata-libera.ro/prima-pagina/79686-anca-neacsu-galateanca-mai-bogata-decat-tiriac

http://www.romaniatv.net/o-fosta-miss--cea-mai-bogata-romanca-din-lume--are-o-avere-de-3-miliarde-de-dolari-foto_304884.html

http://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/stiri-interne/romanica-de-trei-miliarde-de-euro-care-devenit-lordul-armelor-din-india-1548535

What is wrong with my expansion to the above article, please advise. It would have been simpler for Jytdog to have used google translator to translate these newsarticles instead of reverting my revision.

Now that I am here at RSN, please validate these articles and undo the last revision of Jytdog. UNQUOTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit War Notice

:Hi Jytdog, Are you telling me that Forbes and half a dozen Romanian press and TV channels are making EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS? If this be the case, please delete all the other thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are cited with news about subjects' networth and their financial standing. Please apply your mind and read each and every newsitems before reverting these articles. Just like you, I am also a contributor to Wikipedia and not some vandal. You have already received an EDIT WAR NOTICE from another Wikipedian on your talk page for reverting his/her edits aggressively. Be fair, we are here to improve the quality and credibility of articles and not here for any personal gains! I have gone through your talk page and have seen that you have this habit of being unfair and reverting edits / revisions of contributors quite a bit which would lead you to being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am saying that I am unsure of the three romanian language sources you brought for this. You didn't bring a source from Forbes. The article is subject to the WP:BLP policy and we need to make sure the sourcing is solid. It is great that you posted at RSN; please be patient. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I beg to differ with you. Wikipedia does not rely on just English newspaper citations but also on citations and newspaper reports published in other languages. It is our duty as editors to verify whether the citations are credible and having conducted our initial due diligence we are at liberty to expand the article with the new information. In the article titled Anca Verma, I added the above section with three reliable citations. If you google translate all these newsartciles of Romania TV and Romanian press are based on the financial standing of this subject Anca Verma having surpassed the other richlist in Romaina. I found Romania TV credible as it is a State run TV and also the newspapers such as LIBERTA which is a popular newspaper in that country therefore my sourcing is rock solid. Not everybody speaks English in this world and certainly not European nations! Therefore, I added to the existing article and you reverted my changes today mercilessly. Anyway, now that I have escalated the matter to RSN forum, I prefer to wait for sometime. May I add here, that when somebody mercilessly reverts your painstakingly done expansions or additions to an article - it gives a feeling like someone tore up a manuscript. We are autoconfirmed editors and it is our duty to keep Wikipedia credible so let us not unnecessarily delete each other's work without a cogent reason. If you had an issue about my article you should have posted on my talk page and suggested RSN, and I would have taken the expansion down myself and posted on RSN for validation. Reverting my edits just like that, made me feel like a vandal. thank you for your kind understanding in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of really bad editing on that article - people adding terrible things that were not true and people adding great things that were not true. This is en-wiki; please be patient while we validate the sources you proposed. It is not the language issue as much as the community not being familiar with whether those sources are reliable per WP:RS. . Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog, I noticed another editor issued you an ANI notice for verbal abuse. Allow me to offer unsolicited advice. Please be civil with women and newcomers to Wikipedia. We must encourage them and not use FOUR LETTER WORDS as she pasted on the talk page. One more thing, when in an article you see the work of a confirmed or autoconfirmed editor (like myself), you should not just revert changes, rather the decorum states that you must discuss the issue on talk page and offer your disagreement publicly. Only after the conflict or matter has been resolved, should the edit be reverted or amended. What you did to Charlotte135 or others (as per the notices on your talk page) was not civil and it will only lead to you being blocked if we all get together and make a joint complaint against you to the organization. Please dont forget, Wikipedia is not your or my private property. It is an open forum for all contributors and editors especially those who have made significant contributions.

So friendly advice, respect opinion of others and having difference of opinion is okay and should be discussed on talk page, but not this attitude of yours which is like that of a dictator of just reverting edits and then being abusive or using four letter words on public forums.

Anyway, as I said, friendly advice only. Do make amends. We all go wrong in life and make mistakes and sometimes lose our temper but then we should learn from these mistakes!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you, relax, it's Sunday!

Just had a run-in with your nemesis over at Kevin Folta's website, still going on about the microbiome. Underinformed monomania is a terrible thing. Looking forward to your return! Rskurat (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

Jytdog is unblocked with a topic ban from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page. He is permitted to participate in discussions about related policies or guidelines, and discussions about whether content is promotional or non-neutral; however, he may not discuss specific editors' potential conflicts of interest as part of these discussions. He is warned that any further violations of the outing policy will be cause for a site ban.

Any breach of this topic ban, or any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project. You may appeal this topic ban in six months, and every six months thereafter.

References

For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I am extremely sorry to hear that Jytdog is topic-banned from all matters related to COI editing, including the COIN board. Jytdog is hands down the very best editor on the COIN board (and practically the only one who ever takes any action), and the very best (if not the only!) editor at handling, labeling, and preventing COI on Wikipedia. Barring him from this activity is going to be a huge net negative for Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that this topic ban can be lifted at some time in the near future. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Except there were no violation of the outing policy in the first place. Not to mention the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment is pretty clear that there is no consensus actions taken by Jytdog were not within policy, and the actual policy wording as written at the time supported it. Lets also not bring up that WMF made it perfectly clear the distinction between what is and is not private material. So frankly unblocking with a ban on COI related discussion and 'further violations of the outing policy' when no actual violation of the outing policy has taken place, smacks of punishment for the blocker's mistake. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This topic ban seems to me to be a mistake, unfair, against policy, and hugely destructive to Wikipedia. I am assuming 100% good faith, but errors and poor decisions (including group decisions) are also made in good faith. I would at the very least like to see this topic-ban decision brought out into community discussion rather than imposed without publicly viewable discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded (or is it thirded?) It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of wiki administrators after this. All of the information we have points to one conclusion: there was no violation to begin with. It is understandable to see administration make errors - they are only human, and who are we to judge when we have not been in their position? - but to refuse to admit a mistake, and instead "doubling down" by inappropriately defanging someone who was doing good, albeit controversial, work, causes bystanders such as myself to strongly consider full disengagement from the WP project. Ultimately that damages the project as mentioned above. And if I were Jytdog, I would be concerned that even speaking in self-defense would be inappropriately considered a "further" violation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion there was nothing whatsoever controversial about the tireless work Jytdog has been doing for years in COI/COIN. His content editing on controversial subjects sometimes drew fire, but his day-in day-out far-beyond-the-call-of-duty work at COIN was one of the most important tasks anyone has ever engaged in on Wikipedia. Topic-banning him from this means the spammers and COIs win. How can this possibly be good for Wikipedia? Especially when there was no violation in the first place? I would like to ask the Arbs how and where this topic ban can be appealed. Softlavender (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion—as I just mentioned below, I failed to copy the second paragraph of the unblock conditions text when I posted this onwiki. I've just added it above. Jytdog may appeal the topic ban himself in six months. As for other methods of appealing ArbCom decisions that you and Doc James ask about, the relevant portion of the current arbitration policy is here: Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling, which the Committee may accept or decline at its discretion. The Committee may require a minimum time to have elapsed since the enactment of the ruling, or since any prior request for reconsideration, before reviewing it. Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, GorillaWarfare. What would the "minimum time to have elapsed" be in this case, for others to ask the Committee to reconsider or amend this ruling? Jytdog isn't stupid; I'm sure he has learned not to do what he did in the precise manner in which he did it. I feel that as he is the only really skilled or successful COIN-board editor around, it is imperative for the sake of the project to allow Jytdog to get back to doing what he does best. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We placed the standard six-month waiting period on Jytdog for his appeal. We didn't discuss others challenging the decision, so I can't unilaterally say. The best way to get an answer on that would probably be an email to arbcom-l, since it will have to be discussed among us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes so that is an excellent question, how do we as the community hold arbcom accountable? The easiest way will be the next election is the fall. There will be 7 positions open for election. We need candidates who see undisclosed paid editing as a problem and therefore feel it is important to do something about it. And than we need to elect those candidates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare - in the offer that Arbcom made to me, you all noted that I could appeal the TBAN in 6 months. Would you please confirm that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yikes, thanks for pointing this out; I apparently left out the entire second paragraph of the unblock conditions text. I've added it above, with a note to clarify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James raises the issue of holding ArbCom accountable, an issue not unfamiliar to me after my own run-in with last year's Committee. But I also think that we are all really on the same team here, and it would be a mistake to regard the situation too much as being an adversarial one. I know that quite few current members of ArbCom have very good reasons to regard harassment as a serious matter, and speaking in general, of course it is. At my own talk page, one can see two current Arbs taking opposite positions on how to balance COI versus outing. And if anything is clear from the RfC Doc James opened at the harassment policy talk page, it's that the responses are divided nearly 50-50, and the community really does not have a clear consensus either way. So I strongly advise the Arbs to consider that fact, about the lack of clarity in the community. In the mean time, the best thing to do is to find creative ways to make it easier to clean up COI without having a conflict with the outing policy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'll be starting an RfC soon, about creating a private mailing list of Functionaries to handle COI evidence privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nitrogen dioxide poisoning recreated

