User talk:Jytdog

Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?

A bit like WikiWhat but with a different focus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

hellyeah, and hm. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, since I never heard of it I didn't think it was so much in use: [1]. An ok-ish EL, at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Trypophobia

Just making it clear that I think your cleanup of the article was probably a good thing, after all. Thanks for all that you do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources for medical information

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

---

Hi Jytdog,

You assert that "we don't use blogs" and cite wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines do not support this assertion. The "blog" that was cited in the wikipedia article on chlortalidone is a high-quality secondary source, that was on the web site for a pharmacy school. This blog entry cites its primary sources.

I'm happy to learn from you, but I really wish you would work harder to make sure that your assertions are factual and that you would slow down a bit and actually read the material that is cited. Please do not misstate what the wikipedia guidelines assert. Please read the cited source prior to removing it from articles.

Thanks,

Sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

1) In this diff, you added "Chlortalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have a similar risk of hypokalemia and other adverse effects at the usual doses prescribed in routine clinical practice", cited to https://blogs.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/atrium/2016/05/18/which-thiazide-type-diuretic-should-be-first-line-in-patients-with-hypertension. That is a blog on a university website

2) Read WP:MEDRS. You will not find anywhere there, that blogs (even on university websites) are OK for WP:Biomedical information.

3) If you want to discuss article content, please do it on the talk page.

4) Please focus on learning the basics of Wikipedia, like signing your posts, threading, formatting citations properly, and what MEDRS actually says. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what WP:MEDRS states on this issue: "Press releases, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, blogs and other websites, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality…Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work…"

It does not say in WP:MEDRS that academic blogs can not be used. As secondary sources, the quality of some academic blogs is higher than that of many secondary sources in the peer-reviewed literature. Sbelknap (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Steve, reach high. We aim for recent reviews in good journals and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Experienced medical editors remove crappy sources like that blog, or mayo clinic, or whatever. You are wasting other people's time when you add sources like that.

We have to apply these things consistently. In your judgement that blog is great, but we have to deal with actual tinfoil hat people in WP who say "this blog is great and very high quality".

Editors do not have any authority here. I don't care if you think that is a great blog, just like i don't care about the tin foil hat person's judgement about the blog they bring.

You are unteachable; you refuse to stop and think about how WP is wired and why it is wired that way.

You are no longer welcome to post here. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Talk:Ariel Ace#VFR engine.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your self-revert at Talk:Ben Swann

For what it's worth, I agree completely with the sentiment in your self-reverted edit there. But I don't really care if Carole wants to look at the article, because I'm sure they will 1) come to the same conclusion as us, or far less likely 2) come to the same conclusion as Doc, with just as willfully ignorant a reason. Either way, it doesn't prolong the debate the way that stupid RfC does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That was a seriously Matrixy comment. Unfortunately I haven't been red pilled! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Image quality article

Hi Jytdog!

I've seen a couple of edits and reverts to the image quality article that I'm editing. Some of the reverts mark the links as 'spam' or 'useless citations'. I'm trying to get it right but it doesn't seem to be the case, so any help that you could provide so you don't need to be reverting my edits over and over will be welcome. --Scann (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you improving the article. The citations taken directly from Wikidata are not great, and most of what I have been doing has been improving the citations that you have found and are adding content from.

You have moved to using much better sources that you were at first. Please keep up the good work! Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! So then it doesn't make sense to be creating the sources as WD items? --Scann (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a bit of a loaded topic. I am very opposed to them, because a) they are not editable here, and b) like lots of stuff there (and here) they often need improvement to be accurate and maximally useful to people here. (Like the book ref - that did not name the chapter and the chapter authors. Or like the ITU ref which is available open access on the internet...) I have no desire to go to Wikidata and fix things, or try to figure out the basis on which editors there make decisions. So when things need fixing, I fix them here.

You are aware of the "cite" tool in the edit bar, yes?

Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I'm aware of the cite tool, but I'm also trying to figure out some things about WD. I thought that it was "cleaner" than the cite tool, but for the purpose of this article I'll just use the cite tool. Also, do you think that IEEE Conference Proceedings are also non-valid sources? --Scann (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

OK :) I killed the picture.

conference abstracts are generally not good. sketchier stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reply in WT:IRS

On July 11 you wrote: "that "works" for me, Staszek Lem!"

Sorry for my English comprenessin, but I failed to understand your answer: whether it means that (1) the existing policy text works for you, or (2) my suggestion is worth elaborating, or (3) it was simply a pun on the word "work". I am asking because if meaning is 2, then I will push further. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It was saying (2) (that I agree with your proposed rewrite here) and punning on "work". Agreeing with your proposal is the important part. Sorry for not being clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog reported by User:PinkAmpersand (Result: ). Thank you.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible COI/PAID

Hi Jytdog. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Jojuram for a bit; there may be some COI or undisclosed PAID editing taking place. I've started a discussion at User talk:Jojuram#Edufar ‎and Edufar-related articles to see if the editor can clarify this. If I left something important out or got something wrong, please correct me. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Is SciAm not a reliable/high-quality source?

Hello, Jtdog. I am even now explaining to the editor who removed my contribution--without explaining why, neither in the Summary section (which he left blank) nor on the TALK page--how this is done (consensus seeking). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Jtdog, we seem to be editing at the same time. Isn't SciAm a high-quality source? It often gives very nice, readable summaries, especially for trends in academic scientific specialties. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not OK per MEDRS, no. Per the note that has been left on your talk page twice now, by two different editors, we look for literature reviews in high quality medical journals or statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've put in numerous refs ranging from Michael J Fox foundation press release, to BBC article for non-scientists, to academic reviews in mainstream scientific journals, plus, I put in a primary ref to the journal Cell, feel free to remove unacceptable refs. Thank you. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

POINTY. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I stopped what i was doing and added some content, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, I'm leaving it alone, but I don't see what was wrong the the academic reviews I ref'ed from journals like Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeMrToad (talk • contribs) 03:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

Buddy I don't care enough for you to mention my name in some complaint. Revert it back if you want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus.savage.0 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" section at Full Sail University

Hello, Jytdog. I have been proposing some article updates for the Full Sail University article on behalf of the school (which I've disclosed appropriately). It's my understanding that standalone "criticism" and "controversies" sections are discouraged, in order for articles to present information neutrally. An editor recently reviewed and copy edited the article (at my request) and as part of their edits, they created a separate Criticism section. I'm grateful for their review of the article, so I didn't want to push back on this with them if a Criticism section is something that editors would generally prefer; I believe I've seen you discuss and address Criticism sections on other pages before, so I thought to reach out for a fresh take. Is it reasonable to suggest moving the content throughout the article? Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Hello, I just wanted to say I deeply appreciate your contribution to keeping the pfSense article page clean from vandalism as performed by Gonzo throughout July. Thank you. Consensi (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Need your help on a page that is attacked- Alliance University

There is a family feud going on for Alliance University, where two parties are claiming their ownership. UGC lists alliance.edu.in as the University's website and here is a High court ruling. You are the only editor who knows how to handle and settle the dispute and can really make a correct decision. Save Wikipedia from spammers who are using it as a source to list their claim.157.37.169.248 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the "only one" but I worked over the page. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for doing that, but you are certainly the best and most neutral editor here. A few things to notice and make clear on the page.

• Brother: It does not specifies who is the brother and with dispute tough to determine. Can you from change "his brother was the president." to "his brother, Sudhir Angur was the president ", it will make more sense to the readers
• All universities in India have a legal status only when they are approved by UGC, here is the link of https://www.ugc.ac.in/uni_contactinfo.aspx?id=537 which display the actual and recognized website by the authorized body of Indian government.
• Dispute: "As of March 2018 litigation between family members over control of the university was pending in the High Court." is still not correct, here is the url to refer details

"point 48 – clearly shows Mr. Madhusudhan Misra as Registrar, upheld by the court", "point 56 & 57 – court has upheld the injunction order against Madhukar Angur".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.240.29 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2018‎ (UTC)

I am none of those things.

