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.

Hello Jytdog, I have a COI "case" for you, if you're interested.

Facing the World is, despite current appearance, IMO a notable topic. There's a cooporative, green but-willing-to-learn COI-editor involved, you can see the discussion at User talk:Emmeliss. So, COI and medical-ish. If it looks fun, please get involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say thank you for your attempts to mediate. I know you were trying to be even handed in your responses. I have added a history of near eastern views now, which I am sure you have seen. Covering 3000 years and multiple cultures in a few paragraphs requires merciless skimming of course, but focusing on the predominant views and not the peripheral ones helps provide adequate foundation for Tykva's claim. Sarah Pomeroy's book is worth a read for anyone interested--which you have seemed to demonstrate in the past. Her book represents quality scholarship. I can't remember right now which of the two dozen books I looked at in the last couple of days had this in it, but I remember reading a comment on the biblical scholarship concerning women in ancient times before feminist scholarship came along, and it made me think of your comments on biblical criticism and the Jews. Hey, did you see I expanded your sentence in the 19th century to a short paragraph? It seemed important. I'm sorry if I seemed difficult and unbending on this issue--but he was just wrong. The Greeks were way more misogynistic than the Hebrews and the Romans followed their example. That is just fact. The Hebrews were kind of in the middle of the pack--the others--not. Saying that does not make it Greek/Roman "bashing", but omitting it does continue this long established bias. Anyway--even if you went away frustrated, I appreciated the fact that you showed up and tried. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is hard, is that we have lots of theoreticalish stuff from ancient greece, and very little from the ANE. On top of that, it is hard to go from either, to what people actually did and thought back then. when you read people doing social history of ancient times, there is always a lot of interpolation; lots of "must have been" (like - because Jeremiah rails against people burning their children in fires, people must have been doing that). People take those kinds of moves (which are interesting) and then lay them down, and interpolate between them to try to recreate overall portraits of various aspects of life. One has to take these constructions with multiple layers of educated guesses tentatively....Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of interpretation--that doesn't mean that nothing at all is known with any confidence. If it is a construction, then yes, make sure other views of that construction are checked. I do know how to do research. I am actually quite good at it. But there is no doubt ancient Greece and Rome were misogynistic in a way the Hebrews weren't. That isn't a construction. Do the research yourself--and be careful where you look. One book I read referenced a famous male historian who had written a book on the underclasses and the repressed and mistreated of Roman empire and never once mentioned women--didn't even have them as a category. I would think you would have some empathy for that kind of blindness from scholars. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your review and opinion here, please. --Zefr (talk) 18:41, 20 October 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, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing ((copyvio-revdel)) on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lurker9999 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog - I just noticed you did several changes to the Blasting News page I created few months ago. I appreciate it, I think you did an awesome job in better assessing some of the sources I used. However, there are a few parts I believe deserve to be restored - I will add them back with some changes and comments, and as soon as I have more time I will investigate for extra sources. Happy to discuss! Thanks. Mnfndr (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business editing anything on my sandbox. Get out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this mistake, apparently I was juggling too many things at once. Your edit summaries though - god damn, lazy, incompetent - come across as angry. The way I see it editing's a hobby, and hobbies should always be enjoyable. If there's something I can do to help with that beyond be more careful, which I will, let me know. D.Creish (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was just "lazy" fixing the first bareURL with the mistake, and "god damn lazy" fixing the 2nd one. And the break you created, left content unsourced, which as I noted when i fixed that, is incompetent editing. Please don't create work for other people. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed the linebreak. I'm usually good about using preview but this one slipped past. Re: bare URLs, the full cite is a lot of typing for edits that (at least in this article) have a good chance of being removed. My 'calculus' was an article with bareURLs and relevant info is better than one without and fuller cites. D.Creish (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are that worried about being reverted it would be better to propose on talk. I wonder - do you know about the cite tool in the editing toolbar? It takes like 5 seconds to format a ref, using it. I only learned about it a year or so ago, and it transformed my editing. Do 1, then 2, then pick something at 3. A window with fields appears. Some of the fields have a little magnifying glass (like URL). If you fill that field and then click the magnifying glass, the rest of the fields auto-fill. Sometimes you have to manually fill a field or two.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't know about that, thanks. Did you make that diagram yourself or is there somewhere with a collection of useful tutorials? D.Creish (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't make it. Somebody introduced into a template I use all the time to help people understand the kind of sourcing that we use for content about health/medicine (template:RSPlease) and I just stole it to post here.

I don't know if any collection of handy tips. We all just flop around and find what we find, I guess. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of leaving Reriksenus (talk · contribs) one of those paid editing templates that I have seen you use, but I couldn't find it. Is it just something you made for personal use maybe?

While I'm here, if you want to look over Reriksenus' edits, I'd like to hear your impression. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the overall pattern and especially edits like this showing clear coordination, point to the person being a freelancer.

There is a basic set of escalating paid editing templates ((uw-paid1)), ((uw-paid2)), ((uw-paid3)), and ((uw-paid4)). You have to manually add a header -- I usually use "Mandatory paid editing disclosure" for the first one, and just add the subsequent ones in bullets below that, if they are non-responsive.

Those templates are ...sharp, and focused on paid editing per se. If it turns out someone plausibly denies being a paid editor but appears to have some sort of COI, subsequent discussion can be difficult because the person can get locked into the idea of "paid editing" and will then not be able to hear that we care about broader forms of COI.

I also created a less "sharp", more dialogue-provoking, "template" that I adopt per the situation by copy/pasting it, which is here (that's the first step, explaining the issue asking for disclosure; the second step, explaining what they should do, is just below it). Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reasonable proof of covert advertