User talk:Jytdog

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ALS

The claim still lacks empirical support and should be removed. Adding in Hawking certainly makes sense, the only thing you can say that has empirical support about ice buckets is that it exploded on social media in summer 2014, SOUGHT to increase awareness of the disease, and resulted in record contributions to ALS research. If you want to say that go for it, but the claim that currently exists at the top neither belongs nor has support. This was not something that nobody knew about until people started dropping buckets of ice on their heads, and the way this is currently written is insulting. Furthermore, it takes at least 2 for an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.175.137 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, but please discuss on the article Talk page. i just got into a stupid argument because i forgot i had responded to someone here instead of on the article Talk page. You can just copy your comment above, there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment at the mediation page

Believe me, I can understand how you feel. It's constantly exasperating. But I don't think that what he said to you was really a criticism of you. And the way that you said you were leaving the mediation looks really, really bad. Please sleep on it, and reconsider. I don't want to be all alone there. And you cannot be confident that even what I said was an emerging consensus will hold. You will likely want to keep an eye on that discussion. Leave it, and you let the people who disagree with you win. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to bail on you. The quotes around "definition" were sarcastic. There is no other reason to put them there. You know all that drama about "male" editing ruining WP? The underlying issues are real and by now I am sick of it. (the drama was childish, but the underlying issues are real). It is starting to disgust me. But for you I will strike what I wrote and try to stay in it. I am sorry to you, for having lost self-control. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I am very relieved that you are going to stick with it. I really appreciate it. And I want you to understand that I agree with you about much of it being disgusting. Some of what is going on there is some of the nastiest and most dishonest stuff I've seen at Wikipedia, and I suspect that it will ultimately end badly for some users. Then again, one has to expect a certain amount of that at a page where that is the subject matter. But ultimately, this place is only a website, and it isn't worth it to let some anonymous person get in the way of the more pleasurable aspects of this hobby. It's important not to take this stuff personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that I'm guilty of pulling you back into it, I see that you have been repeatedly getting aggravated by those other editors. Please understand, I agree with you. You are not wrong about it. But I'm pretty sure that all of this mess is eventually going to find its way to ArbCom. Therefore, you don't want to have too much of a track record of having made comments that you either had to subsequently strike out, or that can be read as reflecting anger at those other editors. Every time that something strikes you as bad faith – and I fully agree that there's a lot of that – please resist the urge to reply right away. Step back from it for a brief while, and reply when you are ready to take the posture of being unruffled and above it all. Assume that everything where you hit the "save" button is going to come under scrutiny, because I expect that it will, and in a very serious way. You don't need to change the minds of people whose minds cannot be changed, but you do need to appear to neutral third parties, who will later look at everything, to be someone who was always trying to be accommodating and cheerful. A technique I find useful: You can be earnestly "amazed" that someone would think that you meant something, but you don't want to be angry that they would think it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I imagine where this will end up is a series of RfCs. But I totally hear what you are saying. Nose clean. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Normally, I like content RfCs. But here, RfCs won't really achieve a lasting consensus, because they will attract editors who respond on gut reactions instead of based on a careful consideration of the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is bloody hard to WP:AGF when all semblance of GF has been flushed down the toilet by a non GF editor. There are loads of them working diligently to promote their pet subject, and many are protected by pet admins too. I actually haven't looked at the subject of the dispute you are talking about, but Jytdog understands where I'm coming from, and has far more patience than I. I suppose my question is - "What do you do when good faith is no longer possible, when editors have shattered the boundaries of good faith? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very valid question, and I'll tell you my personal answer to it. In the situation where Jytdog and I find ourselves, I am already past the point of AGFing, in my own mind, about those other two editors. (Strictly speaking, more so for one than for the other. I think one of them is an out-and-out POV-pusher, whereas the other is a sincere but misguided person who insists on strict readings of certain guidelines beyond all common sense.) But there are really two dimensions to this, and the difference between them matters a lot. It's one thing for me to think those things. But it's another altogether to say it out loud. Nothing in Wikipedia's expectations and norms restricts what editors can or should think. But it matters how we communicate with one another. We can be judged by that, and it's appropriate that this is so. The reason I've been getting in Jytdog's face about it, is that I've seen in the past how bad-faith editors can goad good-faith editors into saying things that get the good-faith editors in trouble, sometimes deep trouble, as in getting banned. In fact, that's part of the Bad-Faith Editing Handbook^TM. Jytdog is a good-faith editor, and I'm trying to prevent him from falling prey to that scheme. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Jobs in Dubai

