User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Bet-David is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

User:Jenhawk777, who as you know extensively re-wrote Women in the Bible, Ethics in the Bible, The Bible and violence and Christianity and violence among others, has announced her departure from WP. All these articles are too much like essays imo and she edited from an overt very strong Christian POV. I hope you will continue to work on these articles even though she has gone, I think they are all deeply unsatisfactory. However I cannot try to fix them as such broad topics which invite generalisations where I am not sure they are appropriate ("the Bible" is a collection of writings from hundreds of years apart and with varying perspectives, "Christianity" has been and is many different things), are not for me, I focus on concrete facts of history (or classical music and opera). Anyway, cheers for all your efforts here.Smeat75 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is too harsh but yes there is a bunch of cleanup that still needs doing. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want an other classic WP:Vanity page to tightened it up? --87.170.197.242 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for deletion. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not my doing, but figured you should know since the IP didn't bother notifying you. zchrykng (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw it. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I put the below on the talk page of Young Blood Transfusion. Can you help with this? If you like, I can send you the changes. Thanks.

"I have quite a few sourced edits to add to the Young Blood Transfusion page, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Is there anyone who can review what I have done and help with this?

Thanks" --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for your response here: User_talk:Hedgehogsrock#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia. After we work through those issues we can discuss content. Not before. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my previous post about my connection to Dr Maharaj? --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did now, yes. I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question on the other talk page. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the Young Blood talk page for my answer? Thanks. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog. An IP editor is at AN complaining about Colorectal cancer. Though he doesn't use your name, he seems to be talking about an interaction he had with you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I am aware. Doc James and I have been wrangling with that person at the talk page already. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to wikipedia and am just so grateful that you are standing up for junior editors. I genuinely believe wikipedia is as good as the people who write it, and you are a testament to just how great that can't be. Thank you! Jesswade88 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(umm "can't be"? My "fan club" would agree.) But thanks :) I am sorry you were subjected to that crap. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm sure we disagree about a lot of stuff, but anyone who thinks you don't add a huge amount to the project is totally insane. zchrykng (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you! It is good to disagree :) Makes things robusty Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I am disappointed with you because you did not ping me re the new Goodreads discussion. (I'm sure you knew I was a major contributor in the 2016 EL discussion.) To assuage my disappointment please ping the other editors in the EL discussion about the new template issue you've raised. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are disappointed. I notified the author. Please feel free to ping whomever you like. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for tps, the discussion is Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#Goodreads. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as we discussed a few weeks ago, an update is still needed on Ciprofloxacin and Quinolone Antibiotic side effects. I appreciate you are very busy. But could you please try and have a look at this. Thank you Wiki woms (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I will see if I can get it done this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period in Muse (disambiguation) page while my edits are reasonable (while some editors revert them without any clear reason) and they are not clear vandalism which should be reverted straightly. If you (Jytdog) a good Wikipedian, you'd better consider WP:COMPROMISE and be mediator between the parts who engaged in the conflict to gain consensus (WP:CON) for better result, rather than threaten (WP:HARASS) a part to an edit blocking. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat: it was a notification of the edit warring policy. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[1] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input and edits on Schön Properties, but in the summary of your first edit you mentioned that you were trimming spam and removing promo. Just curious what did you consider "spam" and "promo," I thought I was adhering to WP:NPOV. Thanks. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spam = "references" that are links to the company website, press releases, churnalism , and the like

