Jump to content

User talk:Jytdog/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

changing user name

hi - thanks for the tip - i had no idea - i chose it when i wrote an article on that company for uni and then just kept using it - that's what you get for doing stupid plays on words - i've put in a request to just change it to my name Bella.me.organic (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

great :) seems like you are knowledgeable about organic stuff - looking forward to seeing you around. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Somatics peer-review invitation

I recently rewrote the Somatics article, which used to be narrowly focused on an alt-med therapeutic technique but now has a much broader scope. You seem to be an expert on the application of MEDRS, so I wanted to invite you to give it a look and see what needs fixing. FourViolas (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for asking! I will have a look. Jytdog (talk)

Censorship on GMO Controversies TALK page

I don't think it is right for you to censor my comments ( hereand here) on the talk page about a real problem with the article. It only adds to the NPOV problem by silencing reasonable dissent. I received your comment about why you think such censorship was justified on my talk page here. You say this comment is about "editors" not content. My comment is about content, about how the content is slanted because of editor behavior, as exhibited by your response to my pointing out that fact by censoring it! If there is any place to talk about the problem that pervades the slanted editing of the page by a number of editors who all share the same slanted POV, I would think it would be talk page of the article, not having to go to every single editor of the article past and future to talk about that behavior--which I am sure you would accuse me of canvassing about as well anyway as you suggested you would do here. This authoritarian kind of silencing of dissent and speaking about the very real problem on of the GMO articles seems very un-Wikipedian.David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I cited WP:NPA and WP:TPG with regard to removing your comments. You don't mention either of those in your response. I suggest you base your discussion on policy and guidelines; they are what govern Wikipedia.
With regard to your concerns about content: it is one thing to say on an article Talk page: "The article doesn't cite Source A and it I believe it should because policy blah says blahblah" vs "The editors working on this article are biased and censoring content" The first is completely fine article Talk page discussion; the second is completely not fine.
with regard to your concerns about behavior, this is the last time I will say this. Please bring up the issues you have politely with the editors with whom you have a concern, on their Talk page. If you do not see a change in behavior, bring it to the notice board relevant to the policy you believe is being violated. That's how it works here. here
Finally, you have canvassed in that you went to several other editors - ones whom you thought would be sympathetic - to discuss your concerns about article content and the behavior of yet other editors. You were doing very straight up "community organizing" which is absolutely not allowed in WP. here. That is different from actually raising a concern about specific behavior, with the editor whose behavior you are concerned about. Very different. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I mentioned the censorship issue here. I explained there why there was no "personal attack". David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read that, and the discussion at Dielectric's Talk page too. Everyone is telling you the same thing, and you are not listening. It is sad to see. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:COI

Hello Jytdog - Just wanted you to know that I responded to you on Jim Webb's talk page. (Webbfooter (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

Hi Jytdog - I responded to your comments on my talk page and the COI noticeboard re the Ontario Ombudsman issues. Thanks so much for the advice and assistance. Eljaydubya (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, both of you, I have responded in each place. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon says

"N'interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

:) but i am no such great general. i do hear you. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

COI

Wow indeed. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

copyedit

Thanks for catching my incredibly sloppy typing too late in the night on National Practitioner Data Bank; I rewrote it. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

my pleasure! Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I knew I should have clarified better

(Taking this here because it's starting to veer off topic for the AfD.)

Thing is, I (A) wasn't sure whether genital mutilation qualified as gendered violence (and was using the other article as a reference - my faulty assumption was that you took it down because you thought it didn't), and (B) had somehow mixed up castration (which is generally voluntary) with circumcision (which usually isn't). In retrospect, both were rather ridiculous errors - I should probably stop with the late-night editing. Again, sorry for the trouble. Cheers, Random (?) 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK. You've been quite decent about apologizing/explaining - thanks for that. Thinking about the motivations of other editors is never a good idea; things go better when we all focus on content/sources (what is actually written) as much as possible, and only start to think about behavior (not motivation) of other editors - what they write, where they write, how they use "undo (concrete, verifiable behaviors) if behavior is problematic. Try to stay concrete. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks. In any case, I agree with you about the gender parity thing (I even pointed it out myself earlier), though still not that that warrants article deletion. But hey, to each their own, and if it's kept, I'd definitely support some form of protection - until 8chan leaves this place alone, at the very least. Random (?) 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination) Question on process

Hello Jytdog, I am rather new to wikipedia editing, you seem experienced, so I have a question to you. Would it be possible to limit editing rights on the violence against men article? I absolutly see your point that it attracts a lot of rubbish. But I do think that it is relevant and a good article could be written. So would it be possible that a few people, who show the goodwill to do this properly, create a good article and afterwards it is blocked from further editing? Kind Regards, Lucentcalendar (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There are very levels of page protection - broadly: anybody; registered users only; auto-confirmed only: reviewers only ("pending changes"), administrators only. The policy I just linked to there explains them and how they are used. There is a very strong emphasis in the policy to toward keeping articles as unprotected as possible, per our mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There needs to be a demonstrated history of abuse on the article to protect it. I imagine this article would get some level of protection eventually. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your anwer, I think this level "Pending changes protection" would look like the right thing. I will suggest that on the comment page of the article.Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
it can't be imposed until there is a demonstrated problem... you are free to try, of course. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Try is the best one can do ;-), I am really frustrated about all these articles around gender topics. My personal believe is that it would be possible to create, short, concise, and non-controversial articles. However, as long as both male and female related articles are nothing but a collage of hatred one group supposedly shows towards the other, we are going nowhere. But again, who am I to judge, I can only try.Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genetic engineering. 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. David Tornheim (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

In these edits [1] you removed content as a copyvio

It is actually liveleaks.com that copied from use. We had the content first per [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh thanks for telling me!! I will-self revert. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There of course might be other reasons to remove it. DeDe4Truth does not really get how thing work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
that is clear! i don't like to make invalid edits though... am not done working that over and will re-look at that and other content. thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Message added 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rahat (Message) 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Logging

