User talk:Jytdog/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into the local language
|
The Cure Award |
| In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thank you for the edits on the page Khalilah_Rose as well as for your advice that i not edit it anymore. Another editor sent me a message that i should "You need to reformat the references to show your source, I've done the first two for you. The format is [1]". I'm looking for advice whether i should just post the suggestion on the page's talk page as is or if there is a special process in suggesting edits in cases of COI. I want to make sure that i don't offend anyone because it seems i may already have done so unwittingly. Thanks again Lilianarice (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note! It is actually OK to fix things like formatting. It is even OK to change content that is factual and noncontroversial (please judge "noncontroversial" carefully!). But you shouldn't edit the article beyond those very basic kinds of things. This is all described in WP:COI. I appreciate that your intentions are to follow policy and guidelines. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited the formatting as discussed. Could you please review the page to see if the advertising tags can be removed? Thanks you Lilianarice (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- ^ [url title] source date
- Hie, With all the edits that have been made on the Khalilah Rose page, can the flags placed for advertising please be removed? I have worked to clean it up and am not sure if there is a separate process for removing flags. Thanks Lilianarice (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lilianarice i went ahead and cleaned this up for you and removed the tags. Two words of advice. 1) Grow a thicker skin. There are editors in Wikipedia who truly hate paid editing and will be mean to you. LogicalCowboy's comment was crass and mean (and it shocked me too) but the sarcastic joke was on target. You need to recognize that almost everybody here is a volunteer, and it is pretty arrogant for you to create a crappy article for pay, and expect volunteers to help you with that. Do you see how that is somewhat exploitative? So you should expect people to be mean, and shrug it off when they are. Remain humble and focus on getting your job done. Which, at the end of the day, is to create an article that fits within Wikipedia's mission and complies with our policies and guidelines. 2) On that last bit - the article you wrote was pretty bad. Remember that everything in the article needs to have a reliable source. Try really really hard to write simply, without any "puffery", and make sure that the sources you provide can be checked (your use of "Jus Jah Magazine", while valid, is not smart, as no one can verify the source unless they buy it.. which no one is going to do... so the article will remain tagged and ugly. Do you see what i mean?). Understand that as a paid editor your work is going to be very scrutinized so make it easy for other editors to scrutinize you, and do high quality work so that you succeed. Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for all your advice. I really don't have a thick skin i am finding and i will work on keeping my edits and lines simple. It was never my expectation to put Wikipedia editors to work for my articles and in fact i'd be happy to do as many revisions as needed to get it right so no one is put to work. I just wasn't prepared for the vehement attack and repeated questions of what i am being paid. So when LogicalCowboy made his "joke" after asking me about my earnings, i was not able to see it as a joke at all. I will work on this though because the last thing i expected was to get into verbal fights and i would be happy to avoid it all in the future.Lilianarice (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lilianarice i went ahead and cleaned this up for you and removed the tags. Two words of advice. 1) Grow a thicker skin. There are editors in Wikipedia who truly hate paid editing and will be mean to you. LogicalCowboy's comment was crass and mean (and it shocked me too) but the sarcastic joke was on target. You need to recognize that almost everybody here is a volunteer, and it is pretty arrogant for you to create a crappy article for pay, and expect volunteers to help you with that. Do you see how that is somewhat exploitative? So you should expect people to be mean, and shrug it off when they are. Remain humble and focus on getting your job done. Which, at the end of the day, is to create an article that fits within Wikipedia's mission and complies with our policies and guidelines. 2) On that last bit - the article you wrote was pretty bad. Remember that everything in the article needs to have a reliable source. Try really really hard to write simply, without any "puffery", and make sure that the sources you provide can be checked (your use of "Jus Jah Magazine", while valid, is not smart, as no one can verify the source unless they buy it.. which no one is going to do... so the article will remain tagged and ugly. Do you see what i mean?). Understand that as a paid editor your work is going to be very scrutinized so make it easy for other editors to scrutinize you, and do high quality work so that you succeed. Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hie, With all the edits that have been made on the Khalilah Rose page, can the flags placed for advertising please be removed? I have worked to clean it up and am not sure if there is a separate process for removing flags. Thanks Lilianarice (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
False accusation not AGF
Accusing an editor of edit warring without addressing the very valid concerns Semitransgenic talk. 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring is re-reverting without discussion. You deleted very well established sourcing. I reverted and asked you to discuss on Talk. You went ahead and deleted it again. That is absolutely edit warring. It doesn't violate 3RR but it is absolutely edit warring. It may be too long since you read WP:EDITWAR.Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- inaccurate, I did not delete again, I was deleting a second irrelevant cite, you reverted while I was in the middle of editing. Additionally, three reverts constitutes an edit war, in future please get this straight before having a hissy fit. Semitransgenic talk. 02:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- i am sorry but you are not understanding WP:EDITWAR correctly. It says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions," When you deleted the first time and I reverted, that is the time to stop and Talk. WP:BRD explains this too. You don't keep right on going, restoring your edit, and talk at the same time. You are now at 3 edits on that topic - one more and you break 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- and I'm sorry, but do you perhaps have ownership issues you need help with? You had an issue with the edit therefore the onus was on you to clearly state your objection at the outset, you failed to do this and instead reverted in a highly reactionary manner. You actually reverted a valid edit, without explanation, not once, but twice, I continued making improvements to the article and provided rational edit summaries for my actions; which were also further highlighted on the talk page. Semitransgenic talk. 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- please read WP:BRD. you and i have had good interactions in the past and bad ones. i hope this one doesn't go south. this one is off to a bad start for sure... Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- BRD is clear: "BRD does not encourage reverting...be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." You are the editor who assumed bad faith, reverted, did not provide a specific reason ("hell no" wtf is that?), and did not raise on objection on the talk page (as you should have done) yet you are still justifying your actions? dude, get real, you got emotional and defensive, deal with it. Semitransgenic talk. 13:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- you removed content that had been in the article for a long time and was there with solid consensus of the editors who watch the page and work on it. I reverted and asked you to discuss on talk. You went ahead and re-reverted. That is problematic and is edit warring. i followed your bad suit and re-re-reverted, and you went further into badness and re-re-re-reverted. I am not following your suit anymore since it is clear to me that you are committed to violating WP:EDITWAR and i am not going near 3RR, while you are clearly demanding that your version stand. I will let others revert you. Enough of this, hm? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- BRD is clear: "BRD does not encourage reverting...be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." You are the editor who assumed bad faith, reverted, did not provide a specific reason ("hell no" wtf is that?), and did not raise on objection on the talk page (as you should have done) yet you are still justifying your actions? dude, get real, you got emotional and defensive, deal with it. Semitransgenic talk. 13:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- please read WP:BRD. you and i have had good interactions in the past and bad ones. i hope this one doesn't go south. this one is off to a bad start for sure... Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Semitransgenic, Three reverts is the bright line specified at WP:WAR, but fewer can be the case too. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Continuing to revert without going to the talk page (or even reverting when you do go there) is edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- dude thanks for chipping in, but, with 3RR the editor who makes the initial revert is always first past the post, the notion being that it discourages the kind of behaviour JDog is engaging in (blocking constructive edits by accusing someone of edit warring). BRD is clear, bold edits are encouraged, reverts are not. The edits I made were valid, supported by community guidelines, and clearly explained in the summary; this cannot be said for the other editor. Semitransgenic talk. 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- You made the change, Jytdog reverted, and then it was time to discuss at the talk page if we're following WP:BRD. The Discussion part of that specifically says, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." You didn't do that and that's basically where edit warring begins with increasing degrees with more reverts. Probably best to drop the stick the edit warring bit, especially since there is discussion going on at the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- dude thanks for chipping in, but, with 3RR the editor who makes the initial revert is always first past the post, the notion being that it discourages the kind of behaviour JDog is engaging in (blocking constructive edits by accusing someone of edit warring). BRD is clear, bold edits are encouraged, reverts are not. The edits I made were valid, supported by community guidelines, and clearly explained in the summary; this cannot be said for the other editor. Semitransgenic talk. 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- and I'm sorry, but do you perhaps have ownership issues you need help with? You had an issue with the edit therefore the onus was on you to clearly state your objection at the outset, you failed to do this and instead reverted in a highly reactionary manner. You actually reverted a valid edit, without explanation, not once, but twice, I continued making improvements to the article and provided rational edit summaries for my actions; which were also further highlighted on the talk page. Semitransgenic talk. 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- i am sorry but you are not understanding WP:EDITWAR correctly. It says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions," When you deleted the first time and I reverted, that is the time to stop and Talk. WP:BRD explains this too. You don't keep right on going, restoring your edit, and talk at the same time. You are now at 3 edits on that topic - one more and you break 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- inaccurate, I did not delete again, I was deleting a second irrelevant cite, you reverted while I was in the middle of editing. Additionally, three reverts constitutes an edit war, in future please get this straight before having a hissy fit. Semitransgenic talk. 02:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Your comments - WikiCorrect-Health
Dear User talk:Jytdog, We are in no way would want to violate Wikipedia policies. Just following the recent US government guidelines on editing Wikipedia pages. I am from IMS Health and I have disclosed it in the profile page. I have submitted a username change as you have suggested. Thanks again for letting me know about the violation. Also, I have disclosed about my affiliation with a link to my company's website, and FDA guidelines which was published in 2014 for full transparency. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thanks.
--WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Erica Jensen-Jarolim
I don't see you commenting at the AfD. In my opinion you are gutting the article of material that is needed to demonstrate notability, and I also don't see the relevance of MEDRS in a bio - especially since you are also requiring the citations of her papers to be removed. Please speak to the issues in the ongoing discussion (where I have also referred to your edit summary demand for quotations and translations of the foreign-language source - now supplied). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- please discuss on the article Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
removed Decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement
removed content regarding "decreased risk"[edit] Removed the content regarding decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement and was inappropriately in the wiki article regarding increased risk NOT decreased risk. Perhaps a new article should be started for this PHARMA advertisement? Maybe we have enough on television? In fact the information cited in the content I removed was from an article sponsored and with data SUPPLIED by the pharmaceutical industry. Here is the footnote from the very article the section cited and used.
"Additional Contributions: Data were supplied by the National Institute of Mental Health (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study), Wyeth, and Eli Lilly and Co.
Financial Disclosure: Dr Gibbons has served as an expert witness for . . ."Wyeth, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in cases related to antidepressants and anticonvulsants and suicide. Dr Brown directed a suicide prevention program at the University of South Florida that received funding from JDS Pharmaceuticals. Dr Mann has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.173 (talk) (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I replied on the article Talk page already, here: Talk:Antidepressants_and_suicide_risk#Antidepressants_decrease_suicide_risk_section_should_be_removed_completely. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
Hi, Jytdog. An user has expressed concerns about the lead of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing what was summarized by you. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Request re: COI section title
Hi Jytdog. Would you mind deleting the words "making legal threats" from this title, since I demonstrably did not make legal threats, and since legal threats are not the purview of the COI policy pages? Thanks The title as it stands now: "Sean J Savage editor making legal threats and editing about a family member" Seanjsavage (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Carmine Miranda
On the case of the page Carmine Miranda Thank you for the note on my page. I only ended up editing it because another user John Nagle changed the words i suggested and wrote that Carmine came last in a competition and that his award was the lowest. This was not true or well researched so i raised it to his attention but nothing was done. So i figured that i'd make the fix and wait for another editor to review it. The other edit i made was adding the new album record. I thought this at least would not be contentious since it is as factual as it gets. I have requested several edits on the talk page but only a few have been implemented as yet. So i am stumped as to how i can get this done. Is it possible i could get approval to make the edits then have them reviewed? This way it is not like i'm putting the Wikipedia editors to work for nothing when i am getting paid for the article.Lilianarice (talk)
Ezetimibe
With respect to your recent edits at Ezetimibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Six-year_study.2C_reported_at_the_annual_meeting_of_the_American_Heart_Association User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't appreciate threats.
Please see my response to you on my talk page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- warnings are not threats. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Olive branch
Thanks for the spotting the horse. Graham Beards (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's good to be wrong!
So glad this Rolfing article was not deleted. A lot of people put a lot of work into it. I will check the dates in the future so that I don't make the same mistake twice. Thank you for being so gracious about my mistake.
