Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Threads older than 21 days may be archived by MiszaBot.

Welcome!

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

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

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

A beer for you, relax, it's Sunday![edit]

Just had a run-in with your nemesis over at Kevin Folta's website, still going on about the microbiome. Underinformed monomania is a terrible thing. Looking forward to your return! Rskurat (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Jytdog is unblocked with a topic ban from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page. He is permitted to participate in discussions about related policies or guidelines, and discussions about whether content is promotional or non-neutral; however, he may not discuss specific editors' potential conflicts of interest as part of these discussions. He is warned that any further violations of the outing policy will be cause for a site ban.

Any breach of this topic ban, or any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project. You may appeal this topic ban in six months, and every six months thereafter.^[1]

For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I am extremely sorry to hear that Jytdog is topic-banned from all matters related to COI editing, including the COIN board. Jytdog is hands down the very best editor on the COIN board (and practically the only one who ever takes any action), and the very best (if not the only!) editor at handling, labeling, and preventing COI on Wikipedia. Barring him from this activity is going to be a huge net negative for Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that this topic ban can be lifted at some time in the near future. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Except there were no violation of the outing policy in the first place. Not to mention the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment is pretty clear that there is no consensus actions taken by Jytdog were not within policy, and the actual policy wording as written at the time supported it. Lets also not bring up that WMF made it perfectly clear the distinction between what is and is not private material. So frankly unblocking with a ban on COI related discussion and 'further violations of the outing policy' when no actual violation of the outing policy has taken place, smacks of punishment for the blocker's mistake. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This topic ban seems to me to be a mistake, unfair, against policy, and hugely destructive to Wikipedia. I am assuming 100% good faith, but errors and poor decisions (including group decisions) are also made in good faith. I would at the very least like to see this topic-ban decision brought out into community discussion rather than imposed without publicly viewable discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded (or is it thirded?) It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of wiki administrators after this. All of the information we have points to one conclusion: there was no violation to begin with. It is understandable to see administration make errors - they are only human, and who are we to judge when we have not been in their position? - but to refuse to admit a mistake, and instead "doubling down" by inappropriately defanging someone who was doing good, albeit controversial, work, causes bystanders such as myself to strongly consider full disengagement from the WP project. Ultimately that damages the project as mentioned above. And if I were Jytdog, I would be concerned that even speaking in self-defense would be inappropriately considered a "further" violation. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion there was nothing whatsoever controversial about the tireless work Jytdog has been doing for years in COI/COIN. His content editing on controversial subjects sometimes drew fire, but his day-in day-out far-beyond-the-call-of-duty work at COIN was one of the most important tasks anyone has ever engaged in on Wikipedia. Topic-banning him from this means the spammers and COIs win. How can this possibly be good for Wikipedia? Especially when there was no violation in the first place? I would like to ask the Arbs how and where this topic ban can be appealed. Softlavender (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion—as I just mentioned below, I failed to copy the second paragraph of the unblock conditions text when I posted this onwiki. I've just added it above. Jytdog may appeal the topic ban himself in six months. As for other methods of appealing ArbCom decisions that you and Doc James ask about, the relevant portion of the current arbitration policy is here: Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling, which the Committee may accept or decline at its discretion. The Committee may require a minimum time to have elapsed since the enactment of the ruling, or since any prior request for reconsideration, before reviewing it. Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, GorillaWarfare. What would the "minimum time to have elapsed" be in this case, for others to ask the Committee to reconsider or amend this ruling? Jytdog isn't stupid; I'm sure he has learned not to do what he did in the precise manner in which he did it. I feel that as he is the only really skilled or successful COIN-board editor around, it is imperative for the sake of the project to allow Jytdog to get back to doing what he does best. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We placed the standard six-month waiting period on Jytdog for his appeal. We didn't discuss others challenging the decision, so I can't unilaterally say. The best way to get an answer on that would probably be an email to arbcom-l, since it will have to be discussed among us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes so that is an excellent question, how do we as the community hold arbcom accountable? The easiest way will be the next election is the fall. There will be 7 positions open for election. We need candidates who see undisclosed paid editing as a problem and therefore feel it is important to do something about it. And than we need to elect those candidates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare - in the offer that Arbcom made to me, you all noted that I could appeal the TBAN in 6 months. Would you please confirm that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yikes, thanks for pointing this out; I apparently left out the entire second paragraph of the unblock conditions text. I've added it above, with a note to clarify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James raises the issue of holding ArbCom accountable, an issue not unfamiliar to me after my own run-in with last year's Committee. But I also think that we are all really on the same team here, and it would be a mistake to regard the situation too much as being an adversarial one. I know that quite few current members of ArbCom have very good reasons to regard harassment as a serious matter, and speaking in general, of course it is. At my own talk page, one can see two current Arbs taking opposite positions on how to balance COI versus outing. And if anything is clear from the RfC Doc James opened at the harassment policy talk page, it's that the responses are divided nearly 50-50, and the community really does not have a clear consensus either way. So I strongly advise the Arbs to consider that fact, about the lack of clarity in the community. In the mean time, the best thing to do is to find creative ways to make it easier to clean up COI without having a conflict with the outing policy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'll be starting an RfC soon, about creating a private mailing list of Functionaries to handle COI evidence privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Hey, I'm glad to see that all of that is over with! You have been missed. I trust that now you'll stay out of conflict, and I look forward to seeing you around again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh yay and I can edit my page and everything. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Hope you still can find something you think is interesting to edit. Is it an "indefinite-can-ask-for-unban-in-a-year" topic-ban? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - I asked for clarification above. I am travelling this week but will get back to editing my usual health/medicine related topics when I return. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)¨