Don't forget the log the DS sanction notifications. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Guettarda (pinging, as i don't know if you are watching) - Thank you! Template:Ds/alert says that the alerts are automatically logged, and that is what i assumed happened.... is that wrong? Happy to do whatever is appropriate. Thanks again Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I was out of date. My first reaction to your notification was "surely he was notified before", and I checked the log on the AC page, and found none, but didn't see your notification either. Had I paid attention, I would have noticed that the log ended in 2014 (probably with the implementation of the new DS system). Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I am only starting to learn about the complexities of arbcom/DS (I always have just stayed as far away from all that as i could) and appreciate your intention to help me do things right. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop the mean edits!!! --207.241.247.150 (talk)

Jytdog, you are clearly making edits that break WP:NPOV.--207.241.247.150 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the Naturopathy talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts restoring the copyvio tags. In the future, I'll use it instead of speedy delete when I have any doubt that not all the article is copyvio. 67.131.235.220 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on exception to OUTING policy for editors advertising Wikipedia editing services for pay

Speaking purely as an editor, not with any hats,, I think that anything relating to outing needs to be publicised at the WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:CENT. I see that the policy has already been changed with comparatively little input at an earlier RfC. Because of my hats, I'm not doing this myself. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do that now. Really thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Username change requested

Sorry about the name violation...not intentional at all! I set up the new user name Mustangsdtpa, but how do I delete this user name? --Playbookpr (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When the request is processed, the name will be changed, so the old name will be gone.

WP:UNDUE actually applies to your revert, not my contribution

The idea that the DSM-5 is an authoritative source for information regarding the etiology of dementia is a minority opinion and the sources I cited were in fact mainstream. The NIMH is certainly representative of mainstream opinion and not of a minority, let alone a "very tiny minority", as is necessary to satisfy requirement for something to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Please do not revert it again. It is a sourced contribution. If you don't like it, try improving it instead of erasing it. Wikipedia is about contributions, not destruction. 24.236.138.19 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article Talk page, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Threatening new users on GMO articles who try to create balance

You are continuing to threaten new users who try to balance the GMO articles. This is a problem which I explained to you before and needs to stop. It has a similar affect as the canvassing you accused me of. Please work constructively to find consensus ON THE TALK PAGE of the article rather than threaten them with allegations of "edit warring", etc. This is the latest incident. David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, that this was in any way out of line. I invite you to bring me to ANI over this. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

/* Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco */ COI

I was fine with where everything was, including the note you left with FriendlyBillingsgate, until I read InedibleHulk's latest accusation on the COI Notice Board. There is absolutely no logic that finds FriendlyBillingsgate's message of COI concern as a personal Attack, but nothing that 'Hulk has said, including this latest. You really have to be kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thissilladia (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

please let it go. big side show. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
ok Thissilladia (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I placed this on the Marin talk page last night, in regards to asking for source submissions:
Are you referring to sources not in the article as it currently appears? (ie: stub), or do you mean before it was stubbed. Do you need me to resubmit the articles I had used in the controversies section? Thissilladia (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thissilladia (talk • contribs)
no. and i just answered on the talk page. thanks for following up. i plan on working on this over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


H Jytdog, I just rad the note that said you were handing over guidance of the Andre Marin and the Ontario Ombudsman pages to another editor. You had said in another note that you would stay on and ensure balance and I think you have done a very good job of diffusing the situation. The language of the new editor (on the Marin Talk page)who has taken over from you does not inspire confidence in achieving balance. She has made it quite clear that she has no knowledge of the twitter/controversies surrounding Marin, their weight nor is she interested; she has only made light of these: "Marin is outside my house right now tweeting" etc. Is it possible for you to stay on until they achieve some measure of stability? It now feels like the whole thing is just going to start all over again. Thissilladia (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear

I was wandering how do you know this is Nuklear [3], and why these synthesis-adding edits are disruptive? Materialscientist (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

just left a message on your talk page! :) Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is Nuklear. This user has been attempting to add copyrighted information for a long time. His socks pop up on our copy and paste detection system fairly frequently. Always the same. Synthesize information from some 1970s textbook. Sigh Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! he was on a roll today. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
He's back today on at least two IPs. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
can you point me? i caught a bunch this AM. thanks! 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
See contributions contributions. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Trigger happy with edit war notices?

I am surprised how quick you are to issue edit war notices , on an edit [4] which directly addressed the question raised by another editor. Edit wars are usually characterised as removals and reversions, not the simple addition of a reference! Cpsoper (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

the point of the edit war notice, is to prevent edit wars from continuing to the point where editors get into blockable territory, and urge editors to discuss things on the article Talk page. That is all they are. I am glad you did so! and by the way, it is "BRD", not "BRD+EW"; opening a discussion is not license to edit war the content back in Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, however there has been discussion, you had not replied, and another editor was engaged, and then BANG an edit war note for adding in greatly revised and shortened material - doesn't it seem just a little precipitous in retrospect? Nevertheless, I appreciate it would be better to gain more consensus before adding in more material, will observe this and I've added an rfc. Best wishes. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For knowing thyself and knowing when to WP:DISENGAGE and step back. We all need to do it sometimes, but it's a quality few possess. Your voice is very helpful on violence against men if you ever feel like returning, but only you know what is best for yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