PROMO = garbage content basically copied from the kinds of sources above, promoting the company. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for defining "spam" and "promo," You still didn't answer what in that article was considered "spam" and "promo."So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I Have just reverted a largish addition [2] to Peripheral neuropathy. The claims seem over broad, for efficacy as well as applicibility. I checked the editors activity, and all ten of the contributions seem to be focused on the drug Cerebrolysin which is being advertised across the Internet as a mail-order product. I do not have the knowledge to do more than put in a revert and kick it down the road to you. I am fairly certain the refs. will not meet Wikipedia standards for medical subjects. Neonorange (Phil) 00:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have acted. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for already helping to guide the students. They have just finished their class. The time frame is: Nov 5th (today) add comments to talk page and sandboxes. Nov 5-13th: Monitor talk pages, respond to feedback, and add changes Nov 10-13th. I have just logged on now to take a peek at some of the suggestions. If you have any suggestions please let me know. I spoke to the Colorectal Cancer group just now to let them know that there was quite a bit of action last week and to make sure changes are communicated on the talk pages. I will be online for the next 2 hours, then again later on tonight. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the students are not quite finished uploading their suggestions. Some may need another 12-24 hours to finish talk pages/sandboxes. I will be back tonight to do more but will be offline for next 3+hours. Your suggestions are appreciated. Have a great day! JenOttawa (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I raised an issue in April regarding an incorrect edit incorporating multisystem proteinopathy into Hereditary inclusion body myopathy. My previous attempts for attention (two times here and at the IBM talk page) have not worked. This incorrect edit should be reverted. Can we please finish it off? Thanks. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there now and have asked for more input at WT:MED. You've been very patient - thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Looking forward to getting this resolved on that talk page. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've had to report you to ANI/Incidents until you can explain good reason of your incivility. You can reply on that page with your reasoning. - MusenInvincible (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we clarify the expression of KLRB1 as my edits were made (expressed in NK cells and T cells) to do and add references for further reading? The last reference is from 2008 and the field is moving on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauss (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of content would be great! Please see my reply to you at Talk:KLRB1 Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we can update the further reading with the expanded KLRB1 primary sources beyond 2008? I will fill in everything if that is the case. Dchauss (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on high quality secondary sources, sure! Please don't try to assemble a review here in Wikipedia using primary sources. Please. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. However, the sources available in that portion of the article are primary sources. So it seems like some primary sources are ok and others are not? I am sure if we plotted all protein-stubs we would find them filled with peer-reviewed primary sources. Dchauss (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(which may or may not be ok based on ~the rules~) :) Dchauss (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of not-so-good content in Wikipedia and it is somewhat dangerous to use existing content as examples. This being volunteer and wide open, quality is very spotty. :( Ideally everything would be sourced to high quality recent secondary sources that themselves are actually giving the state of play in the field, and primary sources would be used carefully, only when needed, to fill in small details. (things like a birthday, or the exact date something happened; things like that are not common in encyclopedia articles about proteins) Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the article about Intermittent Fatsting, I noticed that you removed the section that I added about evolutionary significance for the reason of "horrible sourcing." The Wikipedia guidelines about topics in health and medicine stipulate that journal review articles are the only acceptable sources for information directly related to the effect of the article's topic on humans, but this section was about the evolutionary reasoning behind intermittent fasting. Additionally, the TEDx talk was by Mark Mattson, one of the leading IF researchers whose papers I referenced heavily in my edits. Would you mind explaining to me the issue with this sourcing and the section in general. Thanks. Kseses14 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. If you post the note there, I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:81B8:A314:4A73:70AF (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert this edit by Smellyshirt5, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here is a gross misconstrual: I did not "replace" any criticism. It is all still there, including a new critique from someone not previously cited or quoted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who to ask. I noticed that Template:Reliable medical sources please recommends that the template be substituted. I see that there are a quite a few un-substituted transclusions Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Reliable medical sources please. I know a bot will substitute template:unsigned, can and should it be done for RMSP?