Glad to hear it. Wikipedia is better with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't wait :-) Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to see that you're back. I'm sorry to hear that you're topic banned from anything COI-related, but hopefully you'll find working in other areas just as fulfilling. Altamel (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that you are back after I clicked on your contributions in the edit history of the Physical attractiveness article. I was checking up on that article after spotting a recent edit to it on my watchlist. Your userpage is also on my watchlist, but I was absent from the site for two days and missed this section. Anyway, welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saw you on a page I'm watching. A hearty welcome back! Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, welcome back! I was truly conflicted by the RfC, so I didn't respond there. But I am delighted that ArbCom lifted your block because losing you would have been a major loss to the project. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but it's good to see you back in action again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 :) Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Woah, I had recently watch-listed the fringe theories noticeboard and the last edit showed "Jytdog"! :) Welcome back! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks lemongirl! Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't know me, but I too am very glad you are back. When I see your name in the edit log of some article that has been infested by vandals and COIs, I get that "here comes the cavalry" feeling. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That is super kind of you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad you are back as well (for the medical pseudoscience-patrolling work, not the COI-patroling stuff, which I hadn't watched much). We may argue about one particular line of a certain page, but you're a major benefit to the project, the block was wrong-headed, and that one OTRS admin's "OUTING means what my selective blindness says it means, not what it actually says" position was indefensible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nitrogen dioxide poisoning recreated[edit]

A few months ago, you redirected it, after removing lots of MEDRS problems. Was the nuking of the whole article for similar MEDRS problems? Your conversion was just undone by another editor who has some problematic history (including MEDRS), but I wanted to get your thought on your first edits first before I do anything. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I merged and redirected because there was already some badly done discussion of this in the ND article (see this version) and we only would need the child article on poisoning article if the toxicity section in the parent article got too unwieldy and it didn't... Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	To one amazingly resilient Wikipedian. You managed to take some serious lumps and keep on going. Great having you back :-) What we do matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! -Pete (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Would Like to Update Page with Latest Annual Report Data[edit]

Greetings. Vince from Kaiser Permanente here. Last year you oversaw my updating of the Kaiser Permanente Wikipedia page with our most recent annual report topline data - ie., membership numbers, financial data, # employees/physicians. ^{[1] [2]}

I would like to do this again and ask if you would assist again. While I clearly do not have an NPOV, I believe that updating with just this objective annual data will be valuable and useful for users of the page. Please advise when convenient, and thank you for your consideration. vggolla (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to help you with this content. Since these are simple uncontroversial updating of various facts, please feel free to update the article directly and add the new sources, and ping me when you are done so I can review. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Just completed and saved. I cited the exact "by the numbers" section of the annual report for ease of use; if you prefer the full citation, it is: https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/static/kp_annualreport_2015/

For full transparency, I did *not* click "minor edit."

Two very small edits I also made in the body text: I changed "Bernard Tyson" to "Bernard J. Tyson" to be consistent throughout, and I changed "He was the first African American to hold that position" to "He is the first African American..." Since he is currently Chairman and CEO. Please let me know if I did this correctly and appropriately. Thank you for your consideration! vggolla (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

sro23[edit]

Hello, Sro23 is holding a rediculous grudge. Please if you can, revert his removal of positive information as you seem to be a veteran user. He has a real issue with inventions by Serbian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.69.169 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He says you had an account and were blocked. true? Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong sock: [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not entertain further discussion with them. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Define Productive?[edit]

So, what do you mean by be productive? Purple Pwnie (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Being able to add content to WP that sticks and is not reverted, and to have efficient and civil discussions when there are disagreements about content. There is stuff you have to learn about how the community deals with content and behavior, in order to be productive. I came to your talk page to help you - to explain some of that. Again, please read the links in the welcome message that someone else left for you. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

Please don't bite.[2] Thanks. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page watcher interjection: That's not biting, nor is it uncivil. If you're this easily offended, you're not going to have a good time on Wikipedia. If you persist in complaining about the mildest and most deserved of rebukes, you're going to hear much sharper ones. Rebbing 05:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Also one wonders how much of a "newcomer" is an editor who's using Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, who knows about WP:BITE and who is proficient with piped wikilinks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced OR drivel in fiction-ish articles[edit]

Riffing off our recent discussion on Talk:Ethereum, where I agree with you on the sort of excessive stuff that really brings down areas of this encyclopedia, here is one article I tried to tamp down, right from when it was fairly new so nothing had "standing" of existence in the encyclopedia prose for a long time. List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) characters

I had it reduced to c. 6kB of cited material in October 2015, after being over 20 kB, but after I quit active monitoring it has ballooned to 40+ kB of drivel again: List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_(2015_TV_series)_characters&action=history

Curious if you think there is any real shot at managing this stuff down to make Wikipedia better? Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. Cheers N2e (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear you but I stay away from pop culture as much as I can - way too much fancruft and crazy fierce advocates for it. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yeah, your assessment is exactly right. And I mostly stay away as well.