- Bfpage |leave a message 16:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- everybody makes them! thanks for graciously accepting. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Pack it in. You know what you are doing is edit warring. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- the reference to UCS has been there a very long time. You deleted it, I restored it. We are discussing it - that is all good, per WP:BRD. You just went and deleted it again. that is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No reply
Nikthestunned is not replying on talkpage and he is saying on his talkpage that he is not interested to discuss and still he does not like this draft. If lock will expire can you keep check that no one revises page without talking? What is the use of debate if he will revise it after lock is expired? --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- i have already described my intentions on the Talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is revised under lock. Now what? Is it possible to copy paste if no one is interested to debate? --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- it seems to me that you agreed with some of the critiques of your edits. why don't you edit the draft article on the Talk page to reflect what you would like to do, when the article is unlocked? Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I will try today. I am inviting every one on wikipedia to help to help me make corrections in draft. Thank you for your help. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted RFC but I have asked for help on help desk. Neutral editors need to see my work and tell me to correct. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- you are just ignoring me. nobody knows what you would implement, if you were free to do whatever you like. show them. edit the version on the Talk page according to the criticism you have already gotten, and ask for feedback on the result! Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I will try one time more. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to change it but it may get deadlock with nikthestunned. Is mediation better or dispute resolution noticeboard? Some users are still treating me like conflict of interest I want to avoid malformmed dispute again. I deleted rfc in good faith. Thank you for your help. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- i looked at what is going on, at the Talk page. it's a mess. to be frank, neither you nor nikthestunned seem to understand how WP operates.... and it is just a messy tangle. i may wade in there and just fix it. but you need to start writing much much shorter and more focused comments. try to address one single issue at a time, resolve whatever disagreement there is, and move to the next one. addressing four things simultaneously just leads to confusion. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Advice request
Ahoy Jytdog. You recently advised me, re: the Gary Hart talk page: "If the page starts going out of whack you can get more eyeballs on the issue by starting an RfC or using other dispute resolution tools but please keep your own nose clean on the COI issues."
(Reminder: I have a stated family connection to one of the journalists involved in the Hart coverage.)
I think any dispassionate third party editor will agree that the page has, indeed, "started going out of whack.
In following your advice I've read up on the dispute resolution options and an RfC does sound like a good option. I think it would clearly fall under "pol|media|bio." But I'm overwhelmed as to which neutral claim/request to make. To "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct" I need to choose from a LOT of issues going on here: controversial unsourced claims being posted, personal attacks, POV policy violations, potential sock puppeting, fringe beliefs, etc. In a nutshell: Dispassionate eyeballs on the page will spot multiple issues. (Slightly larger nutshell: There are several edit requests I posted that, IMHO, seem objectively legit, and editors are posting responses to them that don't directly address the actual claims but go off on one or several of the tangents above.)
What would you recommend using as an RfC statement that would make this most efficient and waste the fewest editors' time? Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- i've been glancing over the activity there and have been weighing options. There are indeed many things going on! Please remember that there is no deadline - we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. If you want to get an RfC moving, select the most important thing to you, and draft an RfC statement and post it on Talk, and ask the editors on other sides if they think it is a neutral representation of the issue. Once you come to agreement on that (which in itself can get tangled... but editors really working in good faith can usually agree on what they are disagreeing about!) then actually post it as an RfC. I will weigh in on the many issues eventually! (this weekend most likely) Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll trust your final recommendation, but riddle me this: If I, as just one person, am having trouble deciding which single lower-level issue to focus on, and ESPECIALLY if the overriding issue is that, so far, each of the straightforward edit suggestions triggered a hornet's nest of vitriolic opposition that fits the many classifications listed above, I suspect that asking the emotionally-invested parties to help decide on which issue to focus for an RfC request will further confuse that thicket rather than streamline and resolve it. If the currently active Hart editors can't agree on whether a citation that says "X is clearly impossible" can be used to support the claim "X is true," I think we need to get this set of disputes out of the just the hands of the parties so close to it (mine included), and place them before more distanced, neutral eyeballs, which is the point of RfC, no? Having considered that – if you still think the best route forward is to turn to the Hart page editors for a decision on what flavor RfC to submit – how would you word that proposal to the Hart page editors? And: Am I the right person to do that? Thanks for your time and consideration with this. Seanjsavage (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- as you can perhaps tell I am wading through the section of the article on his 1988 run now. maybe some of these issues will be resolved when i am done. i still need to go and re-read what you all are arguing about and see if it matters anymore.. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for all the much-needed TLC you have provided the Gary Hart article. I don't know how you work so fast, but it's already in much better shape. Seanjsavage (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I'm amused that I added that rationale after reading User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. "It's important because it's a source of health information" seems rather bland and uncompelling, if the real reason is that we don't want people to get hurt. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- yep i do think that "we don't want people to get hurt" is too far. But please do open a discussion at WT:MEDRS. Others might agree with you! Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just opened it, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Privs
Hi Jyt - I went ahead and granted you autopatrolled and reviewer, since looking at your contribs I see no reason why you couldn't be trusted with either. Admittedly, neither is a parituclarly big deal. I also went ahead and extended the semiprotection at Gary Hart since the IP's post on my talk page indicated that it's unlikely they will desist anytime soon. I'll keep an eye on the page and block any autoconfirmed socks they end up using as well. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Easily justified changes for a respected editor. I have no idea what Jytdog aspires to, but he sets a great example here. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- thanks very much Kevin, and thanks for your kind words, Roxy! Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
South Beach Diet
Hi Jytdog, I'm checking if you saw my last message on the South Beach Diet Talk page. I know your back-and-forth with LaMona didn't quite resolve last week, but I'm hoping to still move forward with some new changes to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
image for Synthetic biology
Dear Jytdog, Can you convince Drbogdan that the below was a good faith edit? It's time we had a photo on this web site!