Thanks. I was delaying that until after Johnmoor's problems were addressed. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, thanks for addressing Johnmoor's behavior and editing. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. i care about COI in WP a lot. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

COI/paid editing warning

You gave me a COI/paid editing warning earlier this morning. I understand the conflict of interest policies and have not written any articles in over 6 months. I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia unbiased but I'm wondering why exactly you decided to issue such a warning given my lack of posting and editing. No article I have ever written in reference to my work has ever been published. I appreciate the information, I'm just confused as to why I'm receiving it now out of the blue from an editor I've never spoken to. WhitleyOConnor (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles that you worked on recently came to my attention. The matter of timing is really not important. It appears that you worked on a bunch of articles related to Integris. If you did that work for pay, you should disclose that per the terms of use, as described here WP:COI and in the notice I left on your Talk page. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering . . .

Why you reverted my edits to Medtronic? Usually it is good etiquitte to put a note of explanation on the editor's talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

it appeared to be vandalism. Medtronic is not a plc. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as of today (and as a result of its reverse merger with Covidien, Medtronic IS a plc. Go to Medtronic's homepage and at the bottom you will see "© 2015 Medtronic plc" Could you please self-revert your reversion? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

done. its good to present sources for that sort of change - I did that. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe

Hello Jytdog, You recently reverted an edit on "Fine-tuned Universe" based on the reason, "No original research".

If so, then why is the following text allowed in the page? It also cites the very same original research used by the edit you reverted.

"Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[17]"

The edit that you reverted was only adding more clarifying information to the above text using the same cited source. Therefore, the edit should be accepted. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond on the article Talk page - would you please post the question there? (it is hard to keep track of things when they don't happen in one place) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have posted the question on the article talk page. Thank you.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI comment

I had moved your comment a bit down to the section which was started by Indoscope, as Lost River was the article that effected him most. Lost river is a different subject where there is agreement not to include anything that is not mentioning or reviewing the book, however, one of the user is not satisfied with it because he believes that the content of the book promotes fringe. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I would have no problem if you completely remove your comment, because we are trying to focus on content without getting into ANI comment which will likely cause trouble or still remain unhelpful at this situation. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

you did not have my permission to move my comment. and no i will not take it down. 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts about the edits in the OCD Wiki

Hi bro, I made some edits in the OCD wiki. If you are not satisfied with my edit, you are free to re-edit it. :) But please just see what i scribbled in the Talk page of OCD wiki. :)

Thanks,

Robin Mathew Rajan (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I know that you have done a lot of splitting articles and I'm wondering if you would be willing to split the HIV section from the Breastfeeding article. I've been trying to get someone to do it for years. Let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I had a quick look. Is the issue that article is too long and you would like to compact it? If so, I took a look at that section and it looks like to could be condensed a lot. The WHO subsection, for example, talks a lot about an outdated study and repeats things from the 2010 report. If you like I can work it over and we can see how it looks then. If you would just like me to split it out and do no more I could do that too. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, take a look at it. I've actually done that more than once in the past and the more I read the more tricky it got to be... If you can figure out a way to do it, great. I guess that my idea to move it was really a way to sweep it under the carpet because I'd guess that it is mostly related to African women and not the general reader of our breastfeeding article. So as you read it again, keep in mind that as a separate article it could go more into of the problems that their first advise caused. Maybe...it's been a long time since I read it close enough to really absorb what it was saying, but from memory that is what I remember. This would be a perfect student article and I've suggested it (rather than their usual well meant but often rather lame intents to add to present articles...). Let me know what you think - if you take a serious interest I will read it all again and we can discuss.