A few months ago, you redirected it, after removing lots of MEDRS problems. Was the nuking of the whole article for similar MEDRS problems? Your conversion was just undone by another editor who has some problematic history (including MEDRS), but I wanted to get your thought on your first edits first before I do anything. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I merged and redirected because there was already some badly done discussion of this in the ND article (see this version) and we only would need the child article on poisoning article if the toxicity section in the parent article got too unwieldy and it didn't... Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Would Like to Update Page with Latest Annual Report Data

Greetings. Vince from Kaiser Permanente here. Last year you oversaw my updating of the Kaiser Permanente Wikipedia page with our most recent annual report topline data - ie., membership numbers, financial data, # employees/physicians.

References

I would like to do this again and ask if you would assist again. While I clearly do not have an NPOV, I believe that updating with just this objective annual data will be valuable and useful for users of the page. Please advise when convenient, and thank you for your consideration. vggolla (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to help you with this content. Since these are simple uncontroversial updating of various facts, please feel free to update the article directly and add the new sources, and ping me when you are done so I can review. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Just completed and saved. I cited the exact "by the numbers" section of the annual report for ease of use; if you prefer the full citation, it is: https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/static/kp_annualreport_2015/

For full transparency, I did *not* click "minor edit."

Two very small edits I also made in the body text: I changed "Bernard Tyson" to "Bernard J. Tyson" to be consistent throughout, and I changed "He was the first African American to hold that position" to "He is the first African American..." Since he is currently Chairman and CEO. Please let me know if I did this correctly and appropriately. Thank you for your consideration! vggolla (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

sro23

Hello, Sro23 is holding a rediculous grudge. Please if you can, revert his removal of positive information as you seem to be a veteran user. He has a real issue with inventions by Serbian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.69.169 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He says you had an account and were blocked. true? Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong sock: [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not entertain further discussion with them. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Define Productive?

So, what do you mean by be productive? Purple Pwnie (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Being able to add content to WP that sticks and is not reverted, and to have efficient and civil discussions when there are disagreements about content. There is stuff you have to learn about how the community deals with content and behavior, in order to be productive. I came to your talk page to help you - to explain some of that. Again, please read the links in the welcome message that someone else left for you. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	To one amazingly resilient Wikipedian. You managed to take some serious lumps and keep on going. Great having you back :-) What we do matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! -Pete (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Civility

Please don't bite.[8] Thanks. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page watcher interjection: That's not biting, nor is it uncivil. If you're this easily offended, you're not going to have a good time on Wikipedia. If you persist in complaining about the mildest and most deserved of rebukes, you're going to hear much sharper ones. Rebbing 05:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Also one wonders how much of a "newcomer" is an editor who's using Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, who knows about WP:BITE and who is proficient with piped wikilinks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Zyka fever: prognosis

Hi, Jytdog. I am sorry you cancelled my addition of "Prognosis" to the Zyka fever page without providing an acceptable replacement. I understand the reason for reverting. I also think you seem knowledgeable enough to find a reliable source for this. Prognosis is important to the lay person who needs basic information about Zyka. If the WP page doesn't have information on it, that reduces the usefulness of the page very much. Can you please help? Zaslav (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I did replace it - I added a section on outcomes in my next edit. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Misophonia

Welcome back. I've been trying to keep an eye on misophonia. I think it's still ok. :) —PermStrump(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

SBC

Jyt, this is a book review published by the Psychologist.  ??? [9] Seems like (another) valid critique of SBC's work to me ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is no criticism in that article. Kooky. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the article talkpage eh?