Synthetic biology
Please explain why you undid my posting of an existing Wikipedia photo on a 2nd Wikipedia web site (synthetic biology, which presently lacks any photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.144 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment - yes, the iGEM image edit was reverted - as noted in my edit summary => "Rv possibly good faith ip edit - per WP:PROMO, WP:BRD & related." - image may be ok in the relevant iGEM article - but - may seem like WP:PROMO (and/or WP:SPAM?) on the Synthetic biology article - such a use is discouraged on Wikipedia of course - you may wish to discuss this further on the related talk page at Talk:Synthetic biology - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(above is what poster copy/pasted here Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.216 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 November 2014(UTC)
- i think drbogdan's judgement was spot on. you need a better image. also, it's about time you created an account, isn't it? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Diego Grez
Thanks for undoing the deletion by Diego Grez (talk · contribs). That account went on a revert spree. It's now blocked, assumed to be a password compromise. John Nagle (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- yer welcome! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry guys about that, these reverts were accidental --Diego Grez (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
If you break off discussions, I will be forced to go to WP:AN/I for removal of sourced material from multiple articles. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy to discuss things on article Talk pages; I responded to you at the GSK article just a few minutes ago. There is no deadline and nobody is at their computer 24/7, so keep your pants on. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You made a comment on my talk page "I am not responding further". I understand no one is at the computer 24/7. In 40 minutes I will be watching the Blackhawks. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- ON YOUR TALK PAGE. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should have been more clear. YELLING doesnt help. AlbinoFerret 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- ON YOUR TALK PAGE. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You made a comment on my talk page "I am not responding further". I understand no one is at the computer 24/7. In 40 minutes I will be watching the Blackhawks. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
MDMA
Your third opinion is requested on the question "is MDMA neurotoxic". We have agreed that you would be a knowledgable and neutral third party, and respectfully request your input. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS
What are your plans for carrying through on the MEDRS discussion? I thought that we had gotten a reasonable consensus to use treatment guidelines first with the caveat that Cochrane's views would be noted when out of the majority. Then we moved into a discussion of whether Cochrane has any place at all in identifying scientific consensus, and though there were some good arguments here, participation in that discussion was low precluding formation of a compelling consensus. I recommend that we go back and add the "Treatment guidelines are the preeminent source for sceintific consensus, but note Cochrane's dissent when it occurs" wording that seemed to be closest to the consensus when participation in the conversation was active, and add it to MEDRS. I often think Cochrane is a little out there and I see your points, but simply moving away from quoting Cochrane in Wikipedia's voice in every drug article seems to me like it would be a major improvement over what we have now. I'd like to do something that would not be immediately reverted. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- hmmm... i will write over there. are you OK with the language i proposed about "metanalyses, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration? Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not too particular. My issue is that we should not quote the opinions of a handful of authors who speak only for themselves in wikipedias voice when we have guidelines written by panels selected for their expertise and endorsed by recognized medical organizations. Esp. when the forMer contradict the latter. Anything that reduces this and can gain generall support works for me.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- ok, i took a shot at implementing it. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I will now contact admins of your behavior to settle this.
[[
Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]]
Your recent editing history at Organic_farming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 | Please remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it. Uncivil messages will be deleted. |
- as you will. You have absolutely run over 3RR and if you bring an admin action, it will WP:BOOMERANG. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your threats don't frighten me. You have been participating in hostile blanket edits that have been counterproductive and now you've outright vandalized the article in a blatant act of revenge. All the while, you didn't participate on the article's Talk Page even after requesting that you did. Despite your threat, I will proceed to contact admins and I'll let them settle this. Cowicide (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- i replied on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your threats don't frighten me. You have been participating in hostile blanket edits that have been counterproductive and now you've outright vandalized the article in a blatant act of revenge. All the while, you didn't participate on the article's Talk Page even after requesting that you did. Despite your threat, I will proceed to contact admins and I'll let them settle this. Cowicide (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Help understand safety claim
Can you help me understand why you removed the phrase "but some authors have argued it is unsafe due to" in favor of "is unsafe"? What would be adequate evidence of safety or unsafety per WP that would allow us to conclude one way or another? I've noticed that the author being cited, Andy Parrott, has himself given MDMA to human volunteers. Thanks!173.228.54.200 (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- So here at wikipedia we have what is called a "three revert rule" and you just broke it with this dif. revert that, and i will talk to you. your call. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No
Don't hat discussions prematurely and don't make edit summaries in all caps. Go get a beer and grow up.Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Er... disregard. You were right to attempt the hat on the discussion.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Five Pillars
You've managed to break all five of them regarding your various edits surrounding the Organic Farming article. Since you've seemed to have forgotten what they are and why you are here at Wikipedia, I've done you a favor and linked it to you below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Please read it and read it well if your ego can allow it. Cowicide (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Organic farming. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for the warning. things got a bit hairy yesterday and i should not have let things go there. the page protection i requested has kicked in, at least. I've never been blocked for 3RR (or anything else) and i intend to keep it that way! thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
fyi discussion on public HIV testing article
At Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article. You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"), and might be interested in commenting at the new discussion. All AFD commenters are being contacted now. --doncram 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Jytdog, I am posting this template because I believe I am required to do so, not because I believe you have done anything wrong. I have sought advice at WP:AN (not WP:ANI) regarding how we should handle a blocked sock/IP who raises questions at BLP/N about an article of which the blocked sock/IP user is the subject. You are not mentioned by name in my WP:AN post, and I took care to say that I don't believe anyone did anything wrong. Please interpret this as what it is: a good faith request for advice. Your participation in the AN discussion is welcome and solicited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- understood. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:54, 2 December 2014
Cabbage and hypothyroidism
Jytdog -- as an editor frequently supporting WP:MEDRS as you did today on the Antioxidant page, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. This would also be educational for me, as well as other users. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.--Zefr (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog -- I can live with your edit and your advice. Thank you. Just to be clear here.....primary sources used were simply to establish a relationship, one that has been known for approximately a 100 or so years. That there are thiocyanates in cabbage and that thiocyanates inhibit a specific pummp are not controversial positions, for which I was providing original research. These compounds are commonly used in the lab to do just that.