PS: Yes, the length is just awful... Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are quite busy with other articles and have decided to pester Waid instead.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial

Too bad rather than just removing what I posted which is widespread criticism of the study, you didn't look for better sources. Just because it didn't meet some technicality, not having the information on there is not beneficial for society. I may try to look more later to see what I can find, but I wish you and others who revert things would try to help contribute to the community in that way. Predecess (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G. Edward Griffin. 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.

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. – S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

It's generally expected that you first discuss the outcome with the closer on their user talk before taking it to AN (I'd imagine you could still self-revert at this point). I think it also leads to better chances of an overturn, since any issues with the close will be clearer and editors will see that you've already tried to get a resolution. :-) Sunrise (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks, will unwind and try that first. thank you for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit implementing close at Griffin article

I was unaware that the "yes" voters were in the majority, because the situation seemed rather evenly balanced, and I didn't count votes. As I noted somewhere (in the close?), the strong point of the "no" was its clear point that "conspiracy theorist", as generally used in contemporary English, is a fundamentally non-neutral way of describing someone. If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. You can disagree with him fiercely (believe me, if I were writing a blog about this kind of person, you'd quickly see my disagreement), but drop your disagreements at Special:Login. Unless you can convince me that all involved parties (including Griffin) would consider his ideas conspiracy theories, your arguments will not gain traction, because a neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS; I thought of this as soon as I'd hit "save". Since the beginning, we've held that "the neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree...We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." Source is this page, the earliest accessible revision of WP:NPOV. We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents; the supporters will agree that the scientific establishment has rejected ideas such as HIV denialism and laetrile for cancer, but I assume that they won't agree that his ideas are conspiracy theories according to the common use of the phrase. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(answering here instead of your Talk page - for those who watch my page, my query is here) ). Hi Nyytend, thanks for your note. My sense is that you don't deal with the vast amount of pseudoscience that people try to add to Wikipedia. WP:PSCI is the part of NPOV that deals with this kind of stuff, and it is crystal clear - and this is the heart of the policy, not any kind of wikilawyering - that we call a spade a spade in WP. If something is batshit crazy and mainstream, solid, reliable source, say so, we say so. Netural does not mean "neutered" nor does it mean "not negative." If you are not familiar with this, see Jimbo's quote on "lunatic charlatans". Please. In any case, will you please, please agree to restrict your implementing edit to the actual subject of the RfC - the lead sentence? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The heart of the policy is that we present things in a balanced fashion and avoid taking sides in disputes: when people dispute whether an item is a spade or a hoe, it's not neutral to call it a spade: neutrality is saying that the large majority of commentators call it a spade, that the scientific establishment calls it a spade, that those calling it a hoe are definitely in the minority, etc. As I noted already, if it's inappropriate to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the intro's first sentence, it's also inappropriate to call his ideas conspiracy theories a few sentences later. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow, I'd say that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV or is at least a rather perverse personal interpretation of it. Where there's a genuine dispute (i.e. in RS) sure WP doesn't take sides, but where the dispute is betwen a fringe notion ("Tony Blair is a lizard") and rationality in RS, WP will come straight out and privilege reality without engaging in the WP:GEVAL fallacy. May be an idea to get some input from editors with expertise in this aspect at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: please clarify (for all concerned) to whom are you referring as misunderstanding NPOV – Jytdog or Nyttend? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Thanks for replying. I understand your perspective on NPOV, and you are certainly entitled to that. However, we had an RfC and we needed someone to close it. What I have been asking you, is to respect the question that was asked in the RfC, about the first sentence, and limit the implementing implementing edit to the scope of the RfC. You haven't responded to the issue of the scope of the RfC, which is troubling. I am sorry to say this, but it becoming clear to me that in this specific close, you didn't honor the job of closer and instead relied on your POV on the question. The editors working on the page need a close that reflects what folks actually said, and what both PSCI/FRINGE and BLP say. As I am sure you know, the close will have a strong influence on subsequent discussions, and strong and reasonable arguments were made that reflect PSCI more than your close (and perspective) did, and the close of the RfC should at least acknowledge them.

