User talk:Jytdog/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at The Pictet Group 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.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WikiEditCrunch. The purpose of the notice is to ensure you are aware of the policy. As I already gave you this notice, I am obviously aware of it. It is not a "badge of dishonor". You are consistently showing that you do not understand Wikipedia and what we do here, nor how we do things, nor why. Please self-correct. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your the self-appointed expert.I know.

Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still ignoring talk page conventions. Your editing is really aiming for the wrong thing. You are heading directly for a topic ban with indefensible edits like this which was immediately reverted, and this and this. Your edits are almost all promotional and overly detailed with regard to companies - which is not something looked on favorably by the community -- and your refusal to follow basic conventions and the continued snark of "mate" exacerbates that. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed those pages and found no issues.When will you stop stalking me?

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [[:File:Mulan Screenshot.jpg|thumb|Dishonor on you! Dishonor on your whole family! –Natureium]]

Multimodel Deep Learning

This just showed up on my watchlist. Does it look as spammy to you as it does to me? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhhh more academic spam: Special:Contributions/Kamykowsari. From some spot checks, that and Hierarchical Deep Learning are both copy and pastes of his conference papers. SmartSE (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. I'm a little hesitant to AfD or merge the pages because I don't know enough about deep learning, but a superficial search shows lots of Google hits for the subject, but they seem mostly to be self-references, not independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

They were even put through AfC. Yes these are not good; an expert using WP like a faculty webpage. argh. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly a PhD student, so expert is stretching it a little. At the very least they need all the content referenced to his papers or copied and pasted from them removed. Jusging by this, Multimodel Deep Learning isn't notable. The other is better, but there are still only 9 papers with it in the title, which for a field like compsci is very little. SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

Hi I wonder if you could have a look at this User talk:Lake Ontario Wind#Article Deletion discussion and tell me what you think. In light of this admission on his choice of editors to review articles [1] and the fact that as I already pointed out this editor has less than 500 editis and next to no experience in notability discussions. IMHO it is totally inappropriate to ask this editor to review his edit request and make the changes he wishes. We are getting close to a WP:MEATPUPPET situation because this could be seen as being akin to Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute.. I don't want to confront him about this as he already sees me as hostile but as you have collaborated on several articles with him and reminded him about behaviour as a paid editor I think you are perfectly legitimate to give me a balanced opinion on this. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is problematic that he had asked that person to review. I believe he is not going to do that anymore. Which is good.

About the post you link; looking at BC1278's contribs, that is the only person he notified, so yes that is canvassing in my view. I'll put a note there and at BC1278's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That said they were the only other contributor to the article so it would have been difficult to choose anyone else! But as they were the one who moved the article into mainspace following the request from BC1278 it is clear that they will not !vote delete so for me a real problem especially as they are asking them to directly publish the modifications rather than following the WP:EDITREQUEST procedure which is:

1. Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet.
2. Once there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation.
3. A user who can make the edit will notice the template has been added, and will respond to the request.

For me they are gaming the system and this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. If this goes on I can't see any choice but to take it to ANI. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've posted at the AfD about logistics for making changes while the AfD is running... Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis and Dom from Paris: @Jytdog: I understand why you think this looks like canvassing, but it is not if you look at the article history. I wrote that note intending to ping everyone who had made a contrib to the article. Then I went to history and it turned out that editor was the only one to have done any direct edits on the article, other than bots.BC1278 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You are making a very narrow legalistic argument there. Making that kind of argument is unwise. This looks very bad, and is bad, given the particulars. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:GAMETYPE #4. I believe you are doing this to avoid an accusation of meat puppetry. Noone would expect the person who reviewed the article and moved it into mainspace to vote delete. This is very unwise behaviour especially for a paid editor who has potentially a lot to lose in the case of sanctions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think enough has been said about this here. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it's me your favorite pain in the neck. I guess you saw I left Women in the Bible, and I wanted to explain. I have frequently found your manner and comments hard to swallow, but somehow, I always seem to eventually end up thinking your comments are right for Wikipedia, and darned if I haven't learned as much from your criticisms as I have learned from all the compliments I have received put together. That doesn't mean I want more criticism!! :-) However, it does mean that I see the worth of your input. I had totally developed "ownership" of that article and couldn't hear what you were saying, so it was right for me to leave. But I went and looked recently and I see that you have not worked on it since I left, and I wanted to say please don't be discouraged by my failure to support your efforts. Please do what you do. It's an important article and you bring valuable knowledge and I would very much like to see you finish what you--we--started and turn it into the kind of quality article we both want to see here. Maybe after you are done, you could send me a 'heads up' as I am not watching it anymore. It will be less painful for me if I see it after the fact. If you know what I mean... ;-) Anyway, good luck. I wish you well in all your endeavors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I always want is best for WP; yes my manner is rather harsh and i understand that can make it hard to accept what I say. I do intend to swing back by there; I had held off because you said were going away. Will try to get back this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hallucinogen#Deliriants

Hello, I am writing to explain myself with regards to my edits of the deliriants section of the hallucinogen page. All the information I have provided relating to A. muscaria and its lay categorization as a deliriant comes from the associated Wikipedia pages. For example, assuming Wiki is on beat with the pulse of culture, the page recreational drug use regards A. muscaria and its active compounds as deliriants, without citation. This is almost universal, except when I have edited it into the dissociative category, thinking it belonged there, and the odd dissenter like whomever made it so dissociative mushroom redirects to psychoactive Amanita mushroom. I am fine with not saying anything about A. muscaria in the deliriant section but please remove all the content associated with it, instead of leaving a huge paragraph, without context or subject stated, which despite its citation is as contrived and condensed from other pages as the other one. This taboo subject excites me and the information I have provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you could perhaps modify the content to your liking and take some of the cites from the related pages, like muscimol and ibotenic acid, this topic could be fleshed out nicely in proper fashion. Because this is a taboo subject, there is not as much high quality research into its pharmacology as their would be for a patented pharmaceutical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBaur (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! However, discussion about article content should be at the article talk page. Please post this at Talk:Hallucinogen#Unsourced and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural issue for Nextdoor

Hi,

As part of your straightening out the mess as Nextdoor Talk,I agreed to only submit one proposal at a time, which is sensible. However, I did not anticipate that a user would re-create a "Controversy" section with no RS. Nextdoor#Denial_of_service_to_sex_offenders_and_members_of_their_households

I don't want to start something new on Talk, as I promised. But it seems unfair to let an obvious problem like this go unaddressed. Since you structured the discussion, I'd like your advice on how to handle this.

The background is this. I am loathe to ever directly edit articles where I have a COI, except in rare cases where I believe clear cut vandalism. In this, an SPI editor, in their one and only edit on Wikipedia on April 12, 2018, with their Ft. Lauderdale IP address revealed, inserted a "Controversy" sub-section sourced only to a same-day, April 12, 2018 blog post and self-published letter from an obscure Florida advocacy website for sex offenders. dif Their complaint is that household members of sex offenders are prevented from having Nextdoor accounts. As I understand Wikipedia, a self-published blog post on a local sex offender's advocacy website has the same RS weight as if they had posted the info on their Twitter account or Facebook page. Editors who review COI requests have told me repeatedly not to bother them with removing vandalism similar to this - just to do it myself. I chose to do it, after checking on Google that the complaint by the sex offender group had not been written about by any RS. I also left in the edit note that I have a COI. And I notified the SPI editor of what I was doing.

Now it has been restored as an "improved" version, with a link to the Nextdoor website and a link to a Supreme Court caselaw note that does not mention Nextdoor, but deals with sex offenders. The Florida sex offender advocacy-group self-published blog post is still the main citation. The new version now explicitly says that Nextdoor may be violating the law, with no RS. I have directly asked the editor to please remove the section, and even pointed out that if they just wanted to add the Nextdoor policy on excluding sex offender households from the service, there is a RS for that.

I have explained the substance, as I would on a Talk page request, but only for the purpose of giving you context for a process decision. Not to weigh in on the merits. Where am I supposed to bring this issue since we've decide the Talk page should be for one issue at a time? This is me being very cautious.-BC1278 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please discuss content on the article talk page. In general, I advise you to not try to have these "side bars" at people's talk pages about article content matters. I'll reply there if you post there. So yeah - just post about it, focused on the content, at the article talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I just wanted to be extra cautious I wasn't going to be criticized for bringing up more than one matter at a time on Talk, given the problems before. I gave too much context.BC1278 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I understand the situation. Sorry that things have gotten hairy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with Paolo Casali

Hi, Jytdog. I know you are probably busy with editing articles for people who do not have a conflict of interest, but wanted to check in to see if the disclosure I made on my user page at your request is sufficient and what the next steps would be. I left a few comments on my talk page. Thanks. --Meriville (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural advice

Hi,

Thanks again for helping to straighten out Nextdoor.

Seeking out advice again on process since I don't want to step in it again. In light of the IP address, one-edit SPA inserting self-promotion in Nextdoor (Florida), and the bad experienced with sock puppet vandalism, etc., do you think it would be OK for me to seek semi-protection for Nextdoor? Or some other sort of protection?

I am going to soon introduce a new update for review since we're about done with the racial profiling section. I will try to think of a very nice way to make the requests but it might nevertheless draw the attention of socks or SPAs. It is the nature of this subject, it seems. Am I potentially going to piss anyone off by making such a request?