I just had the (romantic?) idea that every good Wikipedia editor ought to try to make the encyclopedia as a whole a better global resource, and that would include activities like spending at least a small percentage of my total Wikipedia cycles trying to get Wikipedia to only do sourced-in-outside-the-genre sources information, and leave the fancruft for Wikia and various crapopedias. But it is a lonely place to be working there. The partisan advocates are, indeed, crazy to deal with. So if other good editors are not wanting to go there and enforce Wiki policy and guidelines that have emerged, probably best to just stay away and let large areas of Wikipedia have a high level of suckitude. Too bad. But I get the logic of doing exactly that. N2e (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I try to spend my time working on stuff that (to me) matters, like health and medicine. Although there are crazy people in those fields, there is a very clear hierarchy of sources (scientific journals, statements by major health authorities) so editing is way, way more rational than in the pop culture zones of WP where all the sources are pretty crappy and it is more wild-westish. And that terrible WP:PLOT thing which people use as a bulldozer to add all kinds of content because they read the book/saw the show etc. ack. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Zyka fever: prognosis[edit]

Hi, Jytdog. I am sorry you cancelled my addition of "Prognosis" to the Zyka fever page without providing an acceptable replacement. I understand the reason for reverting. I also think you seem knowledgeable enough to find a reliable source for this. Prognosis is important to the lay person who needs basic information about Zyka. If the WP page doesn't have information on it, that reduces the usefulness of the page very much. Can you please help? Zaslav (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I did replace it - I added a section on outcomes in my next edit. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Misophonia[edit]

Welcome back. I've been trying to keep an eye on misophonia. I think it's still ok. :) —PermStrump(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

SBC[edit]

Jyt, this is a book review published by the Psychologist.  ??? [3] Seems like (another) valid critique of SBC's work to me ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is no criticism in that article. Kooky. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the article talkpage eh?[edit]

WP:BRD is equally a guideline to best practice so I suggest you read my fucking note there first mate before you get into edit warring. Irondome (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at what Irondome is talking about, and Jytdog, please dial it down, for your own good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

High-five on WP:MEDRS[edit]

As a retired clinical data analyst and medical writer, just wanted to thank you for the remarkably complete and comprehensive essay on reliability of biomedical articles. You did good. loupgarous (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I take it you mean WP:Why MEDRS? ? If so, thank you! I did write most of it, but others have chipped in to make it way better. But it is still too long. Way too long. If you can help chop it down that would be amazing. If on the other hand you mean WP:MEDRS I cannot take any credit for that! Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru created the first MEDRS inline tag back in November 2009.[4] The top editors to WP:MEDRS are listed here. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for doing that QG! Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I remember Eubulides made significant contributions to WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

btw i do think the person meant the Why MEDRS essay - just prior to this, I had !voted on an AfD they had initiated, and I am guessing they came to my userpage to check me out, and saw the link to the essay there, and just misdescribed it here. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You could create a WP:SC for WP:Why MEDRS?. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Way to maintain and improve wikipedia's reliability on matters biomedical. You are noticed. loupgarous (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"in 1970" or "in the 1970s"[edit]

Hi! The third sentence of Immunodiagnostics is a bit weird: "A second test was developed in 1970 as a test for thyroxine in the 1970s." Do you know if this should be improved (and, if so, how)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

levaquin page[edit]

hi, I have now understood not to reference news articles on health pages. I've put this in the talk section. I also asked in the talk section why my edits adding recent medical published articles were also removed. if you removed those, please explain why on the talk page so we can reach consensus. if you didn't remove them but have an opinion of course please enter it? thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)jdbrook Jdbrook (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

great! I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Favor[edit]

Hey Jyt. Most of our articles use "cite template". Wondering if for consistency you could use them also? This page explains some simply ways of generating them WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hm, why does that matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I always cite the complete source so it is findable, and include links to full texts where they are available. I find the templates clunky and time wasting... I can adapt but.. why does the format matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yah I guess it is not a big deal. I find it easier reviewing when the article references have a consistent format that is all. And also having consistent formatting is useful for translation. But outside the lead that is less important as all we are translating are leads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

hm. OK. i found that the templates slowed me down and were just, i don't know, finicky, when i tried them. i like my simple method. but i will try again. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever used the Wikipedia:RefToolbar? It has auto fill functions for urls, pmids, dois, and ISBNs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

that is what I tried. it just opens up an awful dialog box where i am supposed to type all the parameters. tremendous waste of time. some kind of autofill would make this much better but that is not here by default. i looked at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0#Autofilling and this is gobbledegook to me... did you load some javascript into your settings to make autofill work? Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC) ^[1]

OH you have to click on the little magnifying glass. I get it! that is not bad at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can do that. I will start doing that. Thanks for leading me to work it through. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes the little magnifying glass is amazing :-) It works about 95% of the time in my experience. You still need to add the page number for books. I find the url from Google books works better than the ISBN.