BTW: Is there a non-medical version of this that you know of off-hand? Cheers Jim1138 talk 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about fixing un-substituted transclusions.. sorry :(

As far as I know, the standard non-medical ones are {{uw-unsourced1}} and its escalations; {{uw-biog1}} also discusses sourcing a bit. but nothing about better sourcing like RSPlease. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find a bot substituting for unsigned. I might just try one. Then ask about how it works. Cheers Jim1138 talk 08:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must be going blind, it's already setup to auto-substitute. It's User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster that does it. Must have miss-clicked. Cheers Jim1138 talk 09:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I added the disclosure you requested on my userpage, and commented below on my talk page. Please help me with the next steps :) Neurogal913 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I think this article is ready to head back to the main space, but I did want to verify that all of your concerns had been addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Acyl-CoA oxidase deficiency - thanks for your work on that! Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A "Request Edit" reviewer addressing Talk:Letgo#Proposed_edits closed out the request since it's been more than 21 days since you commented on changes you requested. He asked that I ask you on your Talk page if you want to be involved any further before I proceed with finding a new reviewer. He asked that any substantive discussion take place on the Letgo talk. Thanks for considering the matter. BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Do you think this would be considered WP:PAID if there's really a COI here and not just someone who chose an inappropriate username? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a small troupe he likely does all the PR (and floor sweeping etc) along with writing, directing, and acting, so it is probably legitimately PAID, but the main thing is that he discloses and doesn't edit directly. We care most about behavior not precise classification.... Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you taking a look at this and following up on both the article talk page and Jmshoberg's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Herbalism 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. -- EzekielT ^Talk 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (restored this and struck it; it was removed in this diff by EzekielT Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

So, User:EzekielT the above thing, is a notice, to make sure you aware of the policy. I gave you this notice, so of course I am aware of the policy. Giving me the notice as you did above, is a misunderstanding, and rather WP:POINTY. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. There are numerous incorrect and undersourced statements that me and Zefr agreed to leave out, but they were added back by you and CFCF. First of all, none of the links mention phytotherapy, and none of the sources equate phytotherapy with paraherbalism. Second, as User:Zefr states: "the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE"

I had fixed all of this and Zefr gave me a thanks for the edit. However, CFCF reverted all of this. -- EzekielT ^Talk 23:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - never remove or edit something on a talk page, after someone has responded to it, as it renders the conversation nonsense for anyone reading it afterwards. if you want to change something that has been responded to, you need to mark it up, as I have done above, in this same diff. See WP:REDACT. Please follow that in the future. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not sure how to proceed, as I am still not sure what I did wrong. All of the information so far regarding editing has been a little confusing to me. My addition was only an elaboration on something someone else posted originally, and that addition was factual and included a citation of proof. I merely elaborate on what was already there. That's as much as I could do. It also relates directly to the film. It was sanctioned as the original adaptation by the writer and director himself. It's existence is new and seemed like something people who sought out that page might like to know.

If it breaches some established rules though, I don't want to push it any further. I tried to make a case for it, but I honestly can't support it any more than I have (factually speaking). Thank you for your attention, but if, in some way, it causes a conflict by the measure of Wikipedia's rules, you can leave it off. Jmshoberg (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note!

There are two issues - your behavior, and the content. One at a time.

As somebody with a conflict of interest (as you acknowledged), you should a) disclose it (which you did) and b) not edit directly. The reason for b) is to ensure the integrity of our content and to avoid "edit warring" and other behavior that is not good in Wikipedia. (I won't bore you with the details). Instead of editing directly you should propose content on the talk page -- at Talk:Fright Night.

With regard to the content you wanted to add, it was too much detail in the judgement of me and another independent editor (the issue is what we call "weight" -- see WP:WEIGHT). We have just one source, from a local newspaper. So a brief description that the stage adaptation exists, who wrote it, who performed at its debut, is plenty. The source is cited there for readers who might want more detail. You can see that discussion here: Talk:Fright_Night#Stage_play.

Does that make sense? (by the way, if you want an as-brief-as-I-could-make-it overview of what we do here, and how, and why, please see User:Jytdog/How) Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not understanding the issue or what I can do to correct it. I find the whole process to be very confusing and unclear. I'm just going to withdraw my interest in contributing further. Thanks for getting back to me. Jmshoberg (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that needs correcting... I'm sorry you find this confusing. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you've posted on my [page]. Everything you said sounds fair. But why did you place me on the [[3]]? Could you point to any of my previous edits that are perhaps live, which you believe are not well sourced?