dyslexia

thank you for your comment, you are correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hi, I wondered what you were doing here. You should definitely not archive a discussion you have taken part in. --John (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi John (pinging, not sure if you are watching) - if you are telling me to undo that, I will. If you are really asking what I am thinking, I will tell you. The section starts with an action I brought against another editor for his canvassing and personal attacks (1). In his response, the other user makes an argument that my behavior is a problem (2). I responded to that and really set up an RfC/U on myself (since ANI is now the place for that, and the problem editor doesn't know how to use this place) (3). That is three, too-long postings right there. But the table is set. Then Sandy replied to (3) with an off-topic comment in which she attacked a fourth editor, Viriditas, who replied, attacking her back, setting up a subsection to do so. The Sandy-Viriditas interaction is completely off topic.
On top of that, someone actually gave thoughtful replies to (1) and (3), but the response to (3) fell in the subsection set up by Viriditas to reply to Sandy. Again, the whole Sandy-Virtidas thing is off-topic, no one is going to act on that, and messes up an already diffcilt to follow thread. So in a series of steps, I hatted the whole Sandy-Viriditas interaction.
There you go.
But do let me know what you would like me to do - my judgement sometimes sucks. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like you to stop commenting on that discussion. You can either be neutral (like a clerk) or you can take part in the discussion. You have clearly taken part in the discussion so if you think any parts of it need hatted or archived you need to ask someone else to do it, not do it yourself. Commenting on the majority of !votes which you disagree with can be off-putting and may be counter-productive. Please stop doing it. --John (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will stop. Shall I strike? Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiki ed walks into a pub, and says, "What's the difference between hatting and archiving? Also bear in mind that John is WP:INVOLVED with QG, imho, meaning that he shouldn't be ivoting to support a ban as he did. IMHO. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to look at Article on Civitatis International

Hi Can you please have a look at the article for Civitatis International?, the page has been subject to attacks and vandalism by several users for some months now. I have attempted to restore previous more informative and referenced versions, but the same users are persistently deleting this information and from the talk page and replacing with attacks and defamatory content. Thanks Orbitalwatcher (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)OrbitalwatcherOrbitalwatcher (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've watch listed it. looks like it is doomed to be deleted tho... Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2015 (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:South Beach_Diet".The discussion is about the topic South Beach Diet. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerned about Bias Article

You continuously revert the edit on Intelligent Design (ID) when I remove the completely bias claim that it is "pseudoscientific". If you wish to claim that people claim it is pseudoscience then say this otherwise you are making a boldface assertion that violates wikipedia's neutrality clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aconner5 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

that issue has been discussed endlessly on the article talk page. please check out that page, and its archives. please also read and follow WP:BRD and open a new discussion there - after you read what is there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I wrote back but it bounced. :( Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't do emails but there was no other way to handle this... Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
understood, i got the message, on both levels, and appreciate it. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert [5]

Hi! never did any med pages before and long time since I did much editing. Tried to read but not sure what is acceptable sources? I assume that when I need a secondary source [6] is not one that would be accepted? and in this case would a mention as from a single study be accepted? --Stefan talk 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Would you please pose this question on the article Talk page? i'll be happy to reply there, and other interested editors will be able to join as well. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done --Stefan talk 00:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! i responded there - let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously, Jytdog? You are messing up the naturopathy article still?!--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh no, what did he do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
ich weiss nicht, ueber was er spricht. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jdilts

Jdilts, edits under his real name and is under a conflict of interest. It's perfectly acceptable to post his name and evidence of COI in these circumstances. Ridernyc (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Especially if the user has not said so him or herself. You can of course restore what you wrote, but I will bring you to ANI and in my view, you will likely be site-banned. Outing is serious business and the policy cannot just be blown off. It is perfectly possible to state a case at COIN without OUTING someone. You can say something like "The user Amoon has been editing the article about Company X in a promotional way. Amoon has not made any statement about their relationship with Company X." You ~might~ add something like "There is a person named Andrew Moon at Company X" - just that, saying no more than that, making no claims connecting Amoon to Andrew Moon. You ~might~ get away with doing that, but I would not even do that. Outing is serious. Really. People are site-banned for it. COI is serious too, and I work hard on it, staying very, very clear of OUTING. Dealing with COI in WP is controversial in many ways; one of the "hottest" areas of disagreements is that people who get interested in COI will start to completely blow off OUTING - you are doing exactly that. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He edits under Jdilts. He has outed himself. This is perfectly acceptable under the harassment policy, which specially mentions COI and editing under real names.

"The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.

Ridernyc (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There I have reposted it removing the identifying information. I still strongly disagree with you though. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Jdilts" could be random. It could be operated by a person named Jane Diltmoreland. It could be operated by the person you think it is. It could be operated by someone else (even you), who is trying to embarrass the person you are claiming is operating it. We have no way of knowing. You are the one making the connection; no one else. I very much encourage you to search the archives at WT:Harassment, and if you don't find an answer there, ask the general question at WT:Harassment (you could use the "Amoon" example I used above) before taking the very risky step of making that claim yet again. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

test

I am not sure if this is how I communicate with you on your talk page. Are you getting this message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifermaitland (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

yes! Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of COI?

Hi Jytdog-I was wondering if we could get the resolution of the COI tag on Lorna Taylor's page? Thanks --Mustangsdtpa (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

response to Petrarchan at ANI

Response to this question.

Above (here) I mentioned you in the following context: "I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV.".
Diffs supporting that you are a "hater" of me (which I note that you didn't question, so i guess we agree on that), just two difs: most recently (which is really mind-blowing to me in the depth of your conspiratorial thinking about me) and of course your "case study'
Diffs of your opposition to GMOs:
First. We have content throughout WP on the scientific consensus, that eating currently approved foods from GM plants is as safe as eating food from conventional sources (which does not say, and never has said, that "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt" (as you described it in your "case study" linked above.) You have been fighting against this statement for a long time now, and have characterized that statement as an "ad", and have stated that "You want truth about GMO's (or natural healing, big oil, etc.)? Wikipedia is NOT the place to find it". (in the more recent thing I linked to above
in this dif (middle edit) where you summoned groupuscule to a discussion at the March against Monsanto article, calling groupuscule "The editor who knows about this subject" (for readers, groupuscule created a long document deconstructing (and i mean that in the lit crit sense) the content and sources supporting the scientific consensus statement, which was considered and rejected in the RfC that upheld that content and sources on the scientific consensus.
probably the best single dif of your POV is this one, where you make your "GMOs are dangerous" POV clear.
this one too].
there you go Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yowza - There's some serious tinfoil going down in those diffs! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm hiding under my tinfoil blanket. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What hope is there? Jytdog

He discriminates. What hope is there for me to contribute! I'll create an account with even my own personal real life name. Will it help? It won't help.