So... on the basis of our further discussion here and on your close, where you have not referred to the RfC nor to the actual discussion raised by the RfC but only to your personal views on the question, I am now asking you to a) recognize that you came to the close with a strong pre-existing POV on the question; b) decide if you can be a neutral judge and make a fair close; c) if you decide you can, to re-close, on the basis of carefully reviewing PSCI and BLP and the RfC discussion with an open mind and reflecting that review in the close; and d) as i've requested before, limit any implementing edit to the first sentence alone. If you reflect and decide your POV on the question is too strong to be a neutral closer, would you please withdraw your close and !vote instead? We are all human and have our perspectives on things, and we all mistakes. I think your close was a mistake. I say that with respect for you. We all make mistakes.

As I have written before, I am open to a close that ends up deciding that the first sentence should not refer to "conspiracy theorist" (the arguments about overkill with respect to the first sentence were very reasonable to me -- and you have not mentioned even those arguments made in the RfC) - I am not opposing the conclusion you drew per se; just the way you got there and your implementing edit. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above,

My personal views on the subject are that he's quite the idiot, and I'd like to say so. My views on the general question are that we need to present all articles in ways with which both supporters and opponents can agree, i.e. a neutral point of view, and this necessarily excludes the use of derogatory language, which (as I already noted) the discussion concluded "conspiracy theorist" to be in this context, and which would definitely include the way I'd like to describe him. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are still asserting your own views on PAG (not on Griffin, but on PAG), instead of acknowledging that was needed was a close of an RfC that took into account what people said in the RfC. I appreciate the discussion but at this point, I will move to have your close reviewed. I'll notify you when I do that. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have requested review of the close here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog

Hi Jytdog, I took some time to read your profile and have found an immense respect for you. Thanks again for improving the wiki community. I understand we may have some differences in views over the ANU page I believe this is good for the community. Thanks again mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.180.103 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

how kind of you! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Argus retinal prosthesis

Hi there. I see that you reverted my recent addition to this article with the edit summary "(remove PROMO)". Did you mean WP:PROMO? If so, I wonder if you could possibly explain why you think that is the case? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to this "In February 2015 a trial of the device was announced by the UK's Manchester Royal Eye Hospital." Who cares? Not notable. And yes it looks like an attemp to promote the hospital. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that many visually-impaired people who live in Manchester, and the North West of England in general, will certainly care. You think the hospital will "benefit" from this in some way? Perhaps you could tell us how many trials of this device have taken place in the UK as a whole up to now? Your assertion that "it's not notable" could then be put into context. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HI martin - I understand that you were well intentioned. I'll go further than you -- if this feasibility trial is successful, and if the subsequent pivotal trial is successful, and if the company is able get regulatory approval and approval of payors to bring the Argus to market in this indication, it could be a game changer for millions of people. (see page 10 here, the second paragraph of the "Our Market" section for a description of how the Manchester trial fits in Second Sight's overall strategy).

Generally, we don't discuss specific clinical trials that are ongoing nor the sites where they are occurring; the exceptions that I am aware of, are when there are big trials ongoing that are designed to resolve really big or controversial questions and are therefore discussed in independent secondary sources, in a serious way. The source you brought is a typical news media piece hyping medical news; the news media love "wow" health news and generally overhype the actual work being done and editors often "fall" for that. Per WP:MEDRS we source health content based on secondary sources published in the biomedical literature and statements of major medical & scientific bodies. We do not deal with cutting-edge WP:CRYSTALBALL matter that may or may turn out to be important. We cannot know at this time if Argus will work in dry AMD. Overall we aim to communicate reliable information to the public about health matters - we avoid yanking people this way and that with news about research being done that doesn't even have results yet (as in this case) or about provisional results that are not vetted in secondary sources. The news media so often (sadly) do yank people around with the kind of hype found in the source you brought.

With regard to Second Sight's feasibility study --only after the results of that trial are published and then those results are discussed in a secondary source per MEDRS - only at that time, should the matter be discussed in WP.

I looked at your contribs and you don't seem to edit much in health related matters, but that is how Wikiproject Medicine rolls. If this conservative approach doesn't makes sense to you, please do see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and please consider reading the lead of an essay I am drafting - if you like please see it - Why MEDRS?.