BC1278 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

In my view there is not a significant enough history of disruptive edits to warrant protection. Edits like the IPs need to happen a lot (for instance if the IP editor was IP hopping and edit warring to keep the content... Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll just keep an eye out instead. BC1278 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

User:Mlbnkm1/Assetz Property Group

Hi Jytog. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at User:Mlbnkm1/Assetz Property Group and assessing it for potential COI and paid editing. The reason I'm asking is that this post give the impression of someone working under some kind of guideline and someone not intendeing to submit the draft for review via AfC. Also, there's File:Malayalam Dorector Marthandan.jpg which in an of itself is nothing really, but when you considered that the same editor who took the photo also created G. Marthandan a few days earlier, then there might be some kind of connection between subject and editor.

On the other hand, I might just be seeing smoke where there's no fire, but I just thought I'd ask you about it since you're way more experienced in this type of thing I am. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. "Assetz Property Group" is technically still a userspace draft, so maybe it can be left as is with a suggestion that it be submitted to AfC and not directly added to the username space. G. Marthandan, however, is already in the mainspace so I'm not quite sure how to deal with that one. Do you think it would be over kill to add a {{uw-coi}} template or a a post of some kind to the editor's user talk page about WP:COI and WP:PAID? The account has been around 2012, so it's not as if somebody just created the account to create these particular articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind the above. I didn't notice that you'd already posted about this on their user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to update this thread, Mlbnkm1 has gone ahead and created Assetz Property Group despite the advice you gave them on their user talk. Their intentions might be good and they probably are just under pressure to get the article added asap, but they seem to have missed the point of what you posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Greyjoy ^talk 12:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not posting this to your talk page, as is customary to do so. I'll be more mindful in the future. Godrestsinreason (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That board is for content disputes. You brought a behavioral complaint there. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

And it will be closed as a behavioral complaint. Before bringing a behavioral complaint, it is a good idea to read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida‎‎

Hi, just for reference - that's the cell phone spammer, who does nothing but insert contact numbers for his admission scam outfit into Indian university pages. Usually IP, these days mixing it up with throwaway accounts. Whenever you see 11 bytes added to these pages, it's an alarm signal :) Ship'em straight to AIV. I'm doing that one now. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

what's up

What's with the removal of the ref I recently cited? Was it questionable? Was the ref not appropriate for the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Please see the message on your talk page at User_talk:September_1988#References_2. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Agressiveness

I want to assume good faith.

But you might want to consider being more patient and flexible when threatening with stuff etc. when things are more about nuance and smaller points than proper violations.

Violations of those kinds are there for a good reason. But invoking those rules aggressively beyond common sense is not a good policy IMHO.

It might also land yourself in hot water at some point. Be careful. You can be assertive while polite. Not every disagreement calls for those sharp language and tools.

Respectfully Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not respectful. Not aware. Do not edit war. Do not violate copyright, and do not edit war to retain copyright violations. It is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP: ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Godrestsinreason (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Smart Contracts

Hi Jytdog,

I'm new to the editing process, and not quite clear on where to go to respond properly. On this page you say to post to the article Talk page - which I haven't found yet.

My recent changes to the Smart Contracts page were deleted citing problems with the reference I cited. The reference is to the AMiX user manual. This reference also appears on the "Phil Salin" page. The AMiX user manual exists only in hardcopy. I am not quite sure what is wanted to improve the reference.

Can you give me some guidance on how and where to address this?

Thanks, Deltavelocity (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it should not be there either. Wikipedia content should be based on independent, reliable sources and aiming for high level, encyclopedic content. If you find yourself trying to cite a user manual you are probably aiming for the wrong thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Godrestsinreason

You said that the chance was vanishingly small that this person was not associated with Bernie44 or with Chewy. Yes. As I have just said at WP:ANI, I know believe everything that they say, which is that they are a low-level employee of Chewy, and have nothing to do with Bernie, except that Bernie is being paid by, among other things, Chewy. (I now believe everything that they have said. I have also learned a lesson that some of the rest of us should learn about newbie editors who show knowledge beyond their experience. Maybe they really did use Google.) The timing that they started editing at the same time as the socks were blocked may really be a coincidence. In any case, I agree with your request for an indef, but think that the formality of a ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't argue with that outcome.

on the bigger picture, when I deal with conflicted editors on my good days (and this was a good day) - i ask them about connections and am actually hoping to have a conversation. The outcome of the discussion depends on the other person. Many people respond in an honest and reasonable way and the discussion unfolds well; other people say things that are pretty clearly not true, other people get all upset. Some people lie and get upset. There is no good way forward if the other person gets upset, which is when I kick it to COIN and/or SPI. I've basically ignored them since I filed those two posts.

btw I read everything you wrote and agree, including the negativish stuff about me. I appreciate your forthrightness. I like working with people who are not playing wikipolitics. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

and i hear you that it turned out to be somewhere between SOCK/MEAT and completely unconnected. Yes my post at ANI was too binary. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Re your G11ing of Workflowy

Please do not G11 articles of established contributors without even notifying them, as you did at Workflowy. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mediterranean diet

Opened a discussion in the talk page. See you there. Ffaffff (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

yep already replied there. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence article

Regarding this edit, how would you rate this source? Should we let it remain for now? The editor who added it is one I've had to deal with on domestic violence issues, because he pushes a men's rights POV and engages in WP:Editorializing. If we let his text at the Sex differences in intelligence article remain for now, the "So, it cannot be due to differences in general intelligence" editorializing should at least be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

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

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of Booster Tag on University Pages

As you have probably noticed, the extent of boosterism on University Pages on Wikipedia is significant. I'm identifying the pages which are the biggest offenders. Harvard, University of Chicago, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and UC Berkeley sound like they are written by PR people. Check those pages out and let me know if you agree. Any support on those pages would be greatly appreciated. Hellishscrubber (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Hellishscrubber if you want to see raw BOOSTER, check out Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University. Pure industrial waste. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to [[:WP:NJOURNALS]], did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unarchiving section for Nextdoor

Hi,

Seems like the discussion at Nextdoor has settled enough to move on to discussion of proposed updates for another section. History seems most significant. Since you set up the process, wondering if you think it is better to de-archive this discussion: Talk:Nextdoor/Archive_1#Improve_Section_on_History? or if I should just start a new section/discussion, with a smaller set of distinct Request Edits. Best, BC1278 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please post notes like this at the article talk page. I have a very strong personal preference not to have side conversations and that is very strong in this kind of interaction, which everybody watching the page should be aware of. So please post at the talk page and ping me there. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Power posing

Did you mean to only undo some of the edits at Power posing or was that a mistake? Natureium (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In this diff I meant to undo just the last one. The others are OKish to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The only other edit between him back and forth between himself was changing discredited to controversial. I guess neither are technically false. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased editor.

^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.160.82 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User BritishFinance and Related Articles to Ireland

Hi Jytdog,

Thanks for your edits to the Martin Shanahan page.

In our view, there is ground to believe that the contributor BritishFinance is following an agenda in their edits. If you view their edit and creation history, you will see a common theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corecontent (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Who is "our"? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. You work for IDA. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Martin Shanahan

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for earlier. I have gone through your edits to the page and they are very helpful (to me and the article). I understand now the need to focus in bios on facts the subject did/said vs. events around him (and obviously, not using events to interpret actions). I overhauled this page in its entirety because while it was tagged as COI, it was still left up in its COI state, which I thought was pretty biased (and this is a major job in Ireland). However, I should have spent more time on the references to make sure they were fully relevant (and only related to Martin). The TCJA is a major issue for Ireland but will make sure that my edits on this page "trail" Martin's factual observed actions (as a bio), and not try to anticipate them (in offtopic or as syn). thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your effort to clean up the page. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Thanks for reviewing my contribution for vns therapy. I have been researching this topic pretty intensively and have been incorporating a lot of credible references to try to make the piece as comprehensive as possible, so I'm definitely looking forward to some detailed feedback of you removed my changes. Thanks for your help with this whole process and for helping me get caught up to speed with how to make wiki edits responsibly.18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure how this works, but I was assuming that since you removed a large portion of the contribution that I researched, that you provide guidance on why it was removed and provide direction on how I can improve it to make it more appropriate to traditional wiki format. My goal for this page is to provide some additional information that I have came across in my research. Ultimately, I feel like the content for the page does not provide wiki readers with enough information around the pros, cons, and developments of this type of treatment. The current content is also dated, which is why I'm trying to update it with some new developments, FDA approvals and data. I could really use your help for becoming an effective wiki editor. Please advise 13:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash

Hello, i noticed you deleted the 'also referred to as bcash' in your recent cleanout. I was wondering if you were opposed to it, feel it is undue, etc. It was my understanding from the previous RfC that the content was good to add, but not in the lede. Maybe I was mireading it (certainly the bitcoin cash advocates are opposed to it.) One issue is it seems we cant address the naming controversy (if one exists) as I can't find mainstream RS that a controversy exists. Do you suggest another RfC to address if it is undue as Ladislav asserts? I'll add the reflist below for convenience if you want to comment on the sources as well. PS, it would be great if you could ping me in your response. Thanks!

References

--Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, read your response there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I should have posted this morning. I was just rushing out the door. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

On rules, templates, projects, goals, etc.

Hi, we had a discussion on User Talk:DocJames's talk page, which seems best to be continued here.
Back in 2009 I spent a few days analyzing the growth of Wikipedia up to that date. It was clear that something happened in 2005 that suddenly changed the editing activity from exponentially increasing to exponentially decreasing. My explanation for that abrupt change was that, in the wake of a memorable and traumatic incident involving the article on a famous reporter, Wikipedia changed its policies to make it much less friendly towards "newbie" editors. Those changes included the AFD mechanism (where discussion on merits of a new article are carried out in the "old boys" logical courtyard, rather than on the article's talk page), and tight "notability" rules. As a result of these changes, the few newbies who dared to create articles on topics of their interest saw their contributions sumarily deleted by "higher authorities" -- an experience that is extremely upsetting and discouraging even for calloused editors.
I posted that report in the relevant [[Wikipedia:]] page, but no one seemed to care, or even to admit that the editor body was shrinking, or even that there had been an abrupt change in the growth rate.
I sincerely hope that the editor body has recovered since then. However, the decline continued for a few years more. So much so that, at one point, Wikipedia launched an initiative to make editing easier; maybe you remember that.
According to their own experiments, when "virgin" volunteers were invited to edit Wikipedia, the single main factor that prevented the recruitment of new editors was the complexity and inscrutability of the source code that they saw when they clicked the "edit" button. A number of factors contribute to that complexity, including:

• Extensive used of templates, many of them inscrutable, unnecessary, or created for purely typographical effects.
• Infoboxes and navboxes inserted at the very top of the source. (Navboxes thankfully have now largely been moved to the bottom of articles, but infoboxes are still there.)
• Pointless article-side editorial tags like "needs citations".
• Bibliographic data of references inserted in the middle of text, instead of at the end of the article, or in some Wikidata repository.
• A totally brain-damaged syntax for tables.

Some complexity is unavoidable, and some templates are really helpful: the code "{{chem|H|2|O}}" is actually more readable, even to a complete newbie, than "H₂O". But, for the most part, the contribution of templates to Wikipedia is strictly negative: they do not improve its value to readers, they only make it harder to edit.
Unfortunately, the social dynamics of Wikipedia favor the endless proliferation of pointless and harmful templates. One editor who likes writing templates creates a "cool" new template, and starts using it in articles. A few other editors like him, who like the template, start using it too. Then other editors see that template being used, assume that it is a "consensus rule" of Wikipedia, and start using it too --- without even thinking whether it is good or bad for the project. Meanwhile, those editors who are not able to write templates, or do not not like doing that, or do not see the need for that template, do not get a chance to express their opinion. Even if some knowledgeable editor bothers to express disagreement on the template's talk page, his opinion is simply ignored --- because the decision on the existence and use of the template rests on those who like it.
Even if a brave newbie persists and gets over the initial hurdle of the complexity of the source, he then has to cope with the general hostility and arrogance of some seasoned editors. The same lopsided social dynamics plays here too: the editor is infinitely more likely to be reverted and scolded by an editor who disagreed with his contributions, than confirmed and praised by those editors who liked them -- even if the latter outnumber the former a thousand to one.
A typical bad experience is being told by a "senior" editor that "your edits were reverted because they violate WP:XYZ37/K-3(a)", rather than "I reverted your edits because [explicit reason why they are bad for Wikipedia]". While the latter means more work for the "cop", it is often the case that he cannot actually provide an explicit rational justification for the reversal -- other than "WP:XYZ37/K-3(a) says so".
Over the years, a HUGE mass of rules has been accumulating in the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace. For obvious psychosocial reasons, rules are much more likely to be expanded and multiplied, than trimmed and discarded. The more rules there are, the more difficult it is for newbie editors to join, and the more likely those clashes above become.
Several years ago I took the trouble to check how a particular rule became "consensus". The issue was whether the "unreferenced" tag should be added at the top of the article, at the bottom of the article, or in the Talk page. I posted my observations somewhere in that vast murky ocean of the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace (with the result that you can guess), but cannot find them now and must quote them from memory. Only a couple dozen editors (out of the 10'000 or so who were active at the time) took part in that discussion. Naturally, most if not all of them were people who (a) were sufficiently involved in rule writing to know about the discussion, and (b) though that the tag itself was a good idea. A poll was taken at some point among those interested parties. Some 20 votes were cast, and the alternative with FEWER votes -- "at the top of the article" -- was declared "consensus" by the "leaders" of the debate; who, IIRC, included the creators of the template.
And yet, when Wikipedia was created, one of the cardinal rules was that the article itself should have absolutely no editor comments or notes, and that all editor-to-editor communication should be conducted in the Talk page. Try mentioning that to the creators of article-tagging templates...
Another development that was a net loss to Wikipedia was the establishment of "Wikipedia Projects". On the surface, they seem to be a great way to promote and organize editing of selected fields. In practice, they only promote editorial wars, misguided editing-for-style, and further drive away newbies -- who, besides the general Wikipedia rules, are expected to also know and respect the rules of whatever project claims "ownership" of the article that they try to edit.
Several years ago I also took the time to investigate one particular Wikipedia project, "Microbiology". Again, my findings were posted somewhere in [[Wikipedia:]], with the same result as above. From memory, there were several dozen registered members in that project, but only a handful of them did actually edit some article in the project's "territory". Most of the edits were done by two or three members, and by a handful of other editors who were not members. The project had produced an article, Virus, which it considered "top quality"; which was mostly the work of one devoted editor. Yet, while the article's content was indeed quite good, and would have made a superb monograph on the subject, it was at the time way too long for a Wikipedia article. It should have been split into a dozen or so articles (which thankfully has happened since then) -- but that would clearly have made that editor and/or the project's bosses unhappy.
Each project creates a list of articles that need work, and sorts it by priority. However, the existence of that listing will not increase the total amount of work that editors will spend on those articles, and not even direct that effort towards the high-priority articles. Each editor will naturally edit whatever articles he is interested in and feels more competent to improve. In the end, only the project bosses -- at best -- will follow their own priority list. And that list is inevitably subjective anyway.
One of the many ways that Projects are bad for Wikipedia is that they inevitably want to define their own style rules, and try to impose them on all articles in their perceived "territory". But the same article often belongs naturally to several areas: Prussian blue can be a chemical substance, a drug, a paint pigment, and several other things. Which project will get to define its style?
This problem was acute years ago, when each little project in Wikipedia wanted to put their navbox (navigation box) at the top of the article. At least now the "consensus" seems to be that navboxes should be at the end of the article, and closed by default. But many projects still have their own infoboxes, and then the problem remains: should benzoyl peroxide have a "chemical" infobox, or a "drug" infobox?
My recent conflict with User:DocJames is basically of that nature. As an MD, he naturally decided that chlorine-releasing compounds are drugs; and thus set out to format the article in the style mandated by the Medicine or Pharmacology project (including a non-standard structure for the head section, and a totally inappropriate drug infobox). Yet those products (not just the compounds, but the commercial products) are widely used also for other applications, such as laundry, bleaching fibers, paper, flour, etc. Since I am not committed to any project, I tried to edit that article in a style that I thought best for the general reader, without regard of its "ownership".
Indeed, infoboxes themselves are a huge drag on Wikipedia, apart from the turf cnflicts. Once someone decides to add a field to an infobox, editors feel compelled to fill that field on every instance of that infobox, even in articles where their time would be better spent in improving the text in other ways. Infoboxes should reside in Wikidata projects; they should be closed by default, and pull the data automatically from Wikidata if and when the reader opens them. Then each article could have as many infoboxes as its editors are willing to add.
Another way that a Project may harm Wikipedia is when its "bosses" choose one external authority that has its own classification and nomenclature for the concepts in that area, and then try to map that same classification into Wikipedia -- namely, one article for each entry in that external database, with the name that the external entity chose for it. I ran into that problem in 2014 ago when I tried to edit the article on cellulase. That name actually refers to several very different classes of enzymes, with different products and mechanisms, and the only thing they have in common is the subtrate they decompose (cellulose). Logically, the Wikipedia cellulase article should be a short summary with links to specific articles on each class. However, the Molecular and Cell Biology project at the time had chosen one specific database (EC) as the Supreme Authority on enzyme nomenclature and classification; and since that database had one entry for cellulase, Wikipedia ought to have one article on it too. Moreover, that database listed dozens of alternative names for "cellulase", including many mis-used ones and just errors; and the Wikipedia article slavishly copied all of them as "also called" names in the lead section. (That article has been cleaned up since then, thankfully).
The Medicine project seems to have lapsed into that sin too. There are several articles, like ATC_code_D08, that are mirrors of the corresponding entries in the latest WHO classification of essential medicines. Doesn't this violate the spirit of this rule, if not its strict letter?
And there are many other similar "pathologies" in Wikipedia's processes that have developed over the years and have turned into huge wastes of human resources: the category system, navboxes, many irrelevant items in infoboxes, templates for imperial-metric unit conversions, the distinction between en-dashes and hyphens, etc.. I bet that more than 80% of all time that editors spent on Wikipedia was wasted in such pointless tasks.
I am also quite sure that, if some calamity completely and permanently erased the entire [[Wikipedia:]] namespace -- including all style rules and Project pages -- readers and content editors would not feel that anything is missing, and Wikipedia would instantly become a zillion times better for both.
What is frustrating is that all my complaints about the complexification and proliferation of pointless features, even on forums that explicitly asked for such comments (like that editability initialive), have not only been ineffective, but have hardly deserved a perfunctory reply. It seems that those who should take measures to curb such waste, and keep Wikipedia tied to the Five Pillars (all the way up to the Foundation board), simply do not want to notice those facts. Which is to be expected: the editors most likely to become admins and "cops" are not those who enjoy contributing contents, but those who enjoy being "chief editors", by imposing their views on other editors through Style Manuals, Rules, templates, infoboxes, article-side tags, projects, etc. -- and by making mass robot-assisted pure-style edits across thousands of articles.
Anyway, that is where I stand. Sorry for the rant, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a long note!