WP:BRD is equally a guideline to best practice so I suggest you read my fucking note there first mate before you get into edit warring. Irondome (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at what Irondome is talking about, and Jytdog, please dial it down, for your own good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced OR drivel in fiction-ish articles

Riffing off our recent discussion on Talk:Ethereum, where I agree with you on the sort of excessive stuff that really brings down areas of this encyclopedia, here is one article I tried to tamp down, right from when it was fairly new so nothing had "standing" of existence in the encyclopedia prose for a long time. List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) characters

I had it reduced to c. 6kB of cited material in October 2015, after being over 20 kB, but after I quit active monitoring it has ballooned to 40+ kB of drivel again: List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_(2015_TV_series)_characters&action=history

Curious if you think there is any real shot at managing this stuff down to make Wikipedia better? Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. Cheers N2e (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear you but I stay away from pop culture as much as I can - way too much fancruft and crazy fierce advocates for it. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yeah, your assessment is exactly right. And I mostly stay away as well.

I just had the (romantic?) idea that every good Wikipedia editor ought to try to make the encyclopedia as a whole a better global resource, and that would include activities like spending at least a small percentage of my total Wikipedia cycles trying to get Wikipedia to only do sourced-in-outside-the-genre sources information, and leave the fancruft for Wikia and various crapopedias. But it is a lonely place to be working there. The partisan advocates are, indeed, crazy to deal with. So if other good editors are not wanting to go there and enforce Wiki policy and guidelines that have emerged, probably best to just stay away and let large areas of Wikipedia have a high level of suckitude. Too bad. But I get the logic of doing exactly that. N2e (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I try to spend my time working on stuff that (to me) matters, like health and medicine. Although there are crazy people in those fields, there is a very clear hierarchy of sources (scientific journals, statements by major health authorities) so editing is way, way more rational than in the pop culture zones of WP where all the sources are pretty crappy and it is more wild-westish. And that terrible WP:PLOT thing which people use as a bulldozer to add all kinds of content because they read the book/saw the show etc. ack. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Way to maintain and improve wikipedia's reliability on matters biomedical. You are noticed. loupgarous (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

High-five on WP:MEDRS

As a retired clinical data analyst and medical writer, just wanted to thank you for the remarkably complete and comprehensive essay on reliability of biomedical articles. You did good. loupgarous (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I take it you mean WP:Why MEDRS? ? If so, thank you! I did write most of it, but others have chipped in to make it way better. But it is still too long. Way too long. If you can help chop it down that would be amazing. If on the other hand you mean WP:MEDRS I cannot take any credit for that! Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru created the first MEDRS inline tag back in November 2009.[10] The top editors to WP:MEDRS are listed here. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for doing that QG! Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I remember Eubulides made significant contributions to WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

btw i do think the person meant the Why MEDRS essay - just prior to this, I had !voted on an AfD they had initiated, and I am guessing they came to my userpage to check me out, and saw the link to the essay there, and just misdescribed it here. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You could create a WP:SC for WP:Why MEDRS?. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

levaquin page

hi, I have now understood not to reference news articles on health pages. I've put this in the talk section. I also asked in the talk section why my edits adding recent medical published articles were also removed. if you removed those, please explain why on the talk page so we can reach consensus. if you didn't remove them but have an opinion of course please enter it? thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)jdbrook Jdbrook (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

great! I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Talk:Epinephrine_autoinjector