I understand and appreciate that the broader blockchain and crypto space is fraught with peril. That doesn't mean all editors are to blame. I've been very deliberate and careful in adding proper sources to everything that I discuss (e.g. see my page edits on CryptoKitties and Non-fungible token). I might have slipped up on an occasion or two (happy to have that pointed out by you, if you find any), but I don't think it is fair to say that as a general trend. Btcgeek (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "ban". There are general sanctions (GS). Part of how the whole system of discretionary sanctions (DS) and GS work, is that a person must be notified that a specific "sanction" is available on a topic, before that sanction can be enforced against that person for their behavior on the topic. GS and DS are kind of a sword of damocles dangling over controversial subjects. The community created this system for controversial topics where people come in "hot" and if they won't be cautious, they can be swiftly stopped before things turn into a conflagration.

So you were notified, and the list on the page, that I added your name to, is just a list of people who have received the notification. (DS notifications are automatically logged; GS notifications need to be manually logged). It is not a list of people who have been sanctioned or have been banned. That list is down further on the page.

Makes sense? Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, that makes sense. I acknowledge the general ban in these topics. I'll be extra careful if I am editing any articles here. Btcgeek (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are lot of "technical terms" in Wikipedia - words mean specific things here.

A "ban" is an actual thing in Wikipedia that means something completely different (people can get "banned" from the whole project, from editing about a topic, or from interacting with a person. Those are "bans".) If you want more detail see WP:BAN and the related but different concept WP:BLOCK.

The "sanctions" system is different - again it is sort of "sword of damocles" hanging over specific topics. Under the sanctions, someone can be banned or blocked. These links are above but again see WP:ACDS and WP:GS. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog I have updated my page as requested. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. CryptoWriter (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up. I see where you're coming from on Stromal vascular fraction, but this is something that's better to go through AfD than speedy. Cheers!----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is my honor and privilege to join 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:81B8:A314:4A73:70AF in recognizing your superhuman dedication to Wikipedia. After your daring feats, including but not limited to daily sixteen-hour edit sprees while maintaining a full-time job and 60 hours of continuous* editing within a 7-day span, you deserve a cold one or two. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Excluding breaks

FYI, a thread is open at the DRN which I am working on a resolution for as a volunteer. Would appreciate your input. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#European_Graduate_School. Steven Crossin 05:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the review article about the WHO tetanus vaccine controversy, it was John W. Oller, the lead author of the article, who withdrew it and one other article that he had submitted to the same journal, and that other article did not have anything to do with vaccines.

After editorial concerns about the tetanus vaccine article were addressed, it was John W. Oller who resubmitted the tetanus vaccine article and his other article. The vaccine article was then published and it is still being published (please click on the link to confirm that).

You added a sentence to the end of the paragraph that I wrote. The sentence that you added is inaccurate. Please remove the sentence that you added. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you post the above at Talk:Christopher Shaw I will reply there. In the meantime please do not remove that source again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (strike - see below, Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Jytdog. did you mean Talk:Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist)? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep! Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will repost it there. Please note that Oller is the corresponding author; i.e., his e-mail address is stated in the article as "Email: joller@louisiana.edu". Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog How are you from this fine cold morning from Houston, Scotland (I wish it was colder). A brand new SPA has come in and added 3k to the criticism section of the article. I have looked at it... scope_creep (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Students from Univ Cincinnati Environmental Public Health have been let loose on a number of projects, include Opioid epidemic and Diseases of affluence. That includes Santanke and Aemak18 on opioid. This looks to be the last week of the class, so probably no time left to advise the students, but I suggest you look at what Admak18 has been up to at opioid. At Diseases, I left notes at the students' Talk pages, explaining my reverts and edits. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. i looked this morning. lots of bad sourcing. such a shame. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Jytdog,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Research" section of the article is merely discussing the current state of research on this plant. It is not drawing medical conclusions. If one is only reporting that the FDA has approved a human clinical trial on an investigational new drug that is derived from the plant, would be be acceptable to cite from Clinicaltrials.gov, which is a FDA administered website?