I read it.

There are lots of people who try to fight proliferation of policies and guidelines (per WP:CREEP! There is something proliferated in Wikipedia space, that I would imagine you would like.)

While I am sympathetic with your message, that it is hard for people to manage all this stuff.... in my view you are kind of missing the forest for the trees. Looking from the outside, in.

If people are aiming at the mission (to provide readers with articles, the content of which summarizes "accepted knowledge", working in a community of pseudonymous editors) the core policies and guidelines (for content and behavior) make sense and aren't just arbitrary rules. We created them to meet our needs. They are just how we get stuff done, working in this bizarre environment.

I've only learned enough about templates etc to be able to write content and work with content created by others. People get all invested in particular style or having an infobox or not...and have big battles about them....which I find baffling and avoid. That is all surface stuff, to me.

But just doing the work to build or improve the content on some particular article, is not that hard. Yes you have to bend and accommodate other people, and you will discover all your own flaws pretty quickly too.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how we could better "form" new editors, to aim for the mission and understand how the policies and guidelines exist to make it possible to realize the mission.... I have no big answers for that. I've just been thinking about it.

Sorry I don't have more to say. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! And apologies again for the long rant... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cosmeceutical, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hi, please restore the sources you deleted in this diff. Without sources, the mentions of criticism of IRV just become weasel words. One user is edit warring and wikilawyering to remove criticism of IRV from that article, but references should not be automatically removed just because they're self-published. See WP:USESPS: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation." — Omegatron (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. We summarize high quality sources here. We don't build arguments from blogs and conference abstracts. You are aiming for the wrong thing and so you are doing the wrong thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Columbia mortality rate study on the Opioid epidemic page

Hey Jytdog, I saw you reverted my edit regarding the study that Columbia University did on post-overdose-survival rates on the Opioid epidemic entry. Just curious what the issue regard the source that I used was and how I could remedy that? The information seems legitimate otherwise. Thanks! PcPrincipal (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

For content about health we don't use what we call "primary sources" (see WP:MEDDEF) and we don't hype where studies were done. We just communicate accepted knowledge, which for content about health we find in recent literature reviews published in good quality journals or statements by major health/science bodies. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see. I will do some more digging on that particular study then to see what I come up with. And brush up on that WP as well! Thanks for the pointer. PcPrincipal (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather than looking for some particularly study it is way better to go find MEDRS sources, read them and learn (!), and summarize what they say, giving emphasis as they do. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Great, that's a good starting point! PcPrincipal (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, I rewrote and added back that information regarding the Columbia study using this source. If you wouldn't mind letting me know if you think this meets MEDRS and if I adequately summarized the information I would greatly appreciate it! I would like to be able to speak to the subject more confidently and accurately. Thanks again! PcPrincipal (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It was another primary source :( Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Arum palaestinum

Mr. Jytdog,

Thank for your suggestions to my edits in the Arum palaestinum article and for pointing me in the direction of the Wikipedia guidance documents. However, after reviewing these documents, I still somewhat disagree with your conclusions on the use of primary sources.

In the guidance document WP:MEDDEF, it states, in pertinent part, “primary sources should generally not be used,” but it does not ban their use. WP:MEDDEF also says:

"Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors."

Clearly, the above paragraph contemplates that primary sources may be used so long as they are used properly. In other words, they should simply state the conclusions of the original authors without using them to support the editor’s independent conclusions.

Moreover, an explanatory supplement entitled “Wikipedia: Identifying and using primary sources,” states:

'"Primary" does not mean "bad." "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable.” While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. (emphasis in the original)

However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for."' (emphasis in the original).

That document goes on to say:

"Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does."

Therefore, while Wikipedia advises cautious use of primary sources, they can be used in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

The edits I made to the article simply restated the original authors’ conclusions and did not draw any conclusions not found in the primary source. Further, I provided the citations to the sources so that the reader could compare the information in the article to the source material. This is in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines referenced above.

The purpose of the studies cited was to show the history of the plant’s use in the Middle East and that the plant is currently being studied throughout the world. It was not to provide any conclusions on the science itself.

As someone with a strong interest in this subject matter, I wanted to share some additional information about the plant with other likeminded people. The plant’s history of dietary and medicinal use is not well known in the West and I think Wikipedia’s readers will find this information interesting. Furthermore, since modern scientific research on this plant is relatively recent, this may explain why most of the studies published are from primary sources. As noted above, that alone does not disqualify those sources from being used in Wikipedia articles. In addition, the article does not rely solely on primary sources as there are several secondary and tertiary sources cited. (See, “Wikipedia: No Original Research”). Finally, most of the sources are from well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I will continue editing this article in the future as additional information becomes available. If you make further edits to my edits, please do not provide conclusory statements, but rather cite the specific provision of Wikipedia’s guidelines you believe my edits may not be in compliance with because, as stated above, Wikipedia’s guidelines clearly appear to allow the edits I made to the Arum palaestinum article.

Thank you for your contributions to this article and I look forward to more collaborative efforts in the future.

Fancyfeller14 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fancyfeller14: WP:MEDRS specifically restricts the use of primary sources for medical claims, because they are too small a sample to make any firm claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account! I had left a message at the IP-talk page here: User_talk:70.166.234.58; hereare the IP's edits to the article; you left it in this state after the first set ofedits, and in this state after the 2nd set of edits.

Both of those were full of content that was not actually supported by the sources, or that was based on sources that were primary.

it really is not ok to assemble a literature review here in Wikipedia from primary sources. You appear to be a scientist, and many scientists try to write like that when they first come here, but it is the wrong genre. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we summarize secondary sources here, generally speaking.

Please read WP:EXPERT, which was written to help folks like you adapt to this environment. You may also find User:Jytdog/How helpful. 19:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Check reference in book "Martindale 36th Edition Page 2277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:810F:7E99:9990:588:D13A:7654 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

no idea what this is about. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Its Related to Caroverine drug to be added in Tinnitus wikipedia under Management of Medication Header — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8285:6553:18E4:7F0:E26A:47A3 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Favour

If you have the time, could you take a look at Rich Wilkerson Jr.? It was created by an apparent UPE account who is currently adding promotional and marketing material to a number of other articles. I would do it myself but I'm trying to keep a lid on the other edits admin-wise and don't want to get caught up in editing their contribs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will! Thanks for noting this. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your help is invaluable; cheers for that.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So kind! Just getting started there, more to do... Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Objective pair of eyes needed

Hi Jytdog, I took on a GOCE copyedit request for an article on the Indian National Theatre. I've just completed it, but in one reading I felt like there was some promotional tone to the way I've written, but I'm not 100% sure. The article is quite short so if you can spare a bit of time, given your regular contributions in articles that see a lot of COI, would you mind giving it a look over to see if any of the language might need some additional attention? Thanks. Blackmane (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I will look! Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jytdog: for your help.-Nizil (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I left comments on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Brinks

I thought you would be good to help deal with Brinks Home Security: it's being horribly dealt with and is being edited directly by a paid user. More than COI management, it might be worthy of AfD. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to look at that over the weekend. Am very busy with RW stuff this week. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland

Hi Jytdog. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Djc Thomson and Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland for a bit? This, this and this might indicate a WP:COI and possibly even WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

looked at page, started discussion with the person. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. As you probably noticed, attempts by some others to help this editor out both on their user talk and at WP:MCQ have been dismissed as patronizing. Perhaps you'll have better success. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Pmuehlen

Thanks forl helping out Pmuehlen. The name connection didn't click until he mentioned that the article was about his wife. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

sure. Thanks for your work too! Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

Plusart123 reached out to me asking for help in managing their conflict of interest. As the best COI person I know, would you have time to answer their question? -- Dolotta (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I reached out to her them and will walk her them through the COI management process. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC))

Well appreciated! Thank you! -- Dolotta (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoring an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page

Sorry to pester, but we exchanged a few notes in April regarding the restoration of the Multisystem proteinopathy page, which was merged into the "hereditary inclusion body myopathy" (IBM) page. You requested a few sources, which I provided on the IBM talk page on April 13. Is it possible to restart this discussion now? 192.55.208.10 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for following up. I will get back there by tonight. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

question

Hi there Jytdog - I hope you are well. I noticed that you edited the wikipedia page that highlights the work of my lab and various struggles and accomplishments I have had in my career. A lot of the info there was removed - for example - as far as I can tell including information about a technology that was developed in my lab reaching regulatory approval is not promotional - this is a big milestone for an academic lab.

Just curious if you could walk me through why you cut most of the information? Especially since most of it contained references. Happy to do a call if easier - thank you!

As I see it, Wikipedia is a place for factual information to be disseminated that can serve as a resource to educate and help others and to maximize impact. Seems like the changes you have made go against this and are in fact in the disinterest of the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Karp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.207.5 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note!

The page when I found it looked like this.

In terms of the content, it was promotional, and had a great deal of unsourced content, and content that violated our policy against original research. In terms of editor behavior, it had been heavily edited by what we call "single purpose accounts" - accounts or IP addresses that only edit one topic. Those are listed on the article talk page, at Talk:Jeffrey Karp.

All of that are signs of sustained editing under unmanaged conflict of interest.

Wikipedia is a place for dissemination of factual information; it is not a vehicle for promotion, nor to "maximize impact".

My work on the page removed the promotion, and added well-sourced information about you (taking you at your word, that you are Jeff Karp).

If you like please have a read of User:Jytdog/How which provides a kind of crash course in the mission of Wikipedia, how we realize that mission, and why we do things, the way we do them. It has a brief description of our COI guideline, along with the other policies and guidelines.