With regard to the points about the article, would you please post them on the article talk page? Discussion about content should be there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

IVORK conflict of interest (sort of relates to previous pfSense stuff)

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not often a wikipedia contributor and not fully familiar with the process here, so I thought it would be better to bring this to your attention and you could do whatever is required if anything is.

You have been involved in stopping some users with conflicts of interest from editing the pfSense article recently, and I think a similar issue has happened with pfSense employees and the IPFire page.

I posted here also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:IPFire#Potential_conflict_of_interest_with_IVORK

Thanks --81.111.250.31 (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your !vote at WP:AN

I read your !vote at WP:AN. As far as I can see, it concentrates almost entirely on WP:COI. Do you find the fact that COI had absolutely nothing to do with the block in the first place, to be relevant for discussing whether an editor should be unblocked?

Btw, if you would rather continue this over email, feel free to email me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and question. I am happy to discuss, but we should do it an AN. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you just got confused, and only read part of my initial post. There's lots of text before the "first sentence". Here's the diff. My points are numbered. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to that part now as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, I never did respond to your points about COI, though doing so now in the AN discussion would likely be futile. If you want, I can respond here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. (I realize that as an experienced editor in the area you probably know all this). Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

About your AN proposal

Hi, Jytdog. Needless to say, I am unhappy that you have proposed a TBAN for my colleague at ANI. I wish that you would see Danilo's willingness to adjust the wording on the RfC as evidence that he is trying to follow Wikipedia's rules, and consider that a TBAN should be reserved for editors who are truly disruptive. From my perspective, it appears you have escalated a disagreement about content into a claim that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, which I find to be a tenuous argument. After all, if what you say of Danilo is true, then it must necessarily be so for any COI contributor. I have to ask then, are you preparing to propose a block for me next? All COI contributors? If that is not your intention, then I hope you can help me understand your position better. Reviewing the matter, I cannot see what line Danilo crossed at BNY Mellon as compared to any other article where he has made edit requests. If you can articulate this in a generalized way, I would be interested to hear that, too. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You have pretty much completely misread my description of the problem. I urge you to read it more carefully. I will be happy to reply once you express a sense of engaging with what I actually wrote... This After all, if what you say of Danilo is true, then it must necessarily be so for any COI contributor is very, very untrue. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I am having a difficult time seeing how this request by Danilo was any different than those previous, or any that I might make. We might be in the wrong sometimes, but so is everyone else. Moreover, in the situation with the charts, Danilo presented perfectly mundane, mission-based reasons why removing them would improve the article. How does that constitute turning the article into a proxy for the corporate website, or violate WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

All of his proposals were about focusing the page on the bank's current business; not on encyclopedic content describing the whole lifespan of the bank. With regard to the charts, I would have taken something like -- "OK, how about if I draft some prose describing those charts - for example describing how the banks assets and liabilities roughly tripled leading up to the financial crisis, and its net income fell by 50% during that same time, and giving some context to that" -- as a good faith, mission oriented response to my objection.

And if all of your proposals are like Danilo's I encourage you to reconsider your approach to what a WP article is. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it. While I'm obviously not a neutral arbiter, I think I can see where you each express a valid concern. Yours, that the article retain historical information and not reflect only the present; his, that outdated information characterized as current be corrected. I'll admit I haven't read all of his proposed changes, so there may be other issues, but it seems like these views should be reconcilable. Speaking of which, the suggestion you offer does sound like it would be workable as well. As I mentioned at AN, Danilo is on vacation for the next week. If he's still permitted to comment on this topic at the end of this discussion period, it's certainly what I'll advise him to look into. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