Also, if I understand correctly, I presume a review article discussing and evaluating the current state of research, which is not the author's original research, would be considered a secondary source, and therefore, would be considered acceptable, correct?

Thanks!

Fancyfeller14 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for talking. I'd be happy to discuss at Talk:Arum palaestinum if you post the note above there. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the crypto/blockchain cleanup and proposals. I apologize I misunderstood you the last time we communicated. Always have appreciated your eye on these topics.

Btcgeek (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD. I have provided 23 references with gives greater depth and understanding to the reader. I do not seek medical advice on the internet but as some patients do, it is important for the information to be as accurate and up to date as possible. I will seek discussions with the dispute resolution board to have a fair and accurate evaluation of the information.

I have shared my credentials for evaluating medical literature. Please provide yours.Beall4 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! Your credentials (whatever they may be) are not relevant in Wikipedia. Would you please review the orientation material I placed on your talk page? It is here: User talk:Beall4. Please let me know if you have any questions after reading that material, and reviewing the version you generated (which you can see here). There are many, many problems with it, based on how we do things here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go through it line by line, as I do not see problems with it given your guidelines of process? Every line is well referenced and it is far more thorough than what is presently there. If there are specific changes to meet your guidelines, please edit them accordingly or educate me on the process, but do not deny the public to the most accurate and up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you see no problem at all then you have not made a good faith effort to understand MEDRS and MEDMOS. I will be happy to discuss your edits after you do so. We cannot have a rational conversation if we are not following the same guidance. The simplest place to start is MEDRS - the sources cited should be recent (within the last 5 years or so) secondary sources (like literature reviews in high quality journals). No research papers describing labwork or clinical trials. Look at the sources you used, for a start. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Let's put the references side by side from the original versus the updated version. Far more articles are listed the majority of which have been published in the last 2-3 years in peer reviewed medical journals. Please list the sources that you feel do not meet this criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your replies by putting one or more colons in front. You can see this in the edit window. Indenting is basic etiquette here, like "please" and "thank you". I have fixed each of your replies above; I will not fix future ones. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004, and the fifth was a spam link to the website of the author of that book. These citations have nothing to do with the criteria described in MEDRS. If you write here again without reading MEDRS and engaging with the edit you actually made, i will close this discussion and will ask you not to post here again. This is not a matter of "feeling" - MEDRS offers objective criteria and you need to actually engage with it. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is actually the same that is currently used on the existing page, and the second two are from medical journals written by the founder of the diet. The fourth is the same reference currently used on the existing page and the fifth links to the author. Are these the only references that you have concern with as to not meeting the criteria of MEDRS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize talk pages by censoring them. You don't have to participate in a thread I started, but do not close it. In my 10+ years here I haven't seen anyone act in such a way. I'd have thought someone with your experience wouldn't behave in such a rude way towards others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you made was mostly inappropriate. Your personal opinions have no place on a talk page about a contentious subject. If you need to please review WP:TPG and WP:Controversial articles. But please restrain yourself, or the community will do that for you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censor me or others and I am sure there'll be a need for the community to review your behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On my user page you mentioned "You may want to read Confirmation bias, fwiw." I read most of that article, very interesting stuff, do you think it's possible yourself and the majority of the Wikipedia community need to read that Confirmation bias article? I had a very different mindset just a few years ago but I started listening to other points of view and improved as a person, maybe you should try that. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias is a very human thing; every person is prone to it. I posted that link for you because you wrote Honestly I was told Wikipedia was infested with rabid sJW leftists incapable of critical thought but I imagined they were simply exaggerating. after you had made what, 25 edits or so -- a very limited base of experience from which to judge. You initially acknowledged that you are new here and learning the ropes. Please give yourself (and the editing community) time before you start confirming what you were told. Once you understand how we do things and can focus your efforts more productively, your experience will be different and your judgement will probably be different as well. I do encourage you to read User:Jytdog/How which I wrote to help people who are in a hurry get oriented. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jytdog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current western medicine based on big pharma and corrupt industrialists and governments that are increasing toxins in environment and all living species on earth leading to chronic diseases of all sorts will come to an end soon. Not to worry. Truth about real pseudoscience will be out in no time to everybody soon. Outcome of Karma is inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKapoor (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem solved.[4][5] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to sign another editor's comment – the generally accepted method for this is to use {{subst:Unsigned}} – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know. But they did sign their initial post, see? they just forgot to take into account that their comment would get split apart by subsequent comments. So here I just copied their original signature to the topmost part. If you want to revert that or change it to a sign unsigned have at it.Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{unsigned}} is such a pain. Especially when one's date/time format is 2018-11-20T17:58:50 Need a bot to do the legwork and fill in at least the time and date if not the editor. Jim1138 talk 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{unsigned2}} after it was kindly pointed out here back in January by Tryptofish. It is a little less of a pain since you don't have to flip the date-username order. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{xsign}} FTW - straight up copy and paste from history. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to JD's link above, have a peek at User:Roxy the dog/sandbox, where I have copied the Trypto stuff etc. because it is so damn useful. I was shocked to see some of my recent contact with Boris too. I don't know how to react to that sad, sad news. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 18:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mentions, and I too was shocked about Boris, so sad. But there's actually a new and improved way to fix unsigned posts. You add a line to your Common.js file, and it adds a super-easy clickable "unsigned" button to your edit screen on talk pages, just below where it says "Insert" and above the edit summary line. Then, all you have to do is put your cursor at the end of the unsigned post while editing the talk page, click "unsigned", and it gets fixed automatically, with no need to use any template. I've entirely switched to doing it that way. Here's the diff of how I added it to my js file, and all you have to do is make the same edit to your own file: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to finally see how Wikipedia works, I am very happy to be on board. At first I was flustered about the general sanctions because I thought it applied to me specifically, but when I read it more closely I understood.