I hope that all makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

update

So I know you're busy--you're always busy--but Women in the Bible is abandoned and alone. If I go back, would that give you the incentive to go back too? You could harass me, that could be a temptation you can't resist--my work inspires you to new heights in response--which would mean we could get it knocked out. You hate my lead--I am still learning what makes a genuinely good lead--so let's trash it and start over. Anywhere you see it needs improvement let's do it. I sure would like to see it finished and you bring a unique perspective.

Oh, this is kind of beside the point, but I thought you might actually be a little happy for me--I got my first article through GA approval. It's Biblical criticism. And the whole time he was dragging me through it I was thinking how these were things you would have said. It made me think that being harassed by you--and surviving and learning from it--has made me a better quality Wikipedian.

Anyway--so much for the smaltzy stuff! Go fix women in the Bible! Or tell me what you think I should do--or something! Please! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I will try to get back to it. It is an important topic. Real world is eating me this days. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ouch. You have my sympathy. Ping me if you want me to come play too when you get around to it. I will wait on your discretion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jytdog,

Hope you are doing well! You recently edited JDRF’s Wikipedia page shortly after I had on the 14th and I wanted to ask a couple of quick follow-up questions to better understand what I did wrong. It looks like the reason you took it down was because it was promotional. Admittedly, I did source my edits to the JDRF page. (However, the information that I added comes out of JDRF’s tax documents and is not listed anywhere on their website). If I put up the information again and source it to GuideStar (similar to what you did on the page), or a similar website, would that solve the issue?

If there is an issue with the content itself would you mind explaining? The information I want to add is simply a history of how much the organization has spent on research by year, something which I feel has value and relevance, as JDRF itself describes itself as a research funding non-profit.

Thanks so much for your help! ElisabethF (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit led me to look at that page more closely which led me to uncover a whole slew of unpaid editing on behalf of several nonprofits, where someone was basically hijacking WP to do PR for them. Not good.

In general content should be driven by independent sources. Point data for one year of funding is not really encyclopedic. If there is some independent source that talks about their funding over time that would be fine. Please do be careful to not use WP for advocacy, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help!ElisabethF (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

About the JDRF wikipedia page, I have two sources for the information I want to add and wanted your opinion on which you think is best. This one, http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials, is from an organization that I originally pulled the information from, but their graphs are colored red and come off as biased so I made my own. I could not find any other source that discussed their funding over time besides this one. I also have this one, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729, which is a website similar to guidestar that simply lists the point data for all 10 years that I am discussing. Thank you for all your help, again! ElisabethF (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:ElisabethF. Do you have some connection with JDCA? If so you should disclose that per our COI guideline.... Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do! Although, you did not give your opinion on which direction would be better for me to take? Thanks again. ElisabethF (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Afternoon, I saw you took down my edits to the JDRF page and would like to understand how to correctly source this information, or alternatively, can you please describe in more detail the issue with the sourcing. We have two source options, both contain 100% of the data that we posted; guidestar/projects.propublica.org which we note you have sourced previously, or thejdca.org, which I believe is a tertiary source. I have consulted multiple wiki editors online, and in person at a wiki conference, and have been told that both should be acceptable. Would it be better to source this to guidestar, as you did previously, or 100% to the JDCA? Which source meets wikipedia criteria? Again, thanks for your help.ElisabethF (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Valamis Group Ltd.

Hi Jytdog. I was wondering if you'd mind taking a peep at this article. Based upon User talk:Marchjuly#File:Valamis-logo-black-rgb.svg, I think I've stumbled across another case of undisclosed COI/Paid editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

/* Influential */

Hi Jytdog, I have read and taken your message ad notam Torben Larsen Odense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torben Larsen Odense (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

revert citation

hi Jytdog,

Why did you remove the reference of "injections can bruise the extra ocular muscles, resulting in double vision."? I referenced Dr Kenneth Chang who did the study in 2010 with this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20057294 This is no different from the reference using http://www.jerrytaneyesurgery.com/cataract-surgery which is under reference #5. Surfer808 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

this was the edit you made. The citation was to eyedoctorshawaii.com You added spam to Wikipedia. Please don't do that. For content about health, please follow WP:MEDRS - that calls for recent literature reviews in good quality journals and statements by major by medical or scientific bodies.Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Kings of Israel & Judah

The most authoritative source (which by the way agrees with this article) is The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus written circa 100 AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5A40:9DE0:5466:29D:B431:5B60 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on food waste?

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 there! :) I noticed you undid my edit on food waste - could you perhaps explain what was so offensive about it? If you read the article on the app in question you'll see that it's reasonably well established (used in several countries) and pretty well covered in WP:RS mainstream media. I feel - although happy to be proven wrong, of course - that my addition was relevant to an article on food waste, given that the app aims to reduce it (waste). And finally, I've no connection with the app/company in question, so to just label my edit as 'spam' seems a bit harsh, if I'm honest. All that being said, it's perfectly possible that I may have missed something or otherwise caught the wrong end of this (happens all the time...), hence why I thought I'd ask you for your further thoughts? TIA, DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The content you added was unsourced and promotional. It was spam.

The Olio (app) page that you created is very typical PR editing. You may just be a fan, or you may have a connection with the company that you are not being upfront about. The editing of fans and conflicted people is similar. In case you are unaware, there is a place for conflicted and paid editors (who are also conflicted) in WP, but we have a process to manage conflict of interest. Some people who come here are not aware that there is a process to manage COI, and instead do strange things... Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that the company is keenly interested in digital marketing -- here, here... heck they even provide sample social media postings in their press pack. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, that's how it works, is it? You say 'it was spam', so therefore it's spam - end of discussion. Anyway, given your evident pedigree here on Wikipedia, compared to which I am a mere ignorant newbie minion, I've no interest in entering into an edit war, as that can only end badly for me, so I guess I've no option but to drop it. Thanks for your help. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DoubleGrazing please do read WP:ADVOCACY. If you are just a fan, it is still not OK to promote anybody or anything. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards WP:ADVOCACY, which I had already read before, and have now re-read. Just out of interest, which particular part of that policy do you think I've breached? You seem to think that if I write about topic X, I must be by definition 'advocating' topic X - so I guess I shouldn't edit the article on global warming, then, lest I kill off a few more polar bears? DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I know I said I'm not going to enter into an edit war, but I've just seen that you've undone a lot of my editing work, which I'm really not happy about, so on second thoughts I am going to take this up with the powers that be. (Whatever happened to WP:AGF?!) I don't know what the process is for having such matters adjudicated, but rest assured I will find out. DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is an essay that explains part of the WP:NPOV policy. As I said above, the Olio (app) page was very promotional. You hit several of the signs of PR editing -- see WP:Identifying PR. The content you added to food waste was unsourced and advertising the company and app. Fans and conflicted editors edit the same way. If an when there are RS that say that Olio has made a serious dent in food waste it might be encyclopedic to mention it there. Not until then. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read the above before you start restoring spam and WP:OFFTOPIC marketing to the page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

'Spam', 'fan', 'very promotional' - seriously, who made you the judge and jury here on Wikipedia?! I know you have much more history here, but I'm not exactly wet behind my ears, either (10+ years, etc.), so please don't patronise me quite so much. Do me a favour, look through my edit history and tell me what there even slightly suggests that I'm a paid editor or advocate or whatever else you're accusing me of? DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing is not OK. I am not "accusing" you of anything. Promotional editing is done by fans or people with a COI. Please have a read of User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_2:_COI_and_advocacy_in_Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"10+ years" is an overstatement, you've only been seriously editing since last June, and even still, 750 edits is minor. Jytdog is right to be wary here; the article was pretty promotional. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I didn't say I've been an active editor for 10+ years, only that I didn't exactly stumble across Wikipedia only last month. Besides even if I am a noob, where does it say that until you have a certain number of edits (whatever the number is that's no longer considered to be 'minor'), you're somehow guilty until proven innocent?

As for @Jytdog: you are indeed accusing me of many things - being a 'spammer', having a COI, and being a 'fan' (whatever that means). You don't present any evidence to back up your claims, and you of course know full well that I cannot prove they're wrong (how do I prove a negative?), so now the accusations just sort of hang there mid-air. Just out of principle I will pursue this further, because I am loath to give in to bullies. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you are offended. I already pointed you to the WP:ADVOCACY essay and you said you read it. I advised you here to focus on using better sources. There is nothing more I can do help you edit better

I have removed most (not all) of the promotional content from the page. If you have an issue with any specific edit I made, then please raise the question at the talk page. There is no more to discuss here. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 5 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.

Discretionary sanctions notices

Hello! ArbCom throws a hissy fit if we don't hand out a DS notice for each topic you've edited every year, and a scan of the AbuseLog for this page indicates you have not recently been notified of the following. So, you are now officially aware of them, even though we all presume you to be capable of reading talk page banners. Enjoy! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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 contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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 that 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 contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Longevity, 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 that 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.