They discriminate and that's it. I'm not even going to argue.

He didn't even READ what I wrote to him. He didn't even have the common decency to address my concerns. Do continue like this. If it makes you feel better, good. Run things like that. He didn't read anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't know what article you are working on. but please keep your focus on content and sources, and what policies and guidelines say. and when there are disputes about content, remain calm and use the procedures laid out in dispute resolution. Things never have to become emotional here. Take your time. Really listen to other people, too. Seek consensus. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your words Jytdog, but I've given up. An article rated C is enough for me. On a level 4 article. That's good enough for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
like i said, i don't know what article you are working on, and i don't know what the dispute is. but getting all emotional doesn't help - it gets in the way. good luck to you, really. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It's about objectivity and the truth. Neutrality. Thank you for comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a look at the South Beach Diet article.

I believe it accurately reflects a current NPOV perspective: i.e. that it has clinical acceptance by physicians because of its accessibility, and its worth to patients with the metabolic syndrome; but that nutritionists remain skeptical about the first phase's net benefits to the rest of the population. I've looked through many college-level nutrition texts, and the overwhelming majority do not classify it as a "fad diet" now, and I think anyone can see the distinct break between diets such as SB and Atkins, which provide quantifiable benefits, although perhaps not optimum ones, and the sort of loonacy(sic) that many fad diets promote. I'm sorry to see the other fellow is taking a break; while I think he was wrong here, a skeptical eye never hurts, especially when a commercial POV is being actively fostered. Anmccaff (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

i think i un-unwatchlisted it. i will re-watch list it. always happy to consider new content based on sources that comply with MEDRS -- if you have them, please bring them at the article. thanks. (btw, people take "fad diet" much more pejoratively than they should do - it just a term for most of all these diets that a) make proposals that go beyond the common sense things of limiting your caloric intake, eating a balanced diet, and getting enough exercise and b) have a whole money-making machine behind them, with branding etc to get there) Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think "fad" becomes a misnomer at a certain point; Atkins, for instance, has clear roots that go back to Banting, and has clear cosmetic worth, and some clinical...although how much remains an open question. South Beach really does seem mainstream in modern med sources, with three important caveats: the earlier versions empasized glycemic index rather than glycemic load; the diet was designed specifically for people who are borderline diabetics, generally, and what is a worthwhile trade-off for someone with metabolic syndrome might not be for someone who isn't affected with it; and over time, the importance of exercise has been emphasized more.
It also suffers, like any dieting text must, from the conflict between scientific observation and coaching. There's a fine line between cajolery and misrepresentation. Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That "shout" page

I pretty much knew as soon as I read the article and a few references that this'd be a long, possibly even resultless slog, it's not my fist rodeo, plus I'm tired, plus I've got an assignment due in 2 days I should be working on. I'm actually starting to wish that this guy hadn't mentioned the article to me the other day, after all, even if I manage to make the article truly reflective of the pros and cons of naturopathy in all its forms, there's nothing to stop the original smear campaigner from just reverting it all back. By the lingo I mean I don't know the acronyms, I know that the sentence contradicts one of the sources, but I don't know how to find out what that's called. Anyway, read the sentence and the two references if you like, and if you can't understand what I'm saying from that, I don't know what else I can do. I'm rekt. I'm going to go and dream that they renewed perception for another season.Gudzwabofer (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. i know what it is like to come across an article that is a complete wreck and to fight uphill to fix it. i have done that. but you need to move slowly, seriously, carefully, and respectfully - keep it human the whole way. really listen, and really talk, and always try to communicate and be as ready to change as you hope others will be. you build a reputation as you go.... and what you have done so far is dig a hole. what i appreciate, is that you have kept it human. keep that up! good luck. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A little better rested. I've posted again in Talk:Naturopathy if that isn't sufficient I'm not sure what else I can do.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