I think that my frustration stemmed from the fact that my edit was wholly undone. If, an edit such as the one you have done to that section had occurred, I would not have felt the need to reply as I did. And although of most of what I wrote there was also true, as it served a didactic purpose, I do apologize for a claim of "vested interests" on part of the other editor. AliMD7176 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks that is very gracious of you. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that this went through; your history doesnt show that you deleted it, so I'm posting it again to bring a detail into focus, and ask a few relevant questions:
- One last thing, please realize that the abstract you cited references thiocyanate and its ability to inhibit transport of iodine into breast milk. Although that is great for knowledges sake, the implication therein is that only lactating females need consider this. Now although all glands are similar to some extent, the following abstract better mentions thiocyanates ability to suppress iodine transport into the thyroid gland specifically:
- I hope you can appreciate my zeal for specificity here. Just because thiocyanate may inhibit iodine transport into breast milk, does not mean it does so at the thyroid. Shouldn't a source detailing specifically its inhibition at the thyroid be used? And one is a human study while the other is bovine. And in this case, what makes one source better than the other, when they both come from PubMed? Im not asking you to change them, and neither will I edit it as the message is conveyed, but wouldn't that make more sense? AliMD7176 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
hi. quick note. if you look up the pubmed ID (pr "PMID", which is at the bottom of every Pubmed abstract, all you have to write is "PMID 15572417" and the Wikipedia software automatically creates a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract. Nice, right? OK, with regard to sourcing, one of the many "policies and guidelines" I linked to, was WP:MEDRS. Please read that - it is our guideline for sourcing health related content. Bottom line, we classify sources using historiographical terminology, as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sources present actual experimental data (bench, clinical, or epidemiological); secondary sources are reviews, treatment guidelines, etc; tertiary sources are textbooks. What we always aim for, are recent, independent, secondary sources. What you cite above, is a 10 year old primary source. Not good. There a zillion reasons why we stay far, far away from primary sources. Some of them are described in a draft essay (draft, b/c it needs a lot of trimming) I wrote called Why MEDRS?. But believe me, you are almost never going to get content sourced to a 10 year primary source to "stick". Hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Impatient me......the second sentence of your source clearly states that "sodium iodide symporter (NIS), also responsible for iodine transport in the thyroid" ! Yes, ok, thank you, I had assumed everything on pubmed would be classified as a primary source. Another question. How about the prelude to an abstract of a study that is a primary source.....Even though the study itself is a primary source, the first few sentences of an abstract are never experimental data yet are established background information. The "setup" if you will. Is such a distinction made? Or, if the study itself is classified as a primary source, then all information contained therein, in toto, is also classified as primary? Just looking for a clear delineation here between primary and secondary. Obviously, if the same information is contained within both secondary and primary sources (as in the case here, the secondary source takes precedence), but lets say there is no secondary or tertiary source, yet, the opening paragraph of the abstract (not the data, not the results of the data, etc) states the fact you wish to write on. In that case what happens? Thank you for taking the time out to answer.AliMD7176 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- you are asking real questions and I appreciate that very much. Yes the intro section and conclusion sections of many primary sources often a bit of review, and if one's back is to the wall it is OK to cite those sections (it is usually good to note that you are relying on the intro in your edit note!) but those are still pretty suboptimal, as generally the authors are trying to craft a story for whatever hypothesis they are working with... so not the best. Straight-up reviews are by far preferable (although they are sometimes a bit tendendentious too). You have referred a few times to abstracts. Generally you ~should~ read the whole article. If you don't have access to medical journals, WP has "deals" with some of the big publishers that give individual editors who sign up for it, access their journals. There is information on this here. Also, if you are not aware of it, please consider joining WikiProject Medicine - you can formally sign up at the link there, or just start watching the talk page. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. AliMD7176 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
ANI notifications
Thanks for the tip for protecting Quercetin. Was going to take care of that, but got diverted by work. Doc James stepped in to create a block on the student editors.--Zefr (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerning Intellectual property
Intellectual property is a topic distinct from intellectual property rights. I believe there is enough material on this subject to make a nice article. Let me work on it for a couple days, and see how you like it.
No need for alarm, warnings, etc.
Wikipedia is unbreakable. Everything can be undone. If you don't like the intellectual property article after a couple days of me working on it, I'll be happy to request deletion of it myself. The Transhumanist 03:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am just blown away. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Toxicology and Myat T. Aung
Hello, I appreciate your editing and paraphrasing.. however, I would appreciate more if you give the reason especially when you delete entirely. I would like to know what perspective you want to discuss in toxicology page since I have an interest to edit more to the page. Thank you.Myat T. Aung (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- please open a discussion on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
You do good work. I know it can be wearing at times, and might seem thankless, but it truly is appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- thank you, that is very kind. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fyi: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fyi: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Good work indeed. There's a lot of unneeded crap to deal from some editors in topics you deal with especially, but articles typically end up better when you're involved. Hopefully users learn a bit in the process too, especially when you try to steer them in right direction on how to deal with scientific content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- more kindness! thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Correct to remove
Hey I saw you had to remove a number of Talk page comments per WP:TPG, I thought that was the correct thing to do, if more like that keeps happening let me know and I'll try to help deal with it. Zad68 04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for the check-in on that. felt a little dicey so good to get admin reassurance. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
MDMA article
I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate.
I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article (i.e. MDMA). As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article.
Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in?
It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in.
Thanks for your thoughts and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.139.121 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please feel free to create an account and join the discussion. When you do, please own the various comments that have been yours. I cannot tell who is who among the IP editors commenting and reverting on the article. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Special barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thank you for taking the time and trouble to advise new editors in a patient way. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
- thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Mass blanking of talk page at Vani Hari
I note you blanked a significant amount of content on that page and then set a "bot" to blank content from the talk page as well. Please return to the talk page and explain yourself. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- i replied to you on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Toning it down
Would be good to tone things down a bit. You have made comments such as "you took out content that everybody but you agreed to; and above you are personalizing the discussion. Both are out of line." with bolding. Than when the RfC comes around [2] the community is not in favor of your position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to have offended and will work on that. I would appreciate the same. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Owe you a reply
Hey Jytdog I owe you and everyone (likely many of your stalkers here) a reply at the WT:MEDRS discussion, I simply haven't apportioned enough time yet to do it. Still lots to read. Zad68 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- so thoughtful -- thanks! i an sure you have seen the real world laboratory of that discussion going on at the Oseltamivir article... super interesting. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- oh for pete's sake! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
PTSD article
Hello, I was just reviewing the "Domestic Violence" sub section on the PTSD page. I want to know why you reverted the work that I contributed. I understand that we should not use primary sources but those sources were not primary as they were literature reviews and meta-analysis. I am new to wikipedia and would like a clarification on this. JambaJuicy (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- please open a discussion on the article's Talk page asking about this. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to restore my edits; I warned the student, and pending discussion, was just identifying primary sources inline so they could be addressed later. Don't let a student upset you into 3RR ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- ) i put your tags back at the top. i see that what you had MEDREFFED was deleted anyway. thanks for all your great work!! Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove load of content based on primary sources
I had my most of my article on TAS-102 deleted and the explanation was "remove load of content based on primary sources". I was wondering what that means? I felt the information was relevant to the drug and explained studies pertinent to its development and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The sources I obtained my information from were also from legitimate scientific journals. --Ukystu85 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for talking and asking! Please bring the question at the article talk page so everybody who cares can participate. I'll be glad to answer there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I included my question on the article talk page. Thanks! Ukystu85 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- is this where you put it?: User_talk:Ukystu85? oy Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I included my question on the article talk page. Thanks! Ukystu85 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Changes to article on antibiotic resistance
I added a good infographic to this article because there doesn't seem to be much about the public health impact. It was immediately removed. I have left comments on the talk page about plans to try to improve the article. Changes will have to be a piece at a time. I am open to comments and critique. juanTamad 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)
- WP:COPYVIO is not something to mess around with. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The graph I added today is in the public domain. I added that information when I upload the file. If you check the page it's there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AntimcrresUKreview2.jpg It's from a PDF I downloaded and it states on the last page: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. I understand the necessity for copyright. What else am I supposed to do to indicate that it is not copyvio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • juanTamad 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)contribs) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see that you claimed it was licensed under CC4 but when I went and looked at the source you took it from, I did not see that there. You cannot take someone's material and claim it is freely available - they have to license it that way. Do you understand? (and PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. This is the second time i have had an edit conflict with the bot signing for you. Please do not argue while you are still learning the basics. Ask questions. Real ones. Thanks.) Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, it's on the last page of the PDF here: http://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/AMR%20Review%20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20wealth%20of%20nations_1.pdf Should I use that URL as source when I upload? I thought it said to use the web page it came from, not on downloaded materialjuanTamad 15:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)
- good, i will resinstate the image. ONE MORE TIME ON THIS. SIGN YOUR POSTS Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The graph I added today is in the public domain. I added that information when I upload the file. If you check the page it's there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AntimcrresUKreview2.jpg It's from a PDF I downloaded and it states on the last page: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. I understand the necessity for copyright. What else am I supposed to do to indicate that it is not copyvio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • juanTamad 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)contribs) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Nuklear
Dear Jytdog,
I'm not a sock of Nuklear. What's the problem with him? I just know him for creating dozens of drug syntheses PNGs.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi you will see I reconsidered already and self-reverted because I am not sure yet. I then reverted on the basis of WP:VERIFY. You should avoid behaving like him, whether you are him or not. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've been curious since I've seen this name come up a few times in reverts, but never saw an obvious reason in the reverts at a quick glance that would indicate a sockpuppet. Is there an archive somewhere that explains what's going on with the user? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear/Archive, inveterate copyright violator...