For example if you add "https://books.google.ca/books?id=GhkeUxEKRZwC&pg=PA327" it will fill all the meta data but the page and the year of publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 :) The above article is crazy interesting btw. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, a trick you can use is to install User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. It works (moderately) well at automatically changing plain citations into cite template ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The PMID autofill works great (though it would be better if it included the PMC code when there was one) - the website autofill really stinks tho.... I will check that tool out! Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Linked to the wrong source[edit]

In this discussion [5] it seems to me that you linked to an incorrect source here: [6]. It may be that statement by this source is NOT the example of BLP support you were looking for and trying to demonstrate. Regards - Steve Quinn (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Link #6, this, is a diff to a comment by WordSmith, an admin, where Wordsmith directly addresses BLP concerns about the information and comes to a different conclusion from MastCell. That was the point of the diff. What diff do you see? I don't know why you are shouting. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I redacted here to try to alleviate confusion. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to appear to be shouting. I was trying emphasize the word "not". I can see now that it wasn't necessary. Regarding the diff, I misunderstood your point in the discussion in the first place - which is my fault, not yours. I probably need to slow down a little for awhile on Wikipedia. I think this is the first time I have been involved in this much controversy regarding a single article, and even several articles that were plagued by single disagreeable editors. Compared to this, those were easy, being only concerned with mostly WP:RS issues (and I thought those were difficult at the time). I never would have thought this was possible. Really . Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 :) Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Talk:Epinephrine_autoinjector[edit]

Please read over WP:NPOV. You have introduced a bias as you deemed that a peer-reviewed, published article is not to be included since you have alluded to the author having a conflict of interest with a drug company. This is not a neutral point of view. Your response "Discuss content, not contributors." is unacceptable in this case. Before you continue to edit please review this policy. Good references are not to be excluded because of your own bias towards authors who have disclosed conflicts of interest. EditorDownUnder (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on contributors is bad form on article Talk pages. I choose to use high quality sources that nobody from any side of issues will argue with. You can try to use it if you like - it will lead to drama (not from me - you should note that what I wrote, was "I won't use it"). Once you have been around for a while (you have 23 edits) you will understand better how to work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemtrails revertion[edit]

Hello... today you reverted a citation addition I made to the Chemtrails page stating I did not use a reliable source. I was anxious to get this new study included here as it seems very pertinent. This is the first time I have attempted to add a citation to anything on WP and I am clearly not well enough informed on the rules in this matter. Can you explain why this was not a RS? Is there a WP list of such things (rather than general guidance). Would this (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta;jsessionid=DE85711ACAAC10FDDAAF692ED6246BA1.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org) be a reliable source for this same material? RobP (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks so much for talking! Yes in this dif you added content based on this source. inquisitr.com. That source looked pretty dicey to me and in general we don't cite popular media stories about science papers. The journal in which the paper published, Environmental Research Letters is pretty good. However the scientific paper is what we call a "primary" source, in which the research that was done is reported by the people who did it. In general, it is way, way better to use what we call "secondary sources" - for science, a literature review paper in which other scientists put the primary source in its larger context. Sometimes we use primary sources, most times not.

Tell you what, I will post on the chemtrails Talk page on your behalf, and let's see what editors who watch that page say... Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like a good plan. And got it... avoid primary sources for science topics. RobP (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

hypoglycemia section was removed from Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults[edit]

The Hypoglycemia section was taken out of Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It was general content about hypoglycemia that was already covered in our Hypoglycemia article. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Metoclopramide[edit]

I have paraphrased your addition to the above article, as the material was directly quoted without any indication that you were using a quotation. Wherever possible, content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ack, thank you! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Re phobias[edit]

This popped up in my GScholaring: Listomania: The List as Popular Culture Icon. I am amused. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 : :) Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack London (businessman)[edit]

Hey, Jytdog!

I'm currently in the midst of a good-faith attempt to cooperate with a paid editor to flesh out Jack London (businessman), tackling a section at a time, trying to get it beyond the stubbiest of stubs that it is now. I'd appreciate if you could undo your recent re-squishing of the article; I'll then put up one of the under-construction templates. I'm not sure that this article survives long-term, but there should be a chance to put at least a little meat on its bones before that decision gets made. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ok, i will stand back! Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

)

Chaetophobia[edit]

I was in the middle of editing. Do not do that again. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single citation that I added specifically names chaetophobia or fear of hair. Please read the sources. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are using sources that are not valid for content about health. See WP:MEDRS. btw if you want elbow room please use the "under construction" tag. I didn't see that you were in the middle of editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(→‎Television: WP is not part of the internet echo chamber of rumors)[edit]

What does this mean, please? The Washington Post is a reliable source. Do you have better Wiki wording for the statements in the article? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are asking about this revert I take it. Our mission is to provide the public with accepted knowledge, not with rumors. See WP:NOT, really. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (one more in a deservedly continuing series)[edit]