hope you had a good sleep! i will check it. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and the recent edits and reverts. What's the highest power I can appeal to on systematic NPOV violations? My sources are being accused of not lining up with the tone of the page. Even a reference to australian qualifications and private health rebates was removed.Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I advised you to take it slow. The edit note where you were first reverted says "Let's take this a little slower. At least part of the added content has issues with undue weight. Let's discuss on talk. " And per WP:BRD, you absolutely should be willing to discuss your changes, calmly and based on PAG. I told you to take it slow... take your time. You cannot charge in to any article and demand everything be fixed right now just like you want it. That doesn't fly anywhere in WP, for any reason. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just read your edits and the Talk page discussion. Please do read WP:NOTHERE. You are exhibiting many of the behaviors there. Please think about that. Please. Please remember that the absolute foundation of Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS - which means really dialoguing with other editors, on the basis of PAG. That takes time. It is literally impossible to turn any article around 180 degrees overnight. It takes time to gain consensus - this is the deeply human heart of WP. You really must acknowledge that and behave accordingly. You are interacting with other humans. If you continue as you are, you are going to either burn out quickly and leave angry, or you are going to get thrown out of here, and you will waste a bunch of other people's time in the process. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting on the editing, there's been some pretty poor justifications for rollbacks or refusing edits. One of the reasons I was initially given for rejection of a reference is that it was 10 years old. However, when I remove text from a section devoted to current regulations because it was 40 years old I was undoed. I already added stuff about the current regulatory environment in Australia and not all of it was from the government report which was contended, at any rate it seems both government reports are fine to be used as a basis for things not pertaining to medical evidence, so I assume I can have back the majority of what I wrote before? I'm afraid to ask for dread of what excuse will be cooked up next.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also you'll notice the sections I added were balanced, because I actually believe in the scientific method and an informed debate, one of the reasons I wouldn't try to support some common naturopathic practices scientifically, I'm there mostly for the herbs and nutrition.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are not listening. like i said, it is hard to watch you self-destruct. you are not being patient at all - there is WP:NODEADLINE here. Take your time, and work it through. I think you have some reasonable points, but you are acting unreasonably and that is destroying your credibility. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be very useful if you would list what you consider to be Gudzwabofer's reasonable points so that we could comment on them - it would also be nice if you could get Gud to indent his posts properly. Just sayin. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I need to work on some less contentious pages for a bit and contend my self with the couple of minor changes I got through for now. The problem is that the page already was personal. When people cherry pick facts to push an agenda it's not science, it's not neutral, and it's not dispassionate. The reason that the skeptic project has it rated as a B is they think they've done a pretty good job of rubbishing a profession that is largely built on millennia of tradition that mainstream western medicine forgot about in the middle ages and is now trying to patent.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
no it is not personal. to the extent you personalize this, you are dramatically fucking up and you will end up getting thrown out of here. slow down. deal with one thing at a time. if what you want is the selfish emotional satisfaction of expressing outrage, you are doing that very effectively. if what you want is to improve the article, you are fucking up, thoroughly. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Look I might be a little bit schizo, but I'm not an idiot. There is a double standard here. My criticisms of some sources still haven't been answered with full academic justification, yet I'm not allowed to remove them, but when I try to add a source of my own, it's quickly removed by someone who doesn't even bother to read the references. I'm not even allowed to remove redundancies when things are mentioned twice, even when one of those things is in the wrong section. I'm well aware that I'm the only natural medicine afficionado working on this page at the moment, and from the tone of the article you all see me as completely misinformed.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
you are not giving anyone time to even fucking think. i am only just now reading the victoria source. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
ok soz, that last part wasn't directed at you anywayGudzwabofer (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
you are not giving anyone time to think. i have told you to take it slow (look at how many times I wrote that. really -- go look!) and you are completely ignoring that. get off your fucking high horse and remember that you are dealing with other human beings. get down here on the ground and WALK. you have to gain WP:CONSENSUS and that takes time, effort, and patience. And real dialogue. Dialogue is not making demands and expecting compliance yesterday. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
there's also a new oz gov commissioned report coming out on the 1st of April (no joke). I mentioned it in the dearly departed updated reguation section. Yeah I'm kind of in the middle of assignment writing adrenaline. Like I said I'm gonna work on other pages for a bit, maybe some nice innocuous botany stubsGudzwabofer (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw you posted a second source to RSN, in the same section as the first. You abusing RSN now. That board is for asking specific sections about the use of specific sources. One source and the content for which it is used, at a time. Again, you are making a hash of things. Please remove the discussion of the second source for now. One thing at a time! Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a single person. I am dealing with about five other issues in WP now, plus there is content I want to write that is still waiting for my time, and my wife wants to go get some food. that is true for everybody here. please stop just throwing shit at the wall everywhere you can. if you keep doing it, i am just going to walk away from this whole mess you are making. i mean that. i have limited bandwidth and i will not keep investing my time in a disaster. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Just go, there's nothing stopping you, wikipedia and the naturopathy page will still be a mess tomorrow, as they were yesterday. I'm logging off, the heartfelt speel on my page is the last for the night. I think I'll have to try and convince myself to leave the majority of this job up to a hippie with more patience for bs. No hard feelings.Gudzwabofer (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are still missing the point. throwing so many things up in the air at once, and demanding answers to all of them at the same time, will get you no where and will waste a bunch of everyone's time. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jdog. Have you seen XKCD number 386? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
what is that? Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
http://xkcd.com/386/ You are welcome. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:) Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen xkcd before? Did you mouseover the image? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

i have seen a couple of things there - they have some really on-point ones. yes i did mouseover - sweet little easter egging. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

National Report

I am trying to close out a {{request edit}} for National Report - I'm not quite sure why cited content has been removed, but I have removed the sentence about when the first article was posted. Can we come to an agreement. I'm more than a little confused by what seems to be an edit war.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the Talk page already. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You tagged me as edit waring, but you're the instigator. Fine. Can you just delete the history section if you won't even allow me to post properly cited material? Did you even look at my last change before you reverted it? It netted you essentially where you were at. Let's stop this craziness.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
you are not an article Talk page user i guess. anyway it looks fine now. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I haven't posted a thing to Talk:National Report :). I was just trying to work with one conversation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Naturopathy

Hi Jytdog
Please be advised that when I commented at Talk:Naturopathy#NPOV problem fixed, I have also added 3 indents to your comment to maintain the 'flow' of the discussion with Young Naturopath 01. (Diff here). I have also noted on the page where added. Regards, 220 of Borg 04:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, Thanks for the welcome. I've been a wikipedia member for a while, but have so far made only minor edits, and often forget to log on. Thanks for the resources. It should help me with navigating my way around formatting. All I've done so far on the naturopathy page is flag the issues. As I'm in the middle of an assignment at the moment I won't have time to do more for a bit, but I hope to add some well referenced updates to the Australian Regulations section to start with, and we'll see how it goes from there. I see you may well have some education in the life sciences so hopefully we can at least speak the same language.Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry for telling you what you already knew - thanks for being gracious about it! I do hope we can have good, productive, PAG based discussions.  :) Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Why did you close my disscusion? --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
please read the talk page guidelines and follow them. article Talk pages are for discussing article content and sources. They are not a forum. WP:NOTFORUM, which is what I wrote on the hat and in my edit note, and again here, is part of TPG. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the reference review. I'll see if I can dig up a few new ones where needed sometime and I'll make a proposed reference reading list on Nat talk when the gov report comes out on 1 April. I feel more relaxed about this now I've decided to take a break from the editing.Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing my edit

Why did you undo my editing of line 74 under "Polygraph"? This is factual information relevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickfix1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss at the article Talk page. please bring it up there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Tone at Foie Gras RFC

I just wanted to say that I think you should watch your tone at the RFC on Foie Gras, a mistake was made in procedure, albeit minor, and you damn near bit Dr Chrissy's head off, inserting your points, in bold, into their post. Not on. SPACKlick (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have handled that better, yes. I did not insert my comment into their post, however. ? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Awuah

Hi Jytdog,

The article below was deleted a couple of weeks ago on the basis of copyvio. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Awuah,_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1

The article is being rewritten to eliminate the copyvios as much as possible. Kindly compare the current rewritten state against the copyvio terms to see if there's been any improvement. The goal is to improve and maintain the article, and not to violate any rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CopyvioAndSoWhat/sandbox?venotify=created

Will it be possible to have an article with not one word or character match with a referenced article?