characterized as current? The charts are in a section called "historical data". But yes we should be careful about not misleading people about what is current. Editing per RELTIME helps eliminate that problem. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to Request: Operations updates, which largely focused on updating figures and moving some things to the History section, but which you said was not "aimed correctly". As for the charts, well, it didn't misinform but I think it's fair to say its current presentation underinforms—and there is more than one way to resolve the issue. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote at the AN, what I was seeking was to politely shut the door on one article so as to call Danilo's attention to aiming for the mission of WP. It has also caught your attention. That's fine. I look for better-aimed proposals from your team. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that comment now. I still dispute your characterization that his suggestions serve a PR purpose only, and maintain that a TBAN is a disproportionate response. But if you would be willing to withdraw the proposal, I would be willing to more closely review his suggestions before they go live (which until just now I have not been involved with) or even reassign it, if the relationship cannot be repaired. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh thanks for reading carefully. Better late than never.

I do understand that you dispute the characterization.

I don't think I will respond to your offer to supervise your employee or contractor only if I take some action. Other than to say that is an odd suggestion to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand. And I certainly agree it's an odd situation. FWIW, everyone here is a full-time employee. We care about doing good work, and that means we don't farm anything out on contract. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Source we shouldn't use

Hi Jytdog

I vaguely remember one discussion on a source that is now considered generally not reliable and I seem to remember you were involved in that discussion. Was that source The Guardian or am I remembering that incorrectly. Thanks for any assistance you can give on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

I have the answer. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Corrective action.

Thanks for the info concerning copyright errors. I am new and trying to understand/follow protocol. I may have been a bit over confident with early success. No malice was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobeocean (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. No big deal, everybody needs to learn. Happy to help if you have any questions in the future. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I referenced the source after inserting two paragraphs from an online posting. Is there something I'm missing? I did not place quotation marks around the "source" but entered it between the ref/ref marker. The page: Hemp still has a BLATANT copyright infringement note at the top. Can you help with that as well? I have some sources on Hemp cultivation and the page is requesting edits in that area but I am reluctant now that I am flagged.

The tag on the article, is a request for an admin to remove the copyright violation from the history of the page.

You are not "flagged" in any way. I gave you a standard notice, which informs you that violating copyright is not OK in WP, which also advises you how to avoid doing that in the future. Please keep editing. Just don't copy content from elsewhere into WP. That is not a hard thing to avoid doing, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Spots

If your question was intended to be about ANI, I did put something in the wrong spot and then caught it and moved it to the right spot. So either way, it's all good. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Subject headline: Issues Concerning JDRF Article ElisabethF (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting

Online encyclopedia and cryptocurrency in a [something] mixture [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I appreciate the experimental spirit but the idea of trying to spur very broad expert contribution with cryptocurrency rewards today seems a bit pets.com-ish to me. But Wikipedia remains a batshit crazy idea but it somehow kinda works, so who am i to talk. :) we'll just have to see.... Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

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

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

COIN

Just to let you know that a CU on User:ESparky has revealed no other accounts or editing from their IP. As the autoblock on the IP has now expired, vigilance is still required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not constructive

(This could be a Talk page thingy) I did what I thought was a nice change to the layout of a bit on History of male circumcision and got reverted in less than a minute by Orphan Wiki. (I thought it was a robot, for while.)

I changed a c200 word sentence into a list - only adding 2 letters. But this bozo said it “seems not constructive” - which “seems” like he didn’t look at it. (I got a response so I know now, he doesn’t like it). I think others might like it — I wanted to ask an interested party, but (it seems) all the Top10 editors on the History Revision list are banned or inactive. (That’s where I got your name).

So I’m after advice. Or a (nice quiet peaceful) solution.

NB: his next edit really annoyed me: again, he didn’t give a useful reason; until I asked for it. MBG02 (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PS I didn’t put it on the Talk page because I thought it would be too big. I’m sure there’s a way of putting a link to the (stuff I typed) but I haven’t learnt it yet. MBG02 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

PPS Orphan Wiki is still being annoying (offensive). He says “both edits damaged both article and talkpage” but there’s one article and one Talk page (for a different article). Perhaps you can tell me what he’s complaining about (with the Yo-yo Talk page) (you’ll need to go into View History). MBG02 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Herbalife Edits Spam?