I also checked out your user page- a lot of interesting information there! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetazic (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I am glad you found that stuff useful! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it? It was a quote from and reference to Nature magazine and relevant to trehalose consumers.RussellBell (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see here. Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the accusation of advocacy and competence issues you made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Editor_violating_Religious_rights?

Can you point to a wikipedia policy post that would make me guilty of these charges? If not then I will try to dismiss it as a malicious baseless comment.

Even secondary scholarly sources on the Bible seem to be in violation when considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laban_(Bible)#Copying_text_I_deleted_about_Balaam_and_Laban I tried to learn from the commenter but he insisted I put quotes around something that was not a verbatim quote, just referenced because the idea did not come from me. Even the commenter admitted it was probably a credible source but has not given any rationale for why he wanted quotation marks that would have made my edit wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage67usa (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "charges". I left you a note on your talk page, here: User_talk:Mage67usa#Working_in_Wikipedia. Please do read what is there. We can discuss that stuff further at your talk page, if you like, after you read that, and the links in it. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Would you mind taking a look at this when you have a spare moment or two? Perhaps you can provide some more specific advice regarding this editor's apparent COI. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does my section in Rick Santorum's talk page contain BLP violations?Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I left you here. I'll post a note at the talk page for you, along the lines I recommended you to do, in order to cut to the chase... Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too much ick today. Signing off. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, Complaints are welcome in the now-active IRC #wikipedia-medicine. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  - TNT ^💖 20:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