User:Compassionate727 thanks for the notice of the longevity DS. I was not aware of them. Very useful. I could have used that in the past. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that's how you deliver a DS notice! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

I'll take you up on this, thanks. I've temporarily enabled my e-mail. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As much as I like your editing in general, as a personal policy I don't reveal my identity to anyone here (aside from the oversight committee) since I've been burned in the past. Perhaps there's a workaround? A Google Drive link perhaps? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman done. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

great. i took it down. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Apology

@Winged Blades of Godric:

Dear everyone involved with a review of my AFC status,

A few months ago, I joined AFC to help with the backlog and help improve/prepare articles for wikipedia. I am beyond sorry for passing that article. I was doing an AFC sweep during work and it must have gotten through my policy somehow. I know it was not the right decision and I shouldn't have done it. The page is nowhere near what an Article should be. I apologize again. After the deletion process began, I made a very stupid decision of a "keep" statement. I was blind to the problems that plague the article. I was not aware that a sock puppet was going on and a COI user with the page. People make mistakes; Please do not use this to represent the Wikipedia Editor I am. I am dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, not hindering it. I promise this will never happen again and I have learned from this experience. I am open to your opinions.

Best, AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate it. We'll see what the review turns up. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Dear Jygdog, I was surprised how quickly you began removing the changes I was making to Sarfaraz K. Niazi page; apparently, you are on an auto alert. I am new to Wikipedia. I looked at the history and found that you have continued to remove content from this person's page even though the information was properly referenced. With all due respect to you, I would like you to reinstate the entries I made unless you find them unsupported. I have no COI, I am a fan; he was in the news all over having taken down the largest federal agency, the FDA, a move that will help reduce the cost of lifesaving drugs; why would that news not be qualified for entry? I fully agree that the information should be factual and properly referenced and written in a manner that does not constitute promotion; point out, if you will, where did I go wrong. Niazi has done more for mankind and listing his contributions will only help others benefit; he does not need Wikipedia, Wikipedia needs him. I hope we will have a constructive discourse on this topic.Alexberkovich (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss content at the article talk page. If you have questions about any edit I made please post there, at Talk:Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Yesterday a person using the account AlexanderBerkovich99, made these edits. I assume that is you.. but you are using a different account today. In any case those edits violated several of our content policies and were promotional. I asked you (again, assuming that this was you) about any relationships you might have with the article subject at User_talk:AlexanderBerkovich99#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia

It is not OK to use multiple accounts in Wikipedia to edit the same topic. Please use only one. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Some help...

Can you please indulge in a cleanup of Blasting News? And, the bunch of non-reliable ref(s) hinders me from taking a shot at it's notability quotient, either! Regards,∯WBG^converse 03:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look, it needs a lot of work. This is not the kind of stuff I like working on but it is just hard to allow advertising to stand... Will try to get to it. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

cited materials

I don't understand why you removed the cited materials that I added to Charlie Engle (marathoner) page. I fulfilled a "citation needed" on the page and added several other citations to support information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysseywikify (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Clonidine article

1. Your revision to the lede and mechanism of action section may be simpler but it is also inaccurate. 2. The lede should mention the increase in vagal tone and resulting bradycardia. This is an important effect of the drug. 3. I've reviewed my edits and your implied assertion that the revision I made is too complex for the laymen seems incorrect to me. 4. Given your aggressive approach in the past, I will cease further edits on the clonidine article at this time. 5. The net result of your behavior is that wikipedia is worse than it could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just working on restoring the ideas in more simple language; I agree it needed updating and I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, very much. We very much need experts working on these kind of complicated pharmacology topics, but please bend and write so every day people can understand as much as possible. It was way, way too technical. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you have a strongly-held opinion on the issue of what ought to constitute "lay language" in wikipedia. I am an Internist who practices hospital medicine. If I have any expertise at all, it is in the effective communication of complex ideas into simpler language. When I mirror back what is said, I find that my patients often understand what I am trying to explain to them. I also teach this skill to medical students and residents. If you review my revisions to the lede, you will notice that I included hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles. My opinion about "lay language" in wikipedia is that an intelligent laymen ought to be able to understand what is written, with the assistance of the hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles. My experience with articles in other technical areas in wikipedia is my initial reading fails to provide understanding, but that by slowly working through the hyperlinks, I eventually understand about as well as a non-expert can. This is true for most STEM articles in wikipedia. You and others are promulgating a different standard for medical articles in wikipedia, which in my opinion often fails any test of utility that I can envision. For example, look at these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_acids_and_bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_manifold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade The differentiable manifold article is a masterful example in the style that I believe should characterize pharmacology articles in wikipedia. I slowly (very slowly) went through this article on differentiable manifolds and after several hours achieved the level of understanding that I was looking for. I accept that you are well-meaning, but your approach seems to me to be more like vandalism than useful work. There are many other medical editors who share your point of view. We simply have different opinions as to what the goal of pharmacology articles ought to be. Life is short. Stay well.Sbelknap (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of places were WP content is not what it should be. And parts that are brilliant and dead-on the mission.

Really, please do read WP:NOTJOURNAL - that is policy about what we are doing here, and what we are not doing. Remaining grounded on the mission is really important. Also MEDMOS and Pharmmos specifically discuss target reading levels. There is a slowly unfolding discussion going on right now about reading level at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Not_writing_for_patients_or_professionals. Somebody else recently opened a discussion about readability of pharmacology content here.

You could bring so much value to what we do here, if you took the time to get grounded in the mission and the specific ways the community has developed to realize it. Really you could. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The target audience ought to be the intelligent laymen. I have read MEDMOS and Pharmmos and the manual of style for medicine-related articles. In fact, I have read them several times over the past few years. As I see it, there are some errors in these standards and more serious errors in how you (and others) interpret these standards. Frankly, it appears that many (most?) pharmacology articles are directed at an audience that doesn't exist. As I see it, the poor quality of many medical articles is a *consequence* of the standards and their interpretation rather than a failure of experts to comply with these standards. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoclopramide Who would find this article useful? It contains many errors, is poorly written, and seems to be very low value. Go through the history of the edits. Its quite instructive.Sbelknap (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, here were your edits. You have "sympatholytic" as the fifth word in the first sentence. It doesn't appear that you challenged yourself at all to write for an intelligent layperson when you did that. I hope you will in the future. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how your perspective differs from mine. There is a wikipedia article for that term here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatholytic If an intelligent reader goes to that link, he will now know what sympatholytic means. The pharmacology articles are terrible precisely because editors with your point-of-view are vandalizing them by stripping them of technical language. Instead of removing what you consider to be "jargon", we ought instead to be providing hyperlinks to technical terms, providing the intelligent laymen with a shallow learning curve. Other STEM articles that are not medical articles provide many hyperlinks to technical terms in the lede. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain The poor quality of pharmacology wikipedia articles is a consequence of the MEDMOS and Pharmmos policies and their interpretation by you and others who share your perspective. To quote W. Edward Deming, "Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." Sbelknap (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Shall we get input from others at WT:MED? Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's OK with me. I would expect near-universal agreement with you. This is not a Jytdog problem, it is a wikipedia medical community pathology. The reason things are as bad as they are is because the consensus on how to write a medical wikipedia article has strayed far from the approach of other STEM disciplines. The problem isn't just you, it is the community of medical editors on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will open the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the English Wikipedia, Sbelknap. I'm glad to see that you're active again.

I notice that you said about that you think the ideal target audience is an "intelligent lay person". I'm particularly interested in how editors conceive of "The Reader" (Jytdog, if you're sick of me talking about this subject, then we can decamp to a different talk page, of course. Just say the word...). Can you describe that persona more fully for me? Perhaps it's easiest to imagine that you were writing inclusion/exclusion criteria for a kind of clinical trial. For example, would you identify intelligent lay people by education level or IQ or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A layman (or layperson) is a person who is not an expert in a given field of knowledge. Example: I envision a 12 year old girl in a rural school in Nigeria. Her grandfather takes clonidine and her mother has a cell phone. She looks up clonidine on wikipedia using her mother's cell phone. She works through the hyperlinked articles in the lede, learning what each term means. She then reads the main body article, which has many free-access links to the essential primary sources, following her curiosity. Doing this over and over again on many topics, she is inspired to continue her education. Perhaps one day, she will become a pharmacologist. That's my vision of what wikipedia pharmacology articles ought to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like you would like the articles to be understandable to a determined 12 year old of typical talents and education – much, much, much more willing than average to look up unfamiliar words, but otherwise a median 12 year old. Does that sound like a fair description of your goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion should be with the main one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Level_of_reading_dispute; SBelknap has joined there now. But if for some reason you want have this as a side discussion, that is OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, "median 12 year old" is not a fair description. I used the term "intelligent lay person" purposefully. I'll stick with that. As Jytdog mentions, there is a discussion ongoing at the link Jytdog provides above on this topic. Lets take this discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your feedback

Hello. I am new to the wikipedia community and appreciate your feedback. I an myself a physician and want to contribute/add to pages that I am knowledgable about. I made minor and rather insignificant edits to the page Rod Rohrich which primarily included editing the number of papers he has written (as this information is incorrect and outdated). The remainder of the information on his page is accurate and has existed without issue on wikipedia for a long time. I was trying to update the numbers an as a result a lot of the information there got deleted. I would appreciate if we could have my edits go through as I do not think it is fair to the individual to have information deleted because I was trying to update numbers of books/chapters etc. I have no financial interests or connection and I am certainly not getting paid (unfortunately). Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstatedoc (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What you are writing here is not credible; your editing is pure promotion, and three different editors have shovelled it back out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry on Philip Stieg

I am writing to you here instead of the talk page for the Philip Stieg article, because I believe that is most appropriate. I am the originator of the Stieg piece and a fellow editor on Wikipedia. I don't know who ever got the idea that I was given some sort of recompense for creating the article, but that is most certainly false. If you are the person making that allegation, supply tangible proof of it or remove the detrimental header from the article.

Mrwick1

Mrwick1 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read the tag carefully it says "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments..." You are not the only person who has worked on the page.