Hi Jytdog,

I am newer to Wikipedia editing and was hoping to learn from your recent revision of my Herbalife edit. I added a recent controversy to the page with sources to a news site that picked up the story and the source material itself (a study). I was hoping you could shed light on why that should be reverted as spam and what I should look out for in the future to ensure I conform to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks in advance! --Miyagikk (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are using very low quality refs to the extent that is appears you are spamming. The content you are adding is generally promotional "business news". Would you please explain why you are editing this way? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I am going to take some more time reading up on the rules to get better at this. I was simply looking to practice by adding in some recent factual history but I need to be much more stringent about what I am updating. Thanks for lesson and the guidance. --Miyagikk (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Feynman Prize photos

The RfC close explicitly said "The consensus is to Keep the draft version", which included the photos and institutions. I'm going to assume you missed that part of the close, but any further removals of content without consensus are clearly going to be considered disruptive editing. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.

Repeated reverts [3] [4] [5] of an edit that implemented an explicit discussion close is a clear case of edit warring. I realize you self-reverted the last one [6], but it shouldn't have gone that far. The fact that you're appealing the close doesn't give you unilateral permission to change it before the appeal is resolved, let alone come this close to violating WP:3RR. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, i self-reverted the last one. Please be more patient and less aggressive about promoting this prize. I get it -- really I do -- that you think nanotechnology is Very Important. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My belief has always been that the original table was well within accepted practice for this type of article, and that your demands were way outside of the existing consensus. We have a process to work through these disagreements, so we went through AfD/RfC, and the clear consensus endorsed the original version of the table. If you really want to challenge the RfC on process points and go through all this again, on the off chance that it gives a different result, you have that right. But I feel everyone would really be better off spending that time actually improving articles. But to be honest, the reason I'm so driven on this is that I have a distaste for situations where people ignore consensus and try to get their way by either repeating false accusations (in the case of David Gerard) or by exhausting everyone by arguing every minor process point (which I feel like you're doing). Both of these undercut the consensus building process that Wikipedia relies on. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is false: clear consensus endorsed the original version of the table. You were not listening in the main RfC and overplaying the subthread. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the DNA nanotechnology page which is an FA that should no longer be one. I was thinking we might collaborate to bring it back up to snuff.... Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the close review will determine what, if anything, the subthread endorsed.

One thing at a time, but I'm happy to discuss improvements to the DNA nanotechnology article. It does need to be updated with advancements since 2012, and other editors have made additions to the Applications section that have lowered that section's quality. It's perennially been on my to-do list, but I've never gotten around to it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

UNC Pharmacy Page

This is to notify you that I am requesting a third party review of your edits to the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy page. My edits were made in good faith, you deleted them without valid reasons, and you did not accept them as such, nor did you respond to talk on the page that was directed to you. Happy Panda 25 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. My apologies for not getting back to you at the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page

Our discussion regarding restoring an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page seems to have fallen through the cracks again. It's now been languishing since April. If you don't have time to get back to this, can you please point me to someone else who can help? Thanks. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

hi, im notifying you since you had the most edits on the article im asking to be deleted

hi im notifying you since according to this tool - http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl - that wp told me to use you had the most edits and needed to notified

i proposed ZoomInfo for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ZoomInfo

if i put this in the wrong place pls let me know, im new

Tacticomed (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

great! I hope you are going to finish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo (2nd nomination)...Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

News from the International Anti-Corruption Academy

Hi Jytdog,

I am a Wikipedia-contributor, who is mainly active in the German Wikipedia. I am currently working at the IACA in order to broaden IACA's understanding of Wikipedia and to share its resources. I noticed that the article on IACA was quite a battlefield some time ago and saw that you had some confrontation there with one of the guys working at IACA. I tried to explain him the mistakes he committed and am assuming that he actually understood what he did wrong. I did, however, also notice that the current article is rather bad in several dimensions. So I might, as soon as there is some free time, make some suggestions to improve the article. Just wanted to inform you in advance to avoid any surprises. Do you know any other user who might be interested enough in the topic to receive such notification? Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. In case you should be interested, I can obviously send you an email from my private account to verify that I am actually an active user. For reasons of anonymity, I prefer, however, avoiding making this link in public.