Jytdog, your timely addition of high-quality material regarding epinephrine injectors is one of the latest examples of your dedication, which is much-appreciated!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For a long history of informed, neutral, nuanced, and well-sourced edits, particularly relating to science & technology, business, and ethics, and where these areas overlap. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Middle 8! Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Philippe Cousteau Jr.[edit]

Your edits to this environmentalist were of concern to me. I returned the "Awards" section you deleted - how many ways are there to list awards? IMO this is not what our copy vio regulations are about at all. The editor that added this info is apparently a newbie - how long would it have taken you to change a few words in the "Books" section? I cut it back a little and put it back in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

HMB FAC[edit]

Hey Jytdog. I know that you've already indicated your support for this FAC nomination in your review section, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to indicate this with a comment that includes the word Support in boldface; the summary of each nomination at WP:FAC is automatically updated with the total count of bolded "Support" and "Oppose" statements on the nomination page. It's also generally easier for FAC coordinators to determine the stance of a reviewer when this is done.

Thanks again for doing a review of the article; I appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

does this work? Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, thanks again! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that again please[edit]

This is against WP:TPO, and I would hope you do not repeat the action. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My action was correct. Your message was uncivil not to mention futile (the first step in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is to bring arguments to persuade the closer to change what they did, and there was no way that message was going to persuade anyone). You just vented, and that is uncivil. You are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars. I am sorry for you. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"are very clearly one of the far-gone casualties of the infobox wars" And you try to lecture me on civility? You were wrong to delete and you are uncivil and wrong to comment on me here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Last time I suggested you were getting too involved was regarding policing COI. This time I'm suggesting you should keep clear of the infobox wars unless you do a lot of reading first, and certainly do not assume the role of civility guardian. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Schrocat I am not going to engage with you; I let you know your message was uncivil; you chose to restore it. There you go. Thanks Johnuniq for your advice. Jytdog (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL, are you another person commenting on the situation without knowing that it concerns Noël Coward? Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq - I was aware of the RfC close at Noel Coward before I saw the note from SchroCat. My removal per NPA and giving the notice was because this was not a good faith WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; it was just expressing anger. If Schrocat chose to repeat that message at AN to formally challenge the close it would go precisely no where on the basis of what was presented there. It was just attacking an admin who had the guts to close a very toxic RfC. It is not OK behavior, and being a participant in a toxic, longrunning dispute doesn't make it OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleged link spam for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin articles[edit]

Hi Jytdog. I am writing this comment as you suggested I could do on my talk page.

First of all, thanks for your interest, but according to the guidelines, I think my contributions are legit and should not have been marked as spam.

"from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links [...] What can be normally linked [...] Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. [...]"

I honestly think the PDFs on material safety datasheet for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin all meet these guidelines. It's neutral, it's accurate, it's relevant to an encyclopedic understanding, etc.

There were no sections within the wikipedia articles that related to material safety, which I think is quite important (esp. regarding the controversy levels of these additives in mainstream media). This is why I didn't simply suplement the section with the information contained and added the PDF as source/reference. Do you think adding such a section would be better?

Also the PDFs provide phyisical properties and other facts that are otherwise not available in the article. I was wondering if this would qualify as too detailed for the article. This is why I didn't add them and cite the PDF as a reference (e.g. Melting point is not provided in Cyclamate or Cyclamic Acid articles but it's present in the PDFs).

I ask you to reconsider the spam classification of those PDFs and/or at least provide suggestions on how to include that relevant information in the article. Thanks. Sr.Bernat (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr.Bernat (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources for technical specifications and MSDS and yes there is good information in them. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that I add similar external links but from another source? If so, which source(s) do you suggest (I don't want to be accused of spamming again...)? Or are you suggesting that I should try to extract the relevant information/contents from the MSDSs and place it in the article with a reference? Thanks! Sr.Bernat (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Before you embark on a project like this it is usually a good idea to get input from the relevant WIkiProject. How about asking the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry how they like the idea of adding a bunch of MSDS and tech specs to ELs of articles? And if so, where they think the best source would be? That would probably be the best place to ask. (I just took a quick look through their archives and found some past discussions - see here - you may want to review those before you ask.) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into that, thanks for your help! Sr.Bernat (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_3#Wikisource_MSDS it seems that the correct thing to do is to create a _(data_page) for the main Wikipedia article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_tribromide_(data_page) ) and then add the MSDS information there. Thanks for the tip! I think I'll do that (unless you disagree) Sr.Bernat (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

~Maybe~. That is a discussion from ten years ago and things might have changed since then. Really the best thing to do would be to ask the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry what they are doing these days. I am sure they will be happy that somebody is interested in updating chemical data. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:Sr.Bernat - I went ahead and asked myself - I am curious. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#MSDS.2C_data_pages Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Philippe Cousteau Jr..