Hope to hearing from you soon.

thanks -- CopyvioAndSoWhat (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible ANI

I have decided I have had enough of edits that are uncivil, inflammatory, goading, taunting, inaccurate, disruptive, demeaning, prophanity, misleading and just plain wrong. Cease and disist or I will raise an ANI.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

there already is one. i really don't know what has you so riled. just keep things simple, focused on content. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Patents as primary sources

I collaborated with Wikiisawsome by posting to his talk page and he did not respond. And now I'm collaborating with you.

I do not understand why you are reverting my edit and locking the page. I am not citing a patent for any content or claim in the patent. I am adhering EXACTLY to the Wikipedia guidelines on patents found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PATENTS#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F

The relevant part of that Wikipedia page states:

"Thus both issued patents and patent applications have extremely limited use as sources on Wikipedia:

  • They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...")."

I am making simple, descriptive statements about the existence of the CRISPR patents. I do not cite any content or claims from the patents. I only cite metadata included in the patent headings. That metadata includes the date the patent was filed, the names of the inventors, and the dates that prior provisional patent applications were filed. That information is germain to the CRISPR invention and the patents are legitimate primary sources for that information.

All I have done is rely upon the patents for four simple facts: the date of filing, the inventors, the assignees and the date of the earliest provisional patent application. Published patents and patent applications are, indisputably, the most primary source possible for that kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.14.17 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page. would you please put your response there? it is much better for everybody to have a centralized discussion. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

huh?

Never seen such action/judgement. If you disagree or want to comment, you can do so directly. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely out of line. do not restore it. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a note on this, but I already have an ANI case part way put together I was originally going to submit to AN3. If you see this before submitting anything, I'll likely have mine up at ANI in not too long (not a great way to spend one of my few days available for Wikipedia this week). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)More simple: do not edit someone else's comments. If you disagree, then talk. (t-a-l-k). Don't template-address editors. Don't say "warning" as an opinion. And for you: do not edit my userspace again. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Joseph Rosetti

You need to read an article before you say he was never a CEO of anything. Fourth line says "He served as President and CEO of Saint Luke Institute". The category is correct. Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i missed that, thanks. will self revert. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Please stop edit warring on the RfC. In fact, I think in your own interests you should consider removing it from your watchlist, as you said you would a couple of days ago. You've posted to it around 70 times since 22 March. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to but then drchrissy pinged me despite promising not to... and i had been considering anyway that I had let it all get under my skin too much. i am in a good place now and will continue editing that article in a civil manner. Thanks for fixing the big text insertion, but your move of the subsection broke a threaded discussion, so i moved it back. And I've posted a lot, in a lot of places, the past month. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice there is an ANI regarding your behaviour toward me

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Your behaviour towards me. The thread is Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment.The discussion is about the topic Protracted uncivility and harassment. Thank you.

  • I've closed said discussion as both the community feedback and your response have been pretty straightforward (despite the intrinsic drama). Given the fact that you've acknowledged the issue here, apologized, and accepted a "warning" I won't patronize you by writing out a warning regarding civility. However I will remind you about our helpful catchphrase, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I know it can be very hard when you get frustrated, but the key point is that very few things on this site are worth allowing yourself to get to that level of frustration. As long as you remain focused on content, you won't go wrong, and if you're really having an issue with another editor, you need to trust the proper channels to help you resolve those situations. Regardless, I completely trust that you'll remain true to your sentiments at ANI and do not wish to open yourself up to any more scrutiny with future incidents that garner complaints. Happy editing and regards, Swarm X 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I let myself go there for a while, and that lack of restraint is all on me. I accept the warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It happens to the best of us. Swarm X 02:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing

Is really fucking healthy. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks. and for the edit note with it. stupid me. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As in real life there's a time and a place. These also are powerful words that lose some of that power when overused. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
agreed, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

Appreciate your insight on the Raben Group. Have no relation at all to them. The page now is strictly marketing drivel and my edits were all legit. Appreciate any assistance you can offer as an employee of theirs made it a marketing tool for them. Richie1921 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm watching the article and will be responding there. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New paper on GMO scientific consensus

Hi, since you edit GMO-related articles so much I wanted to know what you thought of this article which states that "Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature." Everymorning talk 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, the PR campaign continues! with Vandana Shiva as a co-author, nonetheless, and authors from ENNSR, with Seralini as reference 1. Hm! Thanks for pointing that out - will read.Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, i read it now. it says nothing new... it repeats what ENSSR said already in 2013 and this mysteriously unauthored document says - there is a PR campaign going on by this FRINGE group. It is pretty smart. The source you brought is a "discussion" paper - see here for what that means in the journal; it is an editorial. And per MEDRS that is not a reliable source. It will likely get added to the Controversies article next to the earlier ENSSER statement. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
i've created a discussion about this Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#new_paper. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

COI Issue

Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation? Balaji E.M (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Balaji E.M, thanks for your note and for disclosing. it would be great if you reply at the WP:COIN posting - I will say more there. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, Yes I work for The company that has deployed a new Remote surveillance system for all the PG&E Critical sites. The intention was to verify that some of the allocated budget to improve security and publicly communicated has been spent and deployed with GREAT results... We are working directly with PG&E Corporate security and have been part of conference discussions with Homeland Security and FBI representatives. This is all in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack and the aftermath, solution? I tried different wording options, sorry that I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. We would just like to update the public with the new systems that have been deployed and have resulted in Security Improvements... Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAyala (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What are