But yes, your edit, based on that source and emphasizing the site of the trial, seemed promotional to me, and not in line with how we handle health matters in WP. It did accurately reflect the source - I definitely grant you that - but that is not the kind of source we use for health-related content in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait, then. Thanks for your thoughtful answer. A lot more helpful that just saying "who cares", I think. I'm well aware of WP:MEDRS thanks, and I'd suggest that my editing history (or your evaluation of it) is wholly irrelevant. I'm also still at a loss to see how adding this news item "promotes" the hospital concerned. It's not making any claims about effectiveness, it's just a factual statement about a volunteer trial. If readers go to that article wanting to know "has this device ever been trialled in UK?" - what do they find exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that you have now adjusted your response further. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

yes sorry I hadn't noticed your response. it was just a tweak.. in any case, based on what you wrote here I no longer believe that your edit was intended to be promotional of the hospital; sorry about that. You would be surprised (or maybe not) at how often promotional matter is added. I believe you were just trying to reflect the source. I think you see the problems now with the source, which is great. I only brought up your contribs because people who don't often edit health content are often a bit flummoxed by how project med operates... i didn't intend to denigrate you at all. with regard to your question - honestly, with respect to whether any given intervention works or not, the town or country where it was tested is not relevant to understanding if it is safe and effective, nor to getting regulatory approval to sell it (outside of issues that might arise with regard to the population -- regulatory authorities around the world care about race, sex, and age differences, and, for example, won't approve a drug for use in a country where one race is predominant if it was tested in a trial where that race wasn't well represented. So you can't get approval of a drug in china if you only test it in, say, Switzerland.) That is not the case here as far as I can see. Can we just wait until there is significant coverage of the safety and efficacy of Argus in dry AMD in MEDRS sources? It will be several years til we know anything - Second Sight estimates 2019. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you understand why I was thrown by your edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I do indeed, and I apologize again. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Context

I think this should be restored.[1] Without context the previous sentence makes little sense. If you agree you can revert my edit. You wanted to discuss it first.[2] So, I reverted my edit for discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi QG - we should do this on the article Talk page, if that is OK with you. If so I would be happy to respond there. Thanks for discussing! (I did take the time to track down why you are asking me, and I guess it is b/c of this - just recording here so I don't have to do that again) Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you not going to revert my edit by now then I don't think I'm going to change your mind with discussing it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

as you will! thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Depression revert

Your revert here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depression_%28mood%29&curid=840273&diff=645754210&oldid=645753821

Maybe a decision on reverting this would have been better left to someone who has first-hand personal experience with the issue described in the edit? :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

funny man.  :) i feel bad for that guy tho and i have had my share of rejection. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (clarifying that i wasn't saying something ickyJytdog (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

That edit is hilarious. I don't mean to make fun of someone's pain, though, if he or others have went through that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we just discovered the origins of Gamergate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Or one can hope, anyway! Kudos on you for having infinitely more patience than most. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you sandy! you are an inspiration to me. hang in there! Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

As far as Talk:Autism, I see little hope of ever getting through to this individual. It occurs to me that continuing to engage will do little more than encourage them further with the result being a never-ending talk-page back-and-forth. They've got a point to make and they will do anything to get that point across. What we've already seen with the edit warring tells me what the result will eventually be. If you get my drift. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed! I am just trying to make my point clearly, and will soon stop responding. Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention will be needed there. But seriously, getting trolled into suggesting an FA be merged away? I can't go back and fix all this editor's edits ... too busy IRL ... but there's a long mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

hey sandy. well... no. I thought about it, before proposing the merge. folks may well disagree and i will be interested to hear what is said. i am not pushing for the merge, but it seems worth discussing well. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But you understand that means defeaturing the FA autism? Eubulides, who wrote that suite, is long gone, and for me to keep up with all the trolls and vandals and POV pushers all these years to try to maintain an FA ... well, fine, if we defeature it, the whole suite will go to heck. And I can have another extended vacation :)) But I'm not sure you realize that what you are proposing is to do away with a featured article. Just checking. They are two separate concepts and articles, so why would we eliminate top content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I do understand it is FA. really I do. And i understand what went into that. I am just proposing this and it is just a partial merge. With the rise of the notion of ASD in the literature, it is my view (and others may well disagree and i may be dead wrong) that the ASD article should be the lead article in the suite. If folks agree (and only if they do) I am willing to work very closely under and with you to make it surgical so that we do not de-feature it, or so that if someone demands an FA review that we pass easily... Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Check out this doozie. And see next this editor's contribs. Sheesh, I had a month of very hard work IRL and came back to this steaming pile of junk.