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss content disputes on the talk page. You appear to be engaged in an edit war and have reached the 3RR threshold. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

--Lurker response-- Jytdog's actions fall under the BLP exemption of 3RR, in that he is trying to correct the addition of promotional, unsourced materials to a BLP page. BLP was mentioned on the article's talk page. Therefore this warning is wholly unjustified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Thank you for the thoughtful reversion and helpful message on my talk page. You are a true gentleperson. Cheers! —Verbistheword (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Momina Mustehsan[edit]

Hello The correct D.O.B of Momina Mustehsan is September 5, 1993. She told me on instagram via direct message. Shall i put up a screenshot of our chat as a reference? Immu01 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No. That is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and also WP:BLP - the latter is a very important policy in Wikipedia and you must follow it. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of other Users[edit]

copied here from message left on my userpage in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please review the text of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment for more information on why your recent behavior related to Centers for Disease Control is inappropriate. Taking five actions in response to an edit, including multiple edits to my user page, is harassment. Any further attempts at intimidation or threats will be treated as further harassment and escalated as necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

oy Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

I thought you had been indeffed, for an offence supposedly so heinous that it couldn't even be described. So I was very pleased to find (at Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich) that you are with us again. You do excellent work, particularly on medical articles that actually matter to people unlike the claptrap that most of us waste our time on. I hope you long continue to contribute. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Momina Mustehsan.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If u think my citations are not reliable then how come u keep on adding stuff that make no sense at all on the article Momina Mustehsan? u don't either provide reliable sources. Immu 01 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

this is off-base, and your post above is incorrect. You need to use reliable sources for content about living people, Immu. It is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Immu 01 --lurker response-- Immu 01, your edits are in violation of WP:BLP's requirement for no original research. Until you can make edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies, you are the only one making disruptive edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: “Please see Talk”.[edit]

I do not see anything in the talk page that is relevant to your revert. Please clarify and highlight my user name on response. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

It is there and you were pinged; was working on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated welcome back[edit]

I saw the drama surrounding your COI work and the claims of outing. I'm glad to see you're back, and appalled that there was actually anyone who didn't see that you were doing your usual COI work in good faith. You are owed an apology from both ArbCom for instituting a topic ban, and from whomever made the call to block in the first place, in my opinion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary revertion in “empathogen-entactogen”[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Empathogen-entactogen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Reverting without justification is not acceptable. Neither are editors in general, required to obtain consensus prior to any edit per WP:BOLD. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

As you know this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_format_of_linking_articles and currently there is no consensus for what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects have no power to make any binding decision on article-space content per WP:Local consensus. Content that affects Empathogen-entactogen must be discussed on its talk page or a WP:dispute resolution noticeboard approved by Wikipedia-wide consensus. Quoting:

“For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.”

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Of course WikiProjects don't do that, and no one is claiming that WP:MED per se is claiming jurisdiction. What is happening is that several editors who are interested in this new approach you are taking have started discussing it and there is strong disagreement; the conversation happens to be taking place at the WT:MED page. When you do a new thing like this across a bunch of articles, it is appropriate to pause to gain consensus when people start objecting. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Please comment[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Help_needed_at_Judaism_and_violence.2Fwarfare. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice 2[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) @Mario Castelán Castro: assuming you mean this thread, it's already been closed. This second notice was unnecessary -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

He does, but it was his second thread, so the notice was necessary. I just closed it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So it is, my apologies Mario Castelán Castro -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

Better, much better -- conforms to the ref you cited, to wit:<ref>According to tax records obtained by PRWatch.org, an investigative watchdog group run by the Center for Media and Democracy, in recent years hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to Project Veritas have come through a fund in Alexandria, Virginia, called Donors Trust, which specializes in hiding the money trails of conservative philanthropists. In its promotional materials, Donors Trust says that it will “keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues.”</ref> The ref you cited also states that O'Keefe calls himself “an investigative journalist and a leading practitioner of modern political warfare” and that "Given O’Keefe's track record, it would be a mistake to take his grand statements too seriously"-- stuff to consider adding I guess to the article. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, you seem satisfied now. I am not interested in elaborating content further from that source, but please feel free! Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Creationism[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, am aware of them. Thanks. Please remember to sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh and sorry with regard to signature. I am happy to not use those templates too often. Polentarion Talk 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice[edit]

Your recent editing history at Mylan 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 article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Now you have reverted me 3 times. That's enough of this nonsense. My judgement on what belongs in the article is at least as good as yours. You have a very bad habit of trying to own articles, and if memory serves have been taken to arbcom about this several times. Please try to behave better while you are editing. You have no right to order me about.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

--lurker response-- Smallbones, your edits violate the well-established WP:NOTNEWS policy on investigations that have not yet concluded. Jytdog was correct to revert your edits in order to enforce the policy. Your actions make you guilty of WP:3RR, and you have no grounds. You need to read WP:NOTNEWS to understand why Jytdog's actions were correct, and yours were not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

 :Hi Jytdog, I'm notifying you I reported you at ANI for your verbal abuse toward me. Sorry about not using the correct template. Still learning. But I just wanted to make sure you were notified. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Smallbones_.28Result:_.29

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from sending me further unsolicited e-mails[edit]

Thank you. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Epi-pen Suggestion[edit]