Thanks for your note. I don't need any special notification; the page is on my watchlist. You should of course use the {{Request edit}} template on that talk page, which will draw independent users to review the edits.

I don't know that the IACA page was that much of a battlefield; it was somewhat typical of what happens when conflicted editors push and push to get what they want.

Please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

if those edits happened on my watchlist in the deWP, i would have requested protection but I might also just be more sensitive in this regard.

my talk page is answered

and thanks for the reminder, will be done like that. --WiR IACA (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Article on Pranic Healing

Hello Jytdog Greetings Article on Pranic Healing was deleted on 14th Aug 2018 citing G11- Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article has been modified and rewritten. Please let me know what are the next steps. With best regards Srikanth Jois --SrikanthJoisNagaraja (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 17/8/2018

Eckankar

Would you mind dealing with this article again: I can’t remember if I’ve taken any admin action in regards to it, so I’d prefer not to deal with the content. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Notforum

Nice try with your reverting a legit discussion on a talkpage. Wp:notforum does not apply here. In case you didn't notice the conclusion on the Jeong page is with the Times standing by tgeir hiring decision. It would be reasonable to note (from a valid source) that neither the Times nor Jeong apologised for the controversial tweets. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Hello Jytdog, re the template you placed on my talk page where you cautioned me to adhere to WP:NOTAFORUM. Please be advised that I didn't write the comment in question, although I think that deleting that comment from the talk page, as was done by Ahunt was grossly inappropriate conduct which is why I restored it. Also, I don't know if it was your intention but the text of this template comes off as overbearing and brusque. In the future interactions, please make an effort to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I agreed with templating it closed (or with deleting it, as I had done originally). It was just a rant and fell afoul of WP:NOTFORUM. Judging by the wording it is probably also a WP:COI issue there, too. Based on WP:DENY, I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

When you re=post it, you own it. I was well aware that you didn't write it originally. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

you now deleted/hatted posts by two editors who are discussing neutrality of the article. I disagree with your assessment that they violated WP:NOTAFORUM, and in any case, deleting talk page posts based on such assertion will always be controversial.Heptor (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

why don't you read the source and just fix it? for pete's sake

You asked me,

why don't you read the source and just fix it? for pete's sake

The answer in my case was that I was at a park on my mobile device with limited internet access. In general, there is a reason we have Template:Ambiguous: It is because there could be little work or much work required to clarify the ambiguity. It is always unclear at the outset (without actually trying) how much work will be involved in clarifying any given ambiguity. Please remember that the Wikipedia:Ethical Code for Wikipedians enjoins civility among volunteer editors:

A conscious devotion to civility can help prevent us from forgetting that there are thinking and caring people behind the flickering usernames on our computer screens. Mis-communications are all too common. Sometimes we get tired and rush to reach an editing goal and we can become frustrated and impatient. Sometimes we see others use bad behavior and we are tempted to try it ourselves as a means to an end. Good editing means not taking short cuts. Stay civil. When you cannot see a good way past a conflict, take a break, bring in more editors, take a deep breath and try to find new creative ways to assume good faith.

Thank you for your continued fellow contributions to making Wikipedia ever better!

References

Mavaddat (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic Wikipedia Page

Dear JytDog,

I am interested in making edits to the Cleveland Clinic Wikipedia page to add updated information and correct errors present on the page. However, I do have a conflict of interest (not financial) and would like to ensure my revisions are not perceived as advocacy or academic boosterism. I'm reaching out to you because I saw on the History of the page that many revisions by a user were reverted by you. Although some of said user's revisions looked like boosterism, others were accurate.

Please let me know how I can contribute to this page while managing my COI. Thank you for your time in maintaining the integrity of the articles on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, wikiuser5991