A partial merge, in this case, means we defeature a featured article. I don't see how you can stay comprehensive if you merge things that are about classic autism to the ASD article. If that's the way consensus goes, though, it's no skin off my back ... I just want to make sure you understand the process and what you are proposing. I only watch the autism suite because it was once in great shape, written by a top editor who left, and the suite had two FAs (autism and asperger). If you believe the content is in the wrong article, the article ends up defeatured, and I have one less suite of articles to watch ... which is not a problem for me. They will deteriorate, though ... the rest of the suite shows where they will end up. I'm not yet convinced that content has to be removed from autism, or that ASD can't be better written without gutting autism, but you have better access to new journal articles than I do, and I don't have time for a major rewrite of anything ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

hm. I try to be aware of how articles relate to one another. from my perspective, to the extent that in the real world, ASD has overtaken Autism as the "hauptgattung" then the articles should change to reflect that, and if FA holds that back, then FA is a bad thing. that's my perspective, generally. but i do hear you that these articles are constantly degraded and the FA status is actually very useful to keep that degradation at bay. i don't want to mess things up for you and make things more unpleasant for you than they are! i will drop this. we want sandy to stay! Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article's in the wrong place, so be it! Do the right thing. I just don't have time to write a new article, or watch a crap article, but if you say that content is in the wrong place, I will support defeaturing the FA.

Anyway, like we don't have enough to keep us busy (and what takes our time over content writing): User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#AD_OOTB. Yes, it would be nice if we could just focus on rewriting the autism suite, instead of the usual in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

so, so much time wasted keeping out nonsense! Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Years ago, Colin and I had great plans for fun and interesting articles we were going to write. Now, every time I come to Wikipedia, it's to stuff like this that we can't even keep up with. If we were actually doing something valuable in here-- like putting our heads together to rewrite autism-- it would be fun and worthwhile. Instead, we spend our time just trying to keep our heads above water and dealing with complete garbage. I'm not opposed in theory to exploring your idea ... it's just that it's so discouraging to try to maintain any standard of quality in here. You take care there ... I think I'll go renovate another house :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

collaborating is the best part of working here. tell you what, when and if you feel you have the energy and desire, let me know, and we'll rework the autism articles together. only when you are ready and willing. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration is the best part, if editors know how to do it and will do it. Another thing that is awesome (and liberating) once you realize it applies to everyone here is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Its accompanying essay, WP:Wikipedia does not need you is another freeing concept. But, when you all decide (if you do decide) to rewrite Autism, might I suggest you get someone who is actually on the spectrum and has a good deal of education and experience in the subject? Just saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note, Winkelvi. Any rewrite would involve anybody who wants to join and would be discussed first, of course! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FAR mergers

Background FYI:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division/archive1
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name leading to Wikipedia:Featured article review/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive1

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

cochlear implants

Hey Jytdog,

Looking for some help with the cochlear implant article. I can see that you are not happy with the changes I tried to make. I did what was initially suggested and removed the primary source and linked to a secondary source. I thought that would be fine but looks like it is not. I think that the optogenetics research is important and it builds upon the research being done at Northwestern University. How would you suggest that the research be referenced here? I'd like to make known that I am not associated in any way with the institution where this research is being done -- my interest is personal because of my own issues with hearing loss. I think it's important that everyone know what is going on in the world of hearing research. Also, if I'm not supposed to be mentioning the institution that is doing the research, why is Northwestern University mentioned in the same paragraph? Thanks 64.53.165.92 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for replying on the Talk page. that is where discussion belongs. i'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop bickering

The unhatted thread is exactly about "how we are editing" -- and that is the problem. It is editors commenting about each other, not article content. That is a behavior matter. Also, since "[you] want no part of this. Unwatching." why unhat the thread? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Please revert so that you talk from one side only. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

you all are on a very short trip to arbcom. I have done my best to stop you. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While I may be named, I'm confident I'll be okay. The hat was my effort to stop the bickering. Oh, well, maybe indefinite PP is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, as your friend let me remind you that you've had other experienced editors chide you for your "pseudo-admin" style interventions. Regardless of the merits of your concern, it's never a good idea to position yourself that way, especially when you are an involved editor on an article. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect...