In general your editing is too promotional but the tag was not about your work on the page. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm Jordan Harbinger and I want to help with this article

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 there. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia but someone pointed me to my own article here. I wanted to let you know that these American Express pieces that you have used were, if memory serves, actually some paid media done a LONG time ago by a terrible marketing company, and probably shouldn't be used for a wikipedia article. Also, I was never a pickup artist. I hate that term and view it as really aggressive and pejorative. Please do not classify me as that, as it is not accurate. Not sure what else I can do here other than ask nicely and explain that the term is not an accurate representation of what I do, nor have done in the past. 24.6.125.237 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Interesting about the AmEx pieces.

I appreciate that you want to be involved in the article and understand that you are not happy with it.

Would you please consider creating an account, and then following the process in WP:REALNAME so that we can verify (as much as we can) that you are indeed Jordan? This will make all of this more... smooth. (If you think about it, anybody could be writing to me here, saying that they are ...anybody. Impersonation of people is a big concern here.)

If you are willing to do that, would you please write here again and let me know, and then let me know again when you are through the verification process? Then I can help you get oriented to how Wikipedia works, and once we share that foundation, we can turn and work on the article.

I'm happy to discuss the "pickup artist" thing but that is very well sourced. The LA Times piece is especially clear on this. Even this very recent piece: -- "I used to be a pickup artist...".

But we can talk about that later. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, even in that piece you cited, Harbinger works to distance himself from the PUA community. I think -assuming the IP is, in fact Harbinger- that the request here may be perfectly in line with that; another attempt to put distance there. In that case, the end result will be that we maintain the reference. Of course, if Harbinger can find a number of reliable sources establishing that, for example, the Art of Charm was merely associated with the PUA community, and never really a part of it, that would be an improvement.

Regardless, IP: Jytdog's advice here is very good advice. The best way for you to influence your article is for you to register an account, confirm your identify, then help other editors find reliable sources from which to write your article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I found a recent source that confirms that he does indeed want to distance himself, and I revised the page accordingly, although someone else might want to expand upon the very brief addition that I made. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve submitted a request for verification. I’ve also made an account using my real name. Thanks guys. I also wrote that piece you’re discussing where it says “I used to be a pickup artist” -that was for SEO purposes. Not sure if it matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHarbinger (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. Let's take this to the new talk page: User talk:JHarbinger. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 11 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.

Thank You

I wanted to personally thank you for guiding me through the process on Paolo Casali. While there was a lot of information to go through, I am happy you took the time to help me as opposed to dismissing me for having a conflict of interest. It does show that you are sincere with your want to create an encyclopedia that is bias free. --Meriville (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That is very gracious of you. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Stieg piece

You obviously are very self-impressed. You still have not provided any proof for your allegation regarding this piece, only innuendo. And who are you to judge whether I am too promotional? I have been editing scientific literature for 30 years. I can see why you have been blocked from Wikipedia several times. I will appeal to a higher order in this matter. Mrwick1 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really self-impressed. You do things like this, where you add promotional content to WP based on your own opinion and consistently use honorifics like "Dr" even though WP:HONORIFIC is very clear that we don't do that, here in WP.

Weedon has authored two notable books in the field of pathology. The first focused on diseases of the gallbladder, and the second text, on dermatopathology, is widely considered to be the most encyclopedic reference work on the histomorphology of skin diseases . It is titled Skin Pathology. Published originally in 1997 and currently in its fourth edition, now edited by Dr. James W. Patterson, that book is extensively referenced. It combines information on classical and rare clinical presentations of cutaneous disorders, providing detailed descriptions of their histopathologic characteristics. In addition, Dr. Weedon has published over 120 original papers in the medical literature.

References

Lots of academic editors come here and do things like that, as though they were writing a signed article. It is not OK here - not the WP:OR, nor the promotionalism. This is discussed in WP:EXPERT, which I recommend you read. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

While I have Your Ear

Thanks for the comments on View, Inc. While I have your ear, can you give me any advice on how to deal with the situation unfolding on Talk:Brent Hocking? Editor says "we", then says they work in the industry, then says it is a personal interest, then says there are a few people helping them?? Leads me to believe COI but WP:AGF holds me up short of going to COIN. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will do. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:CNMall41 they went away perhaps? Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it. With that persistence to introduce promotion, I am sure they will be back. Thanks for your help. I normally have more patience with COI editing but the conflicting statements they were giving kind of drove me over the top. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your interactions with JHarbinger

Hi there Jytdog.

I just wanted to talk to you about your interaction with JHarbinger on his talk page today. I feel that the responses you made near the end came across as BITEy. When I looked at the user page version which you took objection to, I did not see a problem. The text was not overly promotional and did not even link to the article about him. Users are permitted to state where they work if they so choose on their userpage. It also gives more information in terms of assessing a COI in some cases.

When JHarbinger responded saying that he wasn’t violating policy and was clearly confused, your response suddenly included accusations of violating policy, threats of the user being blocked, and a refusal to assist after you reached out to the user offering to help him. It is inappropriate to reach out to users (especially new users) and offer your assistance just to then tell them off after they accept your offer, hoping that they'll receive help. Either you help the user, or you don’t.

Wikipedia can be a confusing place for new editors, and even editors with a conflict of interest can become valuable contributors. I would strongly suggest that you take a step back and either get mentoring on how to help new users with issues like this or, alternatively, look for editors who are known and respected for helping new editors like this and learn from their examples. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to speak with me, but you are talking at me, and your summary of the situation is problematic on a few levels. I'd be happy to talk with you (google hangouts or skype), if you like.Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See also here. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I spent five minutes trying to figure out why my text was showing as struck through and was beginning to think I had gone mad, so thanks for this! Marquardtika (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You have the patience of a saint.

Well, a couple of saints, and some cherubs thrown in as well. I just read the entire User talk:Justinrome425#Mandatory paid editing disclosure thread. I try not to WP:BITE, but my hat's off to you. I never would have lasted that long. Thank you! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

that's kind of you. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

bupropion

Jytdog,

The meta-analysis concluded that bupropion is weaker than the other antidepressants. There is no clinical guideline in conflict with this conclusion. There is no fringe anti-psychiatry.

The information in the lede is also in the body of the article.

You have made an error in reverting this edit.

Please reverse your revert.

Thanks,

Steve Sbelknap (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. This is going to take some to work through. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I did. Most (possibly all) of the old anti-depressant efficacy assertions in the article were false when they were originally written. Much of the content of the bupropion article discusses drugs that are not bupropion, and could be deleted for purposes of relevance and clarity. Sbelknap (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

on "ecological footprint" entry

Thank you for your support. I am trying to clean up the entry as it is scrambled and includes many not fully relevant statements. For instance, now, methodology and results are mixed. Also some of the applications or criticisms are not fully relevant, but have not changed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costaricapuravida (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

John Templeton Foundation‎

Hello again Jytdog. Considering your experience with managing COI, I would just like to know if I handled this correctly: I didn't use an official template on the user's page, but have left a message there and a CC tag on the article's talk page. The connection doesn't seem to be expressly confirmed but the user's page gives an indication (and I didn't fill the "confirmed" parameter of that template). I'm not necessarily worried about the recent edits so there's nothing dramatic I think, but they were not minor either. If you would like to take over there, instead of giving me advice, that's fine with me too, I'll then keep the user and article page watchlisted and watch. Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note. I'd be fine trying to work with the person.... will do so. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 19:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

good work

I was looking for socks and Just saw that you were spreading the good work [2] using my image. Keep it up. --DBigXray 22:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Caroverine in Medication Header

Hi Jytdog,

Kindly go through below reference to add "Caroverine" in medication Header of Tinnitus Wikipedia.

Check reference in book "Martindale 36th Edition Page 2277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitdwivedi11 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I worked over the Caroverine page and added a line about it to tinnitus. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for addition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitdwivedi11 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Advanced Cell Therapeutics

On 19 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Advanced Cell Therapeutics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the CEO of Advanced Cell Therapeutics is on the Food and Drug Administration's Most Wanted List after selling stem-cell therapy to people fraudulently? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Cell Therapeutics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Advanced Cell Therapeutics), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 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)

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: [3]. An ok-ish EL, at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [4]. 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)

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)

Ethics in the Bible

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.

---

Please do come and help if you can. This one is kicking my butt Jytdog! I am all over the place--some of it's good but some of it's just mush and those fecal words you like to use. There is theology mixed in here and there, and in this one there is really no place for it at all--not even in a section of its own. This is ethics period, and theology just gets in the way, but I am having trouble saying what I mean, apparently, without falling into familiar phrases. Ethics is my thing, it's what I do, it's my passion, and I think I am trying to say too much--there's just so much to say! And I don't know how to trim--I don't know where to begin even--I can't see the forest for all the blinkin' trees that are just everywhere! I need somebody strict and tough who takes no bullshit and cuts nobody any slack. I need that on this one. It's crap Jytdog, it's all crap, and I so want it to be good. Help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes that page is awful.

the topic is ill-defined.