Zad6819:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)- thanks! sad case acually. :( Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Had all his lab equipment taken from him as he was trying to make drugs in his house. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please unblock him, it will save the UK some water!--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Had all his lab equipment taken from him as he was trying to make drugs in his house. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks! sad case acually. :( Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What you're doing at G. Edward Griffin is still considered edit warring.
I have asked you to please stop reverting my edits, but you continue. Consider this a friendly warning. You have no valid reason for reverting any of my edits, including your take on MEDRS because the sources I cited are from reliable, peer-reviewed journals, including PLOS. If it is your intention to keep reverting my edits, and preventing me from correcting a BLP violation and updating the article, please tell me now, and I will save us both some time by taking the issue straight to ANI as a conduct issue. Atsme☯Consult 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I shouldn't do that if I were you, unless you have your boomerang deflection field operating at maximum strength. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme. Sorry you are unhappy. fwiw, I suggest you make small edits, one by one, and avoid puffery. If you do that, you will find that more of them will "stick" and we will all be able to work on specific language on specific things that turn out to be actually contentious. And generally, it is a good idea to concentrate on the body of the article, and only work on the lead once the body is settled. Adding a bunch of contentious content to the lead only is highly likely to be reverted on multiple grounds. Take it slow! There is WP:NODEADLINE. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- On more thing, Atsme I appreciate you talking to me here about what you see as a behavior issue but you have barely used the Talk page of the article to discuss the changes you want. You have discussed the health-related content a bit, but not the other issues. You are not going to get much traction on any behavior board, if you haven't made calm, good-faith efforts to work through the content issues, deliberately and clearly, on the article Talk page. So really, I recommend you just take it slowly and deliberately - think about opening separate sections on Talk for each piece of content you want to change. Talk it out. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- All good advice, Jytdog. Hope you are paying attention to it as well. You and I both know the Griffin article is an abortion, and represents the exact opposite of what WP expects of its content. The article is riddled with POV and undue weight issues, and as a GF editor, you should have already recognized the BLP violations. With reference to a comment made by one editor at the BLPN, the BLP debate actually does appear to be a contest, only I see it as a one-sided contest created by a group of misguided POV pushers who are trying to suppress information. My primary concern is correcting the blatant BLP violations in the article, and updating it with reliably sourced information per WP guidelines. My focus is on creating GAs and FAs. FWIW, I do not use "puffery". Instead of focusing only on my edits, why don't you focus on what my edits are replacing, including the pejorative terminology, contentious labeling, NPOV issues, undue weight, childish writing style, poorly sourced and outdated information, and the BLP violations? Surely you recognize them, don't you? There is no legitimate reason for deleting my edits, all of which were made in an effort to balance the article, improve and update prose, and eliminate the BLP violations. Your reverts have become disruptive, and are preventing me from doing my work as a GF editor who is simply trying to improve the article. Sorry if you disagree with the updated, properly sourced research I've provided, but it belongs in that article. I am more than happy to collaborate with you as a GF editor, but to be quite frank, that isn't what I have experienced so far. I point you to the following excerpt from a very important policy regarding fringe theories and WP:FRINGEBLP: There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. Atsme☯Consult 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- truly, you and I don't both know that the article is an "abortion". (and again, using strong language like this is not helpful to you appearing calm and rational if this ever goes to a drama board). I have asked a few times for you to identify specific issues on the Talk page so we can work on them. I look forward to you doing that. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying you don't know where the problems are in the article? 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not a mind reader, no. :) Please do identify the specific problems you see on the Talk page, so we can work on them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying you don't know where the problems are in the article? 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- truly, you and I don't both know that the article is an "abortion". (and again, using strong language like this is not helpful to you appearing calm and rational if this ever goes to a drama board). I have asked a few times for you to identify specific issues on the Talk page so we can work on them. I look forward to you doing that. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- All good advice, Jytdog. Hope you are paying attention to it as well. You and I both know the Griffin article is an abortion, and represents the exact opposite of what WP expects of its content. The article is riddled with POV and undue weight issues, and as a GF editor, you should have already recognized the BLP violations. With reference to a comment made by one editor at the BLPN, the BLP debate actually does appear to be a contest, only I see it as a one-sided contest created by a group of misguided POV pushers who are trying to suppress information. My primary concern is correcting the blatant BLP violations in the article, and updating it with reliably sourced information per WP guidelines. My focus is on creating GAs and FAs. FWIW, I do not use "puffery". Instead of focusing only on my edits, why don't you focus on what my edits are replacing, including the pejorative terminology, contentious labeling, NPOV issues, undue weight, childish writing style, poorly sourced and outdated information, and the BLP violations? Surely you recognize them, don't you? There is no legitimate reason for deleting my edits, all of which were made in an effort to balance the article, improve and update prose, and eliminate the BLP violations. Your reverts have become disruptive, and are preventing me from doing my work as a GF editor who is simply trying to improve the article. Sorry if you disagree with the updated, properly sourced research I've provided, but it belongs in that article. I am more than happy to collaborate with you as a GF editor, but to be quite frank, that isn't what I have experienced so far. I point you to the following excerpt from a very important policy regarding fringe theories and WP:FRINGEBLP: There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. Atsme☯Consult 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- On more thing, Atsme I appreciate you talking to me here about what you see as a behavior issue but you have barely used the Talk page of the article to discuss the changes you want. You have discussed the health-related content a bit, but not the other issues. You are not going to get much traction on any behavior board, if you haven't made calm, good-faith efforts to work through the content issues, deliberately and clearly, on the article Talk page. So really, I recommend you just take it slowly and deliberately - think about opening separate sections on Talk for each piece of content you want to change. Talk it out. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit on Levofloxacin page reverted.