You were probably write about not making substantive edits to Griffin. The environment of that page is toxic. Steeletrap (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That's why I stayed out of it as well. A lot not wanting to hear behavior problems and quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black type behavior there. Arbcom or topic bans are looking more like a reality there, so I think Jytdog made a good choice to withdraw now to let the troublesome editors make their own bed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's too late. The damage has been done. Atsme☯^Consult 08:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its a shame one of the most experienced Fringe topic editors we have feels that way, the project will suffer for it. However, I feel the newbie box ticking editors who recently appeared ought to be ashamed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin AE

Hello Jytog. Why withdraw the edit-warring thread concerning Griffin/Atsme? It seems to me that it would be clearer to have that adjudicated on the record. Or are you going to add Atsme to Steeletrap's name for Enforcement in that thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I generally find that 3RR threads that I file are acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit that long without being touched by an admin. I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that were imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins there judged that it was pointless now because of the DS. I don't know. So I noticed Callenac of the 3RR, but callenac also took no action. Then I saw that Callenac had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and took it there. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that Callanac referred Atsme to AE and it appears to me that Atsme may have understood that to be an endorsement of her complaint rather than advice about the proper venue. I would have seen no harm in leaving the 3RR thread up. It's clear cut and the AE is somewhat different. I don't expect to participate in the AE and from what I've seen the most motivated and aggressive editors tend to dominate these AE threads. I don't know what Steeletrap's history is with that article but I do feel that unless the case is explicitly broadened to cover the range of disruption that's occurred over the recent past, the thread is not going to help calm things down. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanac is being appropriately sphinx-like. I will ask him. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing I have learned from various Arbcom matters is that the Arbs and the Enforcement Admins there are, necessarily, unfamiliar with all the details surrounding incidents and histories of behavior. It takes a huge amount of effort to present a concise clear summary of the issues. Unfortunately, although the Admins there may be quick studies they can also be misled by extraneous or incomplete information. Often the most motivated participants come off sounding convincing simply because others don't wish to invest the time to fully discuss the matter. For example, imagine you are an Admin coming at this cold and trying to figure out what's happening. Remarks about various content disputes, the RfC close, and the like would point you to peripheral issues and divert your attention from the overriding behavioral problem. That's just how these things work, unless a highly motivated editor is prepared to put in the effort to clarify things. I've never edited this article and I just happened by coincidence to see some of the talk page issues and the POV problems. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you this: I briefly edited the Bitcoin article last year. It was dominated by POV believers who seemed to know nothing beyond what they'd read in promotional outlets. There were bitter fights about calling Bitcoin a "currency" in the lede. I gave up and left. Now a year later there are still POV editors but the article's in much better shape. The lede is pretty good now. One way or the other these things tend to get resolved in the right direction. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

USC Eye Institute

I have rewritten the article USC Eye Institute in my sandbox and used it to replace the original article which you objected to and which was indeed speedily deleted. I hope you approve the new version. Having accepted the article at AfC, I felt an obligation to replace it when it was deleted. There is further discussion of the matter on my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments and the undeserved barnstar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome! I meant it. I have worked over your draft and in my view it is good to go. some surprising things turned up. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks warning

I am required to attempt to resolve the problem with you here before escalating this problem elsewhere. Knowingly or not, you have been bullying and attacking editors throughout the encyclopedia, often in the GMO/GE topic area. You also have a documented habit of strategically and tactically poisoning the well against any user you disagree with by repeatedly using the word "disgusting" to refer to their arguments and the word "fringe" to dismiss their concerns. Your issues with civility have been pointed out to you many times in the past by users you trust, so I'm not telling you anything you haven't already heard. But the bullying has to stop, as does your misuse of the word "disgusting", which you misplace on your opponents again and again. Feel free to delete this message after you read it, as the diff will remain in the page history for future use if needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)