Hey,

I changed the phrasing on the epi-pen article to give a more descriptive phrasing of Mylans market share and how it "dominates" the market, which you revered. Do you have a source of the Mylan 90% figure? I think the sentence you reverted would read better and be more descriptive by actually showing the reader the figure, rather than the ambiguous statement of "dominates". Thoughts? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ~90% market share, which it has had pretty consistently since 2007 when it acquired the product, is very far from "majority". Everything in the article is very carefully sourced. You can check the refs yourself. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments.[edit]

Your narrative on AT[edit]

You created a narrative about my intentions and actions on the AT article which is false and which mischaracterizes me and my actions. I will assume your intentions were honest rather than a rather transparent way to railroad an editor into a bad situation. While I, as I said before on the article talk page, will not edit in an environment where this kind of mischaracterization takes place; I also feel its necessary to make my position clear on what you did.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

I just collected diffs on the discussion over the section header. Nothing about your "intentions" but only about what you have actually said and done. In my view any reasonable person will see your clear misrepresentations in the discussion about the section header. That in itself was a trivial thing (really it was) but the misrepresentations are something that have made the discussion at that article difficult in actually dealing with content. It is just one example that is ready to go should you continue to be disruptive there. If you want to make drama out of that set of diffs about the section header, that will probably not go well for you. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You heard what I said. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Presbyopia[edit]

A good idea[edit]

I read what you wrote about engaging with BLP (on Seth Rich talk) and fleshing out you Ivote here [7], which you had already accomplished here [8]. So I decided to do the same because it is a good idea [9]. Ciao ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ok then! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Subst[edit]

Someone must have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reliable_sources_please without subst it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

that was me. I fixed it now. Sorry! Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About the other editor's talk page[edit]

What Laser brain said. I really mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am done there, as I noted there before you even wrote that. I would be interested to hear you flesh out your thoughts on this more, and will share mine, if you are interested. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing scientific skepticism, because I expect that my opinions are pretty similar to yours. My concern is like that of the unidentified Arb who reportedly said that you "need to calm the fuck down". I'm saying this for your own good. And by now, I really should not have to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I am done trying to talk with him for now, as I noted there. I was not asking you to comment on the other editor's issue (scientific skepticism, which I don't care about). I was asking you to comment further - to flesh out - your reaction to what I had been doing, which you have clearly found alarming. The strength of your reaction was surprising to me. I guess what I was doing looks ugly to you (and to laser brain too). I offered to explain what i was doing. If you are not interested in either, I understand. Just wanted to make sure you understood what I was asking you. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that you already said that you are done, and that's good. I don't know that it struck me as "alarming" so much as "oh, not again!". I've had vast numbers of content disputes where I found the other editor exasperating. It's almost never useful to issue a warning on that user's talk page, unless you are actually preparing to go to WP:3RRN or WP:AE, where prior notice (of 3RR and DS, respectively) is required. All you had to do was say what you wanted to say at the article talk page. It came across as very battleground-y when you wrote that warning, and I see that the administrator considered it to have elements of harassment. Why am I particularly concerned? You came out of your most recent interaction with ArbCom with them telling you that, if there is a next time, you are looking at a site-ban. There is no shortage of editors who would be delighted to use that warning you posted as a reason to start a complaint against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

yes that last interaction was about OUTING and to put a fence around that, the TBAN was with regard to other editors' potential/actual COI. So OUTING and COI. I have stayed far away from that. I did not bring that up nor even come close to it, in anything I wrote to him. I see now (and thanks for taking the time to reply) that where you are coming from is that OUTING is part of the harassment policy and what I was doing has been perceived as harassment. I see now. Thanks!!!! Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Even more broadly, please be careful as not coming across as battleground-y or bossy. That's really the bottom line, more so than any details of those sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for Trypto but I'm thinking that's not precisely what he's getting at, Jytdog. You know as well as I do the exact specifics of a prior warning have little bearing on how editors perceive it when it comes to applying a new sanction. Really, general antagonism is all anyone is going to see. I'm guilty of it too. I was literally going to post here to advise you to just leave it alone then I saw that last comment and unfortunately couldn't help myself. We should both take my advice above. Let other editors handle it. Capeo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, thanks, that does clarify what I was trying to say. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, same pages all around. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing Comments[edit]

You may not remove comments made by another editor accept in a few rare cases. Disagreeing with the message of the comment is not one of these cases. This is inexcusable. [[10]]. EditorDownUnder (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, EditorDownUnder started a thread about this at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Medicinepedia[edit]