What does "in the bible" mean? (For starters) Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the topic is ill defined. I started with an idea...and then the fog set in and I lost my way. So I don't know! In the Bible there is no developed ethical system--(philosophically speaking)--so there is no laid out logical pattern to follow. (I can't begin with its ontology etc. the way I would if I were discussing Kant or something!) It's stories and wisdom sayings and parables--and yet they communicate a rich and powerful ethic that changed the world--the Hebrew ethic changed the world, Jytdog, it did. Partly through its difficult child, Christianity, but only where Christianity kept ahold of its parent's ethical teachings. It's impossible to disconnect the biblical ethic from the Bible stories, parables, wisdom sayings, etc. that are 'how' the Bible communicates its ethic. It's also impossible to go through it book by book like we did for womenitB because the ethics thread through. Is ethics in the Bible the same as "biblical ethics"? That's how I've been working. But I don't like the structure either. It was supposed to have ethical themes first. That's what Alephb and I decided up front. Then Editor2020 came along and changed it and put Biblical foundations first. I thought it obscured ethics--in the Bible--but I didn't fight her over it. I left it. Now I am thinking that's part of the problem. It should be ethical themes, period--and that should include a --short-- mention of the biblical base. So a lot of what I have worked on in foundations needs to go doesn't it? It's what's mucking everything up and keeps sucking me into theology land. Okay then. Ethical themes that are found in the Bible and where they are found. Period. Is that it do you think? Remove "foundations" entirely--maybe use some of the material where necessary--but otherwise--stick with themes?? If you agree, that's what I'll do. If Editor2020 comes back, I'll just explain I tried, and it failed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(very quick driveby comment) Without looking at the article, re What does "in the bible" mean?, that part at least seems fair enough as a title; "those parts of the Bible that discuss ethics rather than being couched in terms of blind obedience to the Law". It's semantically no different to "Royal families in Shakespeare", "Literary allusions in Harry Potter" etc. ‑ Iridescent 06:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Ethical themes that are found in the Bible" will be greatly affected by who was doing the the looking and finding. Some might find "kill them all", others "love them all". "In the bible" may not be a doable approach, perhaps "Jewish/Cristian/Other views on biblical ethics" may need separate articles. Or it's possible to write an overview article, maybe there's a lot of overlap. Perhaps the article Ethics can provide some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

JenHawk777 What are you referring to, when you write "the biblical ethic"? Please step back, and think about how you are thinking about this. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

How am I thinking, mmmm, how am I thinking... in circles--and without logic!! That's what's making me nuts! How am I thinking... I started thinking about the various ethical principles, the topics, ethics in the Bible isn't really discussed in "parts" it's everywhere. The reader has to bring their own moral reasoning to the plate as well, but there is no part of it where that does not apply. There is a place for criticisms--but there has to be something there to criticize! When I think of the Biblical ethic, I include the law, and the nature of covenant, politics, economics--there are ethical priciples in the Bible that apply to it all. Foundational concepts like human value and human rights--the Hebrew Bible is what changed the view of mankind and protecting the weak, the stranger, the elderly, and women and children. See, that is shifting in our modern day as people move away from the biblical ethic; society is shifting to a utilitarian value of man instead. Soon, they will be knocking off people who don't earn their keep anymore!! The Bible teaches virtue ethics, and no, I don't think splitting this one into OT and NT is appropriate. Ethically, the Bible has one ethic that runs through it--there is grace in the OT and Law in the N T and everything that's in the NT is built on what's in the Old. Theologically there's a difference in testaments but ethically there isn't.

I want to say what ethics the Bible teaches. I want to write down the teachings that changed the world and made western society what it is today. I want to list--and describe--those ethical principles that are found in the Bible. That's what I want to do. That's what I'm thinking. Does that sound okay to you? Thank you Jytdog. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey JenHawk. It is a statement of faith that there is a) "one ethic" b) "in the bible" at all. And I imagine that "the one" that you are referring to, is very shaped by your personal faith and the traditions of the communities of faith in which you have lived.

There are "bibles" that don't include the NT at all.

There are patterns of ethics (or perhaps better, groups of passages) in all versions of "the bible" that have been used to justify slavery, genocide, war crimes (e.g. smashing babies heads on rocks), colonialism, environmental degradation, etc etc. Those are also there, "in the bible".

There are many ethical streams in the Bible and some specific bits have even picked up intertextually through the history of the assembly of the canons, and in the history of the interpretation of the various received canons, to mean different things.

There are different ways of approaching ethics "in the bible"; the wisdom literature generally approaches things from human reason and experience (with the exception of Job, which is a strange animal in many ways); there are notions of ethics based on social contract, and there are notions of ethics firmly grounded in "god says so, and i know because god told me" which are another ball of wax (and there are contradictions among those revelations, which are ....what they are). There are some universalistic notions, and some notions that are very based on "us first" then everybody else.

There are completely confounding things "in the bible", like Jesus being hungry, going to a fig tree, finding it to have no fruit (it is out of season), and cursing it. There are some things "in the bible" that embody a ruthless, utilitarian set of ethics. Produce, or burn in fire - even if you cannot (a fig tree cannot make figs out of season) (shiver). Completely different from the spirit of the beatitudes. Baffling.

What can we learn about ethics if we start in the Book of Revelations? Are we in some sort of all-out war against evil? Is that "the ethics" "in the bible" that we should build our lives around? Some people think so.

You are looking at this work through the lens of faith. Please take those glasses off when you log in here. The task before you will become more clear, if you come at this as a scholar first.

Please read that a couple of times before you reply. Please. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) This is only a comment to add perspective in relation to laws including protecting the weak etc, however they're not articles about ethics but just descriptive of discovered law codes (somewhat like Deuteronomic Code but older from List of ancient legal codes) are Urukagina, Code of Hammurabi. In case it could inspire, —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

yes taking a historical critical approach - looking at various bits that are "in the bible" and trying to understand the context from which they arose, and then the contexts in which they were later redacted together, and the contexts later yet where they have been interpreted and re-interpreted, elevated, and denigrated, in various times and places. That is another way to go at this topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I did as you asked and read and re—read, and I would like to clear a couple of things I see as misunderstandings here.

First, It is a statement of faith that there is a) "one ethic" b) "in the bible" at all. And I imagine that "the one" that you are referring to, is very shaped by your personal faith and the traditions of the communities of faith in which you have lived.

• This is mistaken. It is not a statement of faith that there is one ethic in the Bible. It is a statement of one school of thought among scholars. Theologian John Murray ..." ...argues that God works through humans in history; ...if this thesis is correct, it lends support to the position there is basic agreement on the underlying norms and standards of the Old and the New Testaments. In "God and Morality: Four Views" Mark Linville writes that he teaches a 'moral particularism' that is rooted in the entire Bible. A lot of scholars approach the biblical ethic in this manner, and it isn't about faith.
• You have already jumped to a negative conclusion based on your "imagining" without checking either the article or the sources. That's insulting. Did you mean it that way? This article does not describe Christian ethics. You should actually read it and see if you can find the flaws you are looking for before condemning me for them.

About me. It's true I get enthusiastic. I admire things. I have respect. But it is untrue that, in this case anyway, it is an expression of faith. It's an expression of appreciation. No one would accuse me of 'faith' if I were writing about Shakespeare or To Kill a Mockingbird, and mostly no one would criticize me for enthusiasm and positivity either. I did write my first solo article on a book I admired here, and it was reviewed three times before being accepted, and not a single reviewer made any comment on the fact the review was entirely positive. It was understood for what it was: admiration of something worthy of admiration. That's what this article is.

• I have been reading my way down the archived list of Featured articles since I put BC in, and one thing I note is, they all have an admiration and appreciation for their topic. Their commitment to neutrality does not prevent this positivity being communicated. I have read one on Cleopatra, and one of Fluoridization and one on chemistry, and so far, they all communicate a strong positivity toward their subject. And it has nothing to do with faith.
• If something --like a book or an ethical system-- deserves a positive review, making up something negative in the name of neutrality is a bias of its own.

Overall, ethics in the Bible deserves a positive review--though not exclusively--some aspects of the biblical ethic are negative by modern standards. There are patterns of ethics (or perhaps better, groups of passages) in all versions of "the bible" that have been used to justify slavery, genocide, war crimes (e.g. smashing babies heads on rocks), colonialism, environmental degradation, etc etc. Those are also there, "in the bible".

• So there is a place for discussing those at the bottom of the article.
• Do those negative criticisms negate, erase, nullify, make to cease to exist, the other aspects of the ethic that are also there? No, they don't. Your feelings are obviously negative, but it isn't the way ethicists write on this subject. They write like the authors of those other featured articles do: with enthusiasm for and appreciation of their subject. Economists write that way about economics. God knows political science majors write that way about politics. It's our job to take that and present it in balance, but I don't agree that has to equate to a lack of appreciation. Admiration doesn't prove faith is the only possible cause of it, and negativity doesn't prove neutrality.

• I was an ethics major. I honestly know about ethics, and the biblical ethic is much much more than you have described. I actually don't think you understand it very well. Nor have I found the majority of good and valid references as supporting your view of the biblical ethic.
• What people do with their interpretation of the Bible, after they interpret the Bible, is not what's actually in the Bible. You said focus on what's in the Bible. That isn't.
• Are there a multitude of ways to approach this topic? Of course--so what?
• If you are advocating that all the various approaches be included in this article, that would be prohibitive.

As far as the fig tree goes, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation of that story, but as it is not an aspect of ethics, it is beside the point. Look up breba figs. It would help you get perspective. What your comments here communicate to me is your overweening prejudice. Are you the one who put the delete request on the article? Because you're imagining what might be there? I am feeling a bit stabbed in the back by that. I came to you for help. Go ahead and tell me how all you care about is the Encyclopedia. This is an article that should be in the Encyclopedia. If your goal was to run me off, you have succeeded. I won't bother you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 13 September 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.

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 [5] [6] [7] of an edit that implemented an explicit discussion close is a clear case of edit warring. I realize you self-reverted the last one [8], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)