Hello Jytdog, It is Mbcap. I have just seen that you reverted my work on the levofloxacin page. Thank you for posting the link about the pharmacology guide. I had a read through the BNF and online sources and agree with you. Could you possibly enlighten me about drugs that have a lot of brand names for future reference. Obviously this case is simple because there are a few but what about others. I am a new editors so trying to learn the ropes and I would grateful for your advice. Mbcap (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for talking, and more generally, thanks for your interest in editing health-related content! I don't understand your question though - can you please clarify? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just checked out your user page. Happy! Along with WP:MEDMOS, which I encourage you to read carefully and in full, please also read WP:MEDRS, and please consider signing up with WikiProject Medicine or at least putting its Talk page on your watch list. We strive for a high level of excellence in health-related articles and there is a lot to learn, on top of learning the regular WP:Policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR etc. . You are definitely on the right path with regard to asking questions and wanting to learn!! I will be glad to give you my perspective about how things work here, anytime you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Jytdog for being helpful. I shall read those documents, may take me a while. My apologies if the question above was not clear, but I was asking; lets say a particular drug has numerous trade names then which do you decide to list in the lead. I suspect I will find out once I read the above mentioned documents. Mbcap (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Well if there are a ton it might get its own WP:LIST article. See for example how Paracetamol is handled. The most prominent are named in the article, and we have a separate List of paracetamol brand names and a link to that WP article. If there are a few brands, they can just be listed in the lead paragraph or infobox, like Paroxetine. Then there is something like Esomeprazole, which had a long, random list in a section near the end of the article in this version and an editor with a COI was edit warring to get his company's brand name into the lead, and I just removed the list and added text and a ref to an external page listing a bunch of brands, as you can see in the current version. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- That makes a lot sense. Thank you again for your help. Mbcap (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Well if there are a ton it might get its own WP:LIST article. See for example how Paracetamol is handled. The most prominent are named in the article, and we have a separate List of paracetamol brand names and a link to that WP article. If there are a few brands, they can just be listed in the lead paragraph or infobox, like Paroxetine. Then there is something like Esomeprazole, which had a long, random list in a section near the end of the article in this version and an editor with a COI was edit warring to get his company's brand name into the lead, and I just removed the list and added text and a ref to an external page listing a bunch of brands, as you can see in the current version. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Jytdog for being helpful. I shall read those documents, may take me a while. My apologies if the question above was not clear, but I was asking; lets say a particular drug has numerous trade names then which do you decide to list in the lead. I suspect I will find out once I read the above mentioned documents. Mbcap (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
SBD
Just noticed this morning that you had edited and implemented a new version of the History section very similar to what I'd proposed. I really appreciate that. If I can be of any help to you with a project in the near future, don't hesitate to ask. Just as I want editors to help me out in these kinds of circumstances, I also always intend to be available to help in return. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- you are welcome! don't know if others will be OK with it, but we will see. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As one of the set of "others", I can say I have no objection ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- happy - good to know! thx. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As one of the set of "others", I can say I have no objection ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Dasatinib
The Origin and development section was already present with empty section tag. The content I added about the discovery can be about the molecule not its medical properties. The link is referred by this article which is a secondary source. Also the section has potential to have more content. So I hope you let the content added to remain. Ephrone (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- please discuss on the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Phenoperidine Wikipedia Page
Jytdog,
I noticed the changes you made to the phenoperidine page. I am a new Wikipedia user that wanted to improve a stub article. Is there any advice you can offer concerning the way I had created the page that resulted in your changes? In terms of content, layout, sources, etc. ? I really appreciate your suggestions.
Thank you, Java76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java76 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- hi - please open this discussion on the article Talk page - I would be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Holiday greetings...
- And same to you! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Cinnamon
Please do not warn people against edit warring who have made exactly one edit on the page in 5 weeks. You yourself are exhibiting WP:OWN with this pre-emptive criticism of others. That is not civil behaviour. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- sorry you were offended. lots of drive-by editing going on that article lately, including pumping up health claims. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the apology, though I think you should check before zapping people. I'd also like to say that "there is no evidence" statements like this are overblown; not all amounts below threshold are congruent to zero; numeracy should be a consideration. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You can run into WP:OR problems saying that though depending on the specific case. If a review dismisses primary sources that at least claim to be supporting evidence for whatever reason (faulty design, etc.), you're at the point of saying there isn't evidence supporting the idea when you're writing the actual review for the journal. If someone says there slight or preliminary evidence of something, it will be in the review too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the apology, though I think you should check before zapping people. I'd also like to say that "there is no evidence" statements like this are overblown; not all amounts below threshold are congruent to zero; numeracy should be a consideration. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Your disruptive edits, and 3 revert rule notification
Please review the 3 revert rule. You could be blocked for violating the policy. Kindly do not wiki-stalk other editors and do not edit war. Please do not remove footnoted and sourced material. Go about your own contributions to the Wiki encyclopedia but do not disrupt and antagonize others who edit in good faith and have well sourced material. Cheers! MickeyDonald (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please discuss changes on the Talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Soy Juice
Common use of that juice is Milk. But we aren't here for Marketing. Remember the 2 of the 5 pillars : Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view & Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Milk by definition comes from mammal. Words were created avoid any confusions. Truth and science >> Marketing. Let's stop lying to the population with invented meaning to sell more stuff.