So far several editors have mentioned that you have a habit wherein you seem to treat wikipedia as if it is a medical journal. Its not a medical journal and we shouldn't treat it as such. Please stop that habit of yours. Its frankly quite annoying. Even topics completely unrelated to medicine end up reading as if you just stumbled upon complicated pharmacology or biochemistry once you start editing it. The primary audience of wikipedia readers are not sicence researchers, nor are they university professors who have a PHD in chemistry. Most wikipedia readers are laymen and as such wikipedia language should reflect that. If you do not alter your behavior from hence forward I will assume you lack competence in the ability to differentiate between science vs non-science topics, or the sufficient social acuity to allow yourself to extricate from health-related aspects of your occupation. Wikipedia is not medicinepedia so do not turn it into such. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With respect I disagree. It's surely in Wikipedia's interests to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, especially in the medical field, primarily because of its search engine ranking giving any article such a high placement - and that includes medical terminology where relevant (I agree that for complex terms not referenced earlier in an article these should be wikilinked where possible, primarily for the benefit of laypeople reading the article - and Jytdog does this 99% of the time). Both him and Doc James - amongst others - have put a lot of time and effort into keeping the medical articles here comprehensive but in a way that's relevant to both laypeople & professional, and I for one encourage them to continue doing so. Mike1901 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What specific article is this about? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mike1901 on comprehensiveness. However where me and mike1901 disagree is how formal our language should be and to what extent we should simplify language to allow our audience to understand the content. Also, since professionals already have other resources, they shouldn't be our primary focus. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pwolit iets you come here echoing Tomwsucler's misguided accusation at Talk:Coregasm. Not sure what to say, since you don't ask any questions of me, so I will just say: a) of course we are not medicinepedia - its a slick label but false claim (I edit lots of stuff that is not biomedical information); b) yes we are aimed at a general readership and I always try to write in WP:Plain English; c) our mission is to communicate accepted knowledge per WP:NOT - you seem to misunderstand this per your post here and at Jimbo's talk page here. What you and Tomwsulcer also don't seem to understand at the Coregasm article is that popular media is not a reliable place to find accepted knowledge about WP:Biomedical information, as well as what biomedical information is. The source guideline and the definition aren't my views - they have been established by the community. If you want to take issue with that, this is not the place to do it.

The exact boundaries of "biomedical information" can be tricky to find, and people can disagree in good faith. I have offered to discuss that here - as of last night neither you nor Tomwsulcer have responded or tried to actually discuss the specific content you would like to source from popular media nor why that is appropriate sourcing and content. I look forward to seeing your responses. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged. As the opener does not mention any diffs of concern there is not anything to follow up. But yes we should definitely be writing in easy to understand language per WP:MEDMOS. We should do this using the best avaliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctors[edit]

I love how each citations in the first paragraph is to one discussing the phenomenon in general, and to one discussing Dr. Oz. It made me laugh. While I know it's not synthesis, be wary of the celebriDoc fans, who will almost certainly scream "SYNTH!!!!!1!1!!!1!1oneoneone" as loud as they can when they see this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just getting started and not ready to be live. I need to go do stuff and wanted to save my work and invite others to work on it too, so it would be well vetted when we move it to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

BPDFamily.com[edit]

I believe your revert was made in good faith but that you did not look carefully at the neutrality edits that were made.
1. The only content change was the following and it is referenced and it is more neutral:

OLD The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to a single-title, online book discussion group which was created after the 1998 release of Stop Walking on Eggshells - one of the first books to help family members and romantic partners identify Borderline personality disorder traits in a loved one.

NEW The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to the AOL online support groups that provided all the case studies used in the self-help book Stop Walking on Eggshells (1998). The AOL online support groups went on to become a single-title, online book discussion group for Stop Walking on Eggshells and in 2007, were spun off by the book's author to became an independent multi-national support group.[6][7]

2. Other neutrality edits included:

Changing medical establishment to medical providers (establishment is over reaching, specific medical providers are cited in the article)

Changing organization supports and members have participated to have been involved and referenced in (replace general with specific statement as the reference support this)

3. The rest was changing the order of paragraphs without content change.

4. The COI banner was removed as provided in WP:MTR referenced on the banner itself. If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.

We should assume good faith. I spent an hour looking this article. I'll hold off reverting so that you may double check the above.2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would put this message on the Talk page of the article, I would be happy to reply there. Thanks for being willing to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done

2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves are not ok?[edit]

As far as I can see unilateral page moves are perfectly okay by Wikipedia:Requested moves. That page is if there is a dispute over the move or some other reason it is difficult. Are you disputing the move of scientific skepticism to skeptical movement? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not OK. But see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is okay. The senond sentence in the lead says

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

You should have given a reason for objecting to he move. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bottom[edit]

Says published by Takeda Pharm[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

James, no it doesn't! It says copyright Takeda, and says the drug is distributed by Takeda. I don't what the "Publisher" field is supposed to be, but I take it as the owner of the site where the document appears (is published) and in the case of that ref, the publisher is the FDA. If we were citing the URL for the label hosted on Takeda's website, I would agree that the publisher would be Takeda. See what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dietary supplement page[edit]

Hey, I saw you edited the "Dietary supplement" page. It does make a lot more sense now. I think there is some room for improvement however (isn't that always the case ;D ).

The first part of the content of the subsection called "Use as food replacement" doesn't match the title of the subsection. It looks like this section is more about disease prevention than about replacing food. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this?

Furthermore the source for the first part of that subsection does not mention the terms "hope" or "iodine" and does talk about succeses in preventing vitamin deficiencies. This part of the article seems contain original research.

I have not looked at the other information in the subsection but it might have the same problems. Can you take a look at it again?

VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your note - addressed via editing. If you want to discuss please repost on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)