Your thoughts on this? User:Geogene/Uw-badcoi It's a warning template to discourage COI accusation battlegrounding and lead editors to COIN. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

nice idea! I think the name is not helpful - you have to look at it through the recipient's eyes and i think the goal is to warn and urge, not offend... some other comments on its talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Review

They are using a review now [7] Not sure if the review supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the review and have been reading. they followed it pretty closely (too closely at points). some over-certainty in the paraphrasing, and too technical overall. and those Capitals! Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you please use conventional punctuation in your discussions? It makes your material much easier to read, and makes your arguments look more professional and thoughtful. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

is there someplace in particular you are struggling with? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Respect my privacy

Dear Jytdog, i can tell you i am member to a no-profit organization committed in overcome disabilities. I'm not sharing further personal information with you concerning my health status, especially on a open system. Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mW00t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I am sorry you interpreted my note as asking for any personal information - I will keep that in mind going forward when I reach out to folks. I'll reply further on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

jytdog

Jytdog just pinging you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

you double-pinged me by writing here and using the echo! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
remember the new Star Wars 7 trailer comes out in two weeks (a little change to agree with what you said below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
i already did! but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ive got your back too--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog you talking to yourself again?? :) Zad68 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
funny zad!
(edit conflict) that is very nice of you Ozzie - You have a good heart. i need to count on you always giving your straight opinion. I screw up sometimes and am always glad to get feedback, either way. The key thing is that everybody comes to each issue fresh. We humans do form "packs" but the encyclopedia is a better place if we fight that instinct, and come to every issue with fresh eyes, and start out saying what we think regardless if others agree (but always listening and eventually trying to reach consensus). I'll know you have my back, when you disagree with me in good faith and trust that everything will still be OK. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again! I am glad to be working with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
got that --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
great. i really value you as a colleague here. but we never want people to feel ganged up on (or be ganged up on) and if gandydancer (who likes you a lot) read what you wrote you above (and she may do.. i don't know if she watches my page or not) it would make her feel bad, even though you were trying to be good to me. and nobody deserves to be made to feel bad. i know you wouldn't want to make anybody feel bad. that's why we need to be careful of the "pack" thing and just be honest with each other. thanks again, it does feel good to know that you share the position i am taking in that specific thread. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, must make a nice change to have somebody getting your back, rather than getting on your back ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed it (just in case)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
you just made me laugh out loud. thx :) Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


Watchdog

I have moved the notes about the "contentious" Atrazine article to the Atrazine talk page. I look forward to your comments there as we work to get that publication added, I have a few more I'd like to add to the page so this will be a good test run. Thanks! Remember: filter your water! Especially if you are prego. Apparently we midwesetrners are swamped in this chemical waste runoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubts

Sir, I have some doubts, would you like to clear it.Balaji E.M (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you asking why some article are allowed to be created, and why some articles are deleted. I don't work in that space much, so I cannot tell you much. if you are talking about decisions that individuals make, i can say that i agree - the standards that are applied vary a lot. When the community decides, like at an AfD or an appeal, they ~tend~ to be more consistent in applying standards. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

SlimVirgin, per your message at WT:COI, I'll just put the same question here with some variation.

In my view, I am being hounded, and you are supporting it, and definitely are not trying to stop it. You have been the subject of hounding and Arbcom found you to be "an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily." What happened to that person? You are doing the opposite of being "too ready to accuse" others of hounding. Why are you supporting the hounding of me, and opening the door wide for others to be hounded with your proposal to lower the bar to taking action on "apparent COI"? I appreciate you be willing to answer. And let me add here, that I am not comparing what I have gone through, to what you went through. I don't know the whole story, but it appears that you went through hell, and I am sorry that you did.

I acknowledge that what you wrote was " If you'd like to ask me something about your situation," and you may not consider my questions to be about my situation. I think they are, as you appear to be me to be part of the current round... and I really don't get that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, sorry, I started to write a response, but there are so many separate issues, I wasn't sure what to focus on. I think it's probably best if I just leave it. Just wanted to let you know in case you thought I had forgotten. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, well thanks for making the attempt. i am open to hearing from you on these things, here or via email, if and when you like. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Learning articles

I think these are now off of your radar, but FYI I heard from the professor who had students editing learning styles and learning theory (education). He was happy to find out about WikiEdu and I've forwarded your summary of the issues (with a bit more generalized information). Don't know if that means anything will change in the near future, but at least next semester they will likely work with us. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for sticking with it! hooray!! Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help with a redirected page.

Hey there.

A wiki search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH is currently redirected to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity_Baptist_Church_Sex_Scandal&redirect=no

This was due to a move or rename. I'm assuming the latter. Is it possible to edit the original page so that there is content germane to the current state of this organization? I am not looking to bury any of the current information contained in the above mentioned wiki. There is other information that can be posted and accessed by the community.