- please discuss on the Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Domestic violence article
Hey, Jytdog. I hope you've enjoyed this year's holiday season. I'm stopping by your talk page because I've been meaning to ask if, similar to how you've helped out with the Reproductive coercion article, you wouldn't mind helping out with the Domestic violence article when you can. It has sourcing issues, WP:SIZE issues (including WP:Class assignments expanding the article), and, like the Reproductive coercion article, it can be controversial because of the domestic violence against men/gender symmetry aspect, which I recently commented on at the article talk page. If you feel that you have too much on your plate to help out with that article, I understand.
On a side note: I currently have your talk page WP:Watchlisted; so there's no need to ping me back here via WP:Echo to see your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Good God, you have a whole history of this
One edit and one revert is an edit war? OK, YOU don't make any more edits then. Good God, you have a whole history of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- you are a new user and barely understand what you are doing. please don't edit war, but instead ask questions about how things work. thanks for adding refs. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for mending the refs, really I am surprised and this is nice of you. I never meant to be rude, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- you are welcome. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for mending the refs, really I am surprised and this is nice of you. I never meant to be rude, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.153.23 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- you are a new user and barely understand what you are doing. please don't edit war, but instead ask questions about how things work. thanks for adding refs. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from further spurious warnings
One change does not make an edit war. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you revert a deletion of copyvio, who knows what you will do next. Don't add it back, and don't edit war over it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I did not do what you say I did. You are quick on accusations and short on facts. I put it in as a paraphrase. I intend to do that again (without the typos). Take it to the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I searched for phrases and found direct copy-pasting. If you re-instate the copyvio I will take you to ANI and you will get blocked. it is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I do that, you go ahead. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've put in a paraphrase. WP:3RR. Please discuss at the article talk page if you feel the need. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- thanks, that paraphrase is free of copyvio. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've put in a paraphrase. WP:3RR. Please discuss at the article talk page if you feel the need. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I do that, you go ahead. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I searched for phrases and found direct copy-pasting. If you re-instate the copyvio I will take you to ANI and you will get blocked. it is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I did not do what you say I did. You are quick on accusations and short on facts. I put it in as a paraphrase. I intend to do that again (without the typos). Take it to the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [3] Your position is not supported by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated WP:VERIFY and also didn't follow WP:LEAD, as described here. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Jytdog. Apologies this got a little overheated. While we may disagree some I think we agree on most things and hope that we can find a compromise on the bits where we disagree. The work you do here is exceedingly important. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Doc James: I'm glad to see that. I've been watching with concern, especially since I have high respect for you both. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- oh so happy! thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Doc James: I'm glad to see that. I've been watching with concern, especially since I have high respect for you both. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Jytdog. Apologies this got a little overheated. While we may disagree some I think we agree on most things and hope that we can find a compromise on the bits where we disagree. The work you do here is exceedingly important. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated WP:VERIFY and also didn't follow WP:LEAD, as described here. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [3] Your position is not supported by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psychedelic therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- and putative clinical roles. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014 Aug;4(4):156-69. Review. PMID 25083275 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104707/ PMC 4104707/</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice! Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
.jpg)
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jytdog!
Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
No POVFORK
Is it possible the question is fake? It appears the entire RFC is fake. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Tea
Please stop being impolite. It's really unnecessary and just makes you look bad. I also see nothing from the pages you linked stating that we need to write in "Wikipedia's voice" and that there's something stylistically incorrect about saying where the information comes from (e.g., from the 2014 meta-analysis). Last point-you have changed what the authors (and study) said (and we're not supposed to do that, we are supposed to reflect what the source says). Here's a direct quote of their conclusion: "Tea consumption might not be associated with the risk of fractures. The following large-sample and well-designed studies are required to confirm the existing conclusions." Notice it says "might not". This is not a definitive conclusion yet as the paper stated there were some data suggesting a protective trend that did not reach statistical significance from the studies they examined. If we're going to refer one another to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'll refer you here WP:Etiquette and here WP:Five pillars. Thanks, I hope to see more collaborative efforts from you in the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Please do see MEDMOS and MEDRS - we shouldn't litter WP with stuff like "A 2014 review of 15 clinical trials". There are many articles littered with stuff like that. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI
I've been going through Category:Conspiracy theorists bios. So far, from the A's, J's, N's & P's, only Michael Collins Piper has a CT as a descriptive in the first line. A fairly representative sample, but I think I will check the others too. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- i replied on the Talk page, with a new subsection. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
New English refs on Organic Food
Hello. Thanks for replacing the Danish languaged refs with English languaged sources on the Organic Food page.
However could you please write up the refs in proper coding?
RhinoMind (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- no, i will not. feel free to do that if you feel it is important. the main thing is that readers of english WP can verify the content. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello there. I was not expressing my personal views, but pointing out that your work and contribution is only haf-done.
- If you care enough for supplying some refs, then why do you not care for presenting them properly? It does not make much sense. If you don't care much for anything, then why engage in the first place? You leave litter for someone else to pick up and that is just old school bad manners.
- I am not here out of anger, it might as well be some Bot telling you exactly the same thing. RhinoMind (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- it is not true what you say. reference formatting is not required under policy. some people obsess on it. all that actually matters is that the reference is high quality and usable. i care a LOT about the quality of content and refs - formatting is way at the bottom of my list, and like i said, is not a policy thing. we have freedom to format as we like. again, if it is important to you, you are free to reformat it to fit whatever format pleases you Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not here out of anger, it might as well be some Bot telling you exactly the same thing. RhinoMind (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You deleted my restoration of an abbreviated synthesis of ibuprofen
I'm curious as to why. I see the reasons you gave, but they don't make sense to me.
- It is indeed based on a variety of primary sources. That's good, not bad.
- It's not in violation of WP:HOWTO because it doesn't talk about temperatures, pressures, vessels, reaction times, yields, or other practical specifics of the synthesis. It's very much like the synthesis discussions for asprin and paracetamol and most other drugs in Wikipedia
- It was probably deleted by mistake (see my change to Doc James' talk page)
I'd like you to consider rolling back your own rollback. Let me know what you think.
Riventree (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Most synthesis are not notable. All chemicals can be synthesis in many different ways. One could say "X can be synthesized by a host of different methods" in all med articles. Patents are not good sources. The rest I have no strong feelings about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did not use rollback, I simply reverted and provided an edit note. and this discussion belongs on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Most synthesis are not notable. All chemicals can be synthesis in many different ways. One could say "X can be synthesized by a host of different methods" in all med articles. Patents are not good sources. The rest I have no strong feelings about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)