Please read over WP:NPOV. You have introduced a bias as you deemed that a peer-reviewed, published article is not to be included since you have alluded to the author having a conflict of interest with a drug company. This is not a neutral point of view. Your response "Discuss content, not contributors." is unacceptable in this case. Before you continue to edit please review this policy. Good references are not to be excluded because of your own bias towards authors who have disclosed conflicts of interest. EditorDownUnder (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on contributors is bad form on article Talk pages. I choose to use high quality sources that nobody from any side of issues will argue with. You can try to use it if you like - it will lead to drama (not from me - you should note that what I wrote, was "I won't use it"). Once you have been around for a while (you have 23 edits) you will understand better how to work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Favor

Hey Jyt. Most of our articles use "cite template". Wondering if for consistency you could use them also? This page explains some simply ways of generating them WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hm, why does that matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I always cite the complete source so it is findable, and include links to full texts where they are available. I find the templates clunky and time wasting... I can adapt but.. why does the format matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yah I guess it is not a big deal. I find it easier reviewing when the article references have a consistent format that is all. And also having consistent formatting is useful for translation. But outside the lead that is less important as all we are translating are leads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hm. OK. i found that the templates slowed me down and were just, i don't know, finicky, when i tried them. i like my simple method. but i will try again. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever used the Wikipedia:RefToolbar? It has auto fill functions for urls, pmids, dois, and ISBNs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

that is what I tried. it just opens up an awful dialog box where i am supposed to type all the parameters. tremendous waste of time. some kind of autofill would make this much better but that is not here by default. i looked at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0#Autofilling and this is gobbledegook to me... did you load some javascript into your settings to make autofill work? Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OH you have to click on the little magnifying glass. I get it! that is not bad at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I can do that. I will start doing that. Thanks for leading me to work it through. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes the little magnifying glass is amazing :-) It works about 95% of the time in my experience. You still need to add the page number for books. I find the url from Google books works better than the ISBN.

For example if you add "https://books.google.ca/books?id=GhkeUxEKRZwC&pg=PA327" it will fill all the meta data but the page and the year of publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:) The above article is crazy interesting btw. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, a trick you can use is to install User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. It works (moderately) well at automatically changing plain citations into cite template ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The PMID autofill works great (though it would be better if it included the PMC code when there was one) - the website autofill really stinks tho.... I will check that tool out! Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Linked to the wrong source

In this discussion [11] it seems to me that you linked to an incorrect source here: [12]. It may be that statement by this source is NOT the example of BLP support you were looking for and trying to demonstrate. Regards - Steve Quinn (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Link #6, this, is a diff to a comment by WordSmith, an admin, where Wordsmith directly addresses BLP concerns about the information and comes to a different conclusion from MastCell. That was the point of the diff. What diff do you see? I don't know why you are shouting. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I redacted here to try to alleviate confusion. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to appear to be shouting. I was trying emphasize the word "not". I can see now that it wasn't necessary. Regarding the diff, I misunderstood your point in the discussion in the first place - which is my fault, not yours. I probably need to slow down a little for awhile on Wikipedia. I think this is the first time I have been involved in this much controversy regarding a single article, and even several articles that were plagued by single disagreeable editors. Compared to this, those were easy, being only concerned with mostly WP:RS issues (and I thought those were difficult at the time). I never would have thought this was possible. Really . Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemtrails revertion

Hello... today you reverted a citation addition I made to the Chemtrails page stating I did not use a reliable source. I was anxious to get this new study included here as it seems very pertinent. This is the first time I have attempted to add a citation to anything on WP and I am clearly not well enough informed on the rules in this matter. Can you explain why this was not a RS? Is there a WP list of such things (rather than general guidance). Would this (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta;jsessionid=DE85711ACAAC10FDDAAF692ED6246BA1.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org) be a reliable source for this same material? RobP (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks so much for talking! Yes in this dif you added content based on this source. inquisitr.com. That source looked pretty dicey to me and in general we don't cite popular media stories about science papers. The journal in which the paper published, Environmental Research Letters is pretty good. However the scientific paper is what we call a "primary" source, in which the research that was done is reported by the people who did it. In general, it is way, way better to use what we call "secondary sources" - for science, a literature review paper in which other scientists put the primary source in its larger context. Sometimes we use primary sources, most times not.