Thanks, Mcvizual (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

this is your only edit, ever. pretty savvy of you to find me!
The article used to be called Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, New Hampshire and then it was called Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) and then someone objected that the article wasn't about the church at all, but about the sex scandal, so we changed the title to specifically reference the sex scandal. There doesn't seem to be enough material for an article about the church itself; we checked at the time. It would still be overwhelmed by the sex scandal content. It isn't clear exactly what the problem you see is... what is it that you want? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the research field. Finding things is what I do! Honestly, I just looked at the edits and figured you'd be a good place to start since you had "Revert Rights".
I don't necessarily have a problem with the scandal page. The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc. The scandal would obviously be it's own section and link to this main article.
Another issue is that Google uses Wiki titles as business names in search results... Why? I don't know. But when you do a Google search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH, the business name is shown as Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal. I'm currently trying to reach out to Google to rectify this.
Thanks for your ultra-quick response. I also love your use of the ellipsis.Mcvizual (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Let me ask you - what is your relationship with Trinity? It is fine if you are connected with it, but per our conflict of interest rules (like pretty much everywhere else), things go better when people with conflicts are transparent about them So, do tell. (and to be frank, since you are putting in all this effort to rectify things with google and Wikipedia, it will be a bit hard to believe if you tell me that you have no connection at all).
But back to the point... above you write: "The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc". That is not how Wikipedia works. We have policies that govern whether an article about X can exist in Wikipedia or not. That policy is here: WP:NOTABILITY. As I mentioned above, when we looked at this a month or so ago, it was clear to us that the church itself was unlikely to meet the standards described in that policy. This is what drove the name change. The article used to be named after the church, and had a window dressing of poor content about the church, draped around the sex scandal content... and this made no sense. (You can see what it looked like here.) (the title was different then, of course). Does the decision to change the name make sense to you, now that you see the policy, and what the content was, and the decision we made?
Sorry about the issues with Google - I hope they can fix that for you. 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Full Disclosure, I'm not a member of Trinity and I have no COI. I recently started attending and with my background as a User Experience Designer was approached with helping them update their website with more relevant content. In doing research and finding this wiki article, I thought I would try to help them get more of their core information into the Wiki article. I understand the need for notability but this need is not applied evenly across Wikipedia. See the Wiki on the Richmond Outreach Center There are multiple churches and organizations that have wiki pages that aren't notable except for some sort of controversy but they have content relating to history, etc. This is not to diminish the scandal at Trinity but rather, to prove a point and to request parity.
The original intent of Wikipedia may have been to be an open-source encyclopedia. However, one of the standard uses of Wikipedia is the general gathering of knowledge about an institution. I've seen it happen time and time again. If you ask a user to tell you something about a company, they will go to the wiki as often (or even more often) than visiting said company's actual website.
I expressed multiple times to church leadership the need to have the scandal as part of the wiki as it is notable and of public record. Not to mention, the way to build genuine trust is NOT to bury information. As I said before, my main goal is to get more of their information into the article. It is not to make a dark stain disappear.
Thanks again.Mcvizual (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the disclosure, that makes sense. (i really do appreciate it. this place is a community at its base and it is good when folks are straight with one another). so what you (and I guess Trinity) want, is that the article would go back to how it was here, with its old name. Is that right? Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If that could happen, that would be great. There is other content that could be added to the wiki I would just need to research it a bit more to be able to cite sources. But at least changing the title and adding the history would square Google away. I don't know if you've ever had to deal with them on an internal basis but that cog turns real, real slow.
Thanks so much for your consideration around this topic.Mcvizual (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify what you wanted. I am not sure that folks will want to do it, but it has to start with a clear description of what you want. OK, my next question to you, is - what sources do you have, about Trinity, that would be used to flesh out the rest of the article? What we want are independent (not Trinity's website for example), reliable sources about Trinity (again, please see WP:RS). What do you have? You can put links here, or citations to books. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, that would have to be researched so that ambiguity can be avoided and proper citations given however, upon second thought, I don't really have a dog in that hunt. My services have been requested in a different area. I will be sure to pass off all requirements so that the additions can be made. That being said, additions might include their weekly radio broadcast[1] but like I said, content and citations is their baby, not mine.Mcvizual (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
no, we need independent sources. their radio show is not indepedent of them. the argument to rename is not going to go far, without some sense that there is actually decent, sourceable content to use. i will give it at try though, by linking to this conversation at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the effort. Like I said, I will let it to the Trinity leadership to provide the additional content/citations. I'll post their findings here for peer review before attempting to revamp the article. I'm done for the night. Take care.Mcvizual (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://concordnewsradio.com/?page_id=567

Thx 4 thx

Thanks for your thanks re GMO edits. Can I solicit your opinion on whether the Marsh vs Baxter case warrants a separate article? I think it does and am looking for an appropriate title. In Western Australia, there is an issue that "organic" farm produce sells for much higher prices than "mined" crops and "battery" animals, etc, and that there is a large potential export market if the chemicals and patent technologies can be kept at bay. Like yourself (as I understand), I have no vested interest either way but do like to see a rational discussion. Regards Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be an interesting article, yes! For examples from other countries, see Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser (canada), Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (US). thanks for fixing the typo (embarassing) and improving otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding .global page

My apologies. I added more sources as requested, and I am involved with the registry operating the TLD and got notified by the lack of content on the page that one of our resellers linked to from it's site. I hope the added sources and aparse content is ok now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeasoderlund (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jeasoderlund. It sounds like you do have a conflict of interest. You should disclose that conflict on your userpage (here) and refrain from editing the article directly going forward, and instead suggest changes on its talk page, using the "request edit" template described in our WP:COI guideline. I have also placed a text-box on the Talk page of .global (Talk:.global so that with one click, you can set up an edit request. Thanks, and good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The Barnstar of Integrity
I've provided pro-bono advice to a couple organizations recently, that ended up being helped by you on-Wiki. After warning them of the un-professional and chaotic nature of Wikipedia, I was duly impressed by your reasonable responses and willingness to invest the time in actually editing articles. After making my own COIN post, I took a look at the board to see that none other than Jytdog was practically single-handedly holding down the fort. I was somewhat on the opposite side of you in the discussion about the COI of someone writing about their father scientist, and after investigating the sources closely, you turned out to be right. Given this and seeing Request Edits being handled competently and search results for promotional phrases that I use to trim promotionalism coming down, I'm starting to have renewed faith in Wikipedia's ability to competently handle both good faith and bad faith COI in a drama-free manner. In case nobody else has noticed your good work yet, I figured somebody should. CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
That is super nice of you corporateM. three or four other folks are doing things regularly there - it is not just me. i do wish there were more. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion

No offense intended. The discussion over there has remained admirably focused given the contentious nature of the subject matter, and I was just trying to maintain that. Respectfully, Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 00:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

understood, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog/Archive_11&oldid=1144381560"