You may have made assurances that you "will not do [this] again.", but we've been in similar situations before - this was a clear violation of the harassment policy and shows a worrying lack of judgement. I'm not sure of the way forward here. - TNT ^💖 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There'sNoTime, were you aware of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact? Assuming this is the incident in question, while it should be obvious from my comments there that I think in general this kind of thing is grossly inappropriate, it does appear that Jytdog genuinely believed that he was acting within policy in this instance. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Yes I am aware of the thread, and read it in its entirety before acting - I cannot take seriously anyone who believes these actions are within policy. It's clear they are not, and although this block is not a punishment (WP:PUNITIVE etc), there is a trend in issues, and I genuinely believe it will continue if not dealt with. As I said above, I'm unsure of where we go from here, I imagine ArbCom? - TNT ^💖 20:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jytdog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see discussion at WT:HA, for those interested. Requesting unblock per what I wrote there, particularly diff: The situation went very downhill today (they edit warred against 2 3O helpers) and as it did, I thought about how to help them. I checked and they do indeed not have email enabled. I had already gone and found the abstract to try to understand where they are coming from (what they are doing is baffling), and it has a phone number. I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. At the start of the call I introduced myself and asked if they were willing to try to talk, and they said "yes". I asked for consent and obtained it. I would not have been surprised, had they said "no", and was ready to end the discussion there.

and here

Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again.

and here: I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again

I did not mention at WT:HA, that at their talk page, I had asked if they wanted to talk, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself, I went ahead and just tried to call them. After the call, I removed that note. I should have waited for them to respond there, instead of just calling.

Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; handled below. Please do not substitute {{unblock}} templates (well, I hope you won't be needing them again any time soon). Huon (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness" - this is one of the main reasons why you won't do it again? Not the fact that it's blatantly contrary to our harassment policy and downright inappropriate? - TNT ^💖 21:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: I don't see the point of indeffing and then (vaguely) recommending ArbCom. Why don't you unblock and go straight to RFAR? Bishonen | talk 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I have reduced the block to 24 hours (which, to this editor, will probably still feel like an eternity). Mistakes were made, and have been acknowledged. Jyt, take a break and come back fresh tomorrow afternoon (or whatever time of day that will be in your time zone). bd2412 T 21:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) TNT, No that is not the only reason I would not do it again. TNT you seem very upset. I am not sure what you understand happened, but I did not "track down" their phone number nor did I call them to continue the dispute. I already had the number days before (from the booth listing in the conference program they referenced), and yesterday they were floundering on the platform and heading into a block. I really did call to try to help them. When I did call, the first thing I did was ask if they wanted to talk and would have stopped right away had they said no.

I do understand what everybody is saying about not using contact information that people do not explicitly post on-WP. Absolutely I hear that and understand the reason as well. I tried something boundary-pushing to try to help someone who was melting down, and it blew up in my face, and yes there is no way in hell I will be doing that again. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BD2412. All admins please remember the wheel war policy now. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• User:BD2412 I accept the 24 hour block, thanks for that. I don't know how to withdraw my unblock request. But I withdraw it. I am signing out. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jytdog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see discussion at WT:HA, for those interested. Requesting unblock per what I wrote there, particularly diff: The situation went very downhill today (they edit warred against 2 3O helpers) and as it did, I thought about how to help them. I checked and they do indeed not have email enabled. I had already gone and found the abstract to try to understand where they are coming from (what they are doing is baffling), and it has a phone number. I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. At the start of the call I introduced myself and asked if they were willing to try to talk, and they said "yes". I asked for consent and obtained it. I would not have been surprised, had they said "no", and was ready to end the discussion there.

and here

Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again.

and here: I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again

I did not mention at WT:HA, that at their talk page, I had asked if they wanted to talk, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself, I went ahead and just tried to call them. After the call, I removed that note. I should have waited for them to respond there, instead of just calling. :Please unblock.

Accept reason:

Reduced to 24 hours, per discussion above. bd2412 T 21:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - TNT ^💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to the fact you are currently blocked - TNT ^💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]