Tell you what, I will post on the chemtrails Talk page on your behalf, and let's see what editors who watch that page say... Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like a good plan. And got it... avoid primary sources for science topics. RobP (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Metoclopramide

I have paraphrased your addition to the above article, as the material was directly quoted without any indication that you were using a quotation. Wherever possible, content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ack, thank you! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Re phobias

This popped up in my GScholaring: Listomania: The List as Popular Culture Icon. I am amused. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

: :) Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

hypoglycemia section was removed from Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults

The Hypoglycemia section was taken out of Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It was general content about hypoglycemia that was already covered in our Hypoglycemia article. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack London (businessman)

Hey, Jytdog!

I'm currently in the midst of a good-faith attempt to cooperate with a paid editor to flesh out Jack London (businessman), tackling a section at a time, trying to get it beyond the stubbiest of stubs that it is now. I'd appreciate if you could undo your recent re-squishing of the article; I'll then put up one of the under-construction templates. I'm not sure that this article survives long-term, but there should be a chance to put at least a little meat on its bones before that decision gets made. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ok, i will stand back! Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chaetophobia

I was in the middle of editing. Do not do that again. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single citation that I added specifically names chaetophobia or fear of hair. Please read the sources. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are using sources that are not valid for content about health. See WP:MEDRS. btw if you want elbow room please use the "under construction" tag. I didn't see that you were in the middle of editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(→‎Television: WP is not part of the internet echo chamber of rumors)

What does this mean, please? The Washington Post is a reliable source. Do you have better Wiki wording for the statements in the article? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are asking about this revert I take it. Our mission is to provide the public with accepted knowledge, not with rumors. See WP:NOT, really. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Philippe Cousteau Jr.

Your edits to this environmentalist were of concern to me. I returned the "Awards" section you deleted - how many ways are there to list awards? IMO this is not what our copy vio regulations are about at all. The editor that added this info is apparently a newbie - how long would it have taken you to change a few words in the "Books" section? I cut it back a little and put it back in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (one more in a deservedly continuing series)

Jytdog, your timely addition of high-quality material regarding epinephrine injectors is one of the latest examples of your dedication, which is much-appreciated!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For a long history of informed, neutral, nuanced, and well-sourced edits, particularly relating to science & technology, business, and ethics, and where these areas overlap. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Middle 8! Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

HMB FAC

Hey Jytdog. I know that you've already indicated your support for this FAC nomination in your review section, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to indicate this with a comment that includes the word Support in boldface; the summary of each nomination at WP:FAC is automatically updated with the total count of bolded "Support" and "Oppose" statements on the nomination page. It's also generally easier for FAC coordinators to determine the stance of a reviewer when this is done.

Thanks again for doing a review of the article; I appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

does this work? Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks again! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that again please

This is against WP:TPO, and I would hope you do not repeat the action. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My action was correct. Your message was uncivil not to mention futile (the first step in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is to bring arguments to persuade the closer to change what they did, and there was no way that message was going to persuade anyone). You just vented, and that is uncivil. You are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars. I am sorry for you. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars" And you try to lecture me on civility? You were wrong to delete and you are uncivil and wrong to comment on me here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Last time I suggested you were getting too involved was regarding policing COI. This time I'm suggesting you should keep clear of the infobox wars unless you do a lot of reading first, and certainly do not assume the role of civility guardian. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Schrocat I am not going to engage with you; I let you know your message was uncivil; you chose to restore it. There you go. Thanks Johnuniq for your advice. Jytdog (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL, are you another person commenting on the situation without knowing that it concerns Noël Coward? Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq - I was aware of the RfC close at Noel Coward before I saw the note from SchroCat. My removal per NPA and giving the notice was because this was not a good faith WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; it was just expressing anger. If Schrocat chose to repeat that message at AN to formally challenge the close it would go precisely no where on the basis of what was presented there. It was just attacking an admin who had the guts to close a very toxic RfC. It is not OK behavior, and being a participant in a toxic, longrunning dispute doesn't make it OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for the thoughtful reversion and helpful message on my talk page. You are a true gentleperson. Cheers! —Verbistheword (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)