User talk:Jytdog

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)

Restoring deleted article

Hello. I'm writing you about restoring the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haulmont. As it is mentioned in instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review, firstly I'm writing you as a closing administrator. What do you think, can we restore article about CUBA Platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.lavrenkov (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was Phantomsteve Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I have protected and archived this talk page per the request of Jytdog, as communicated to Arbcom. He requested the comment "no drama, please" posted here. Speaking for myself, I don't think holding these conversations here is a good idea, the very subject of the page is unable to participate, and these conversations can better be held in a few project-space venues. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for all you have done over the years. And hope to see you back editing soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

E-Mail

Can you please email the Arbitration Committee? Emails are bouncing from the email address we were previously using. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you, relax, it's Sunday!

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

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.

References

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!

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)

Nitrogen dioxide poisoning recreated

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!

	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

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.

References

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Jyt, this is a book review published by the Psychologist.  ??? [3] Seems like (another) valid critique of SBC's work to me ... ?? SandyGeorgien (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?

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

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!

	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"

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

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

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)

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)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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 oder 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)

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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)

Alleged link spam for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin articles

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)

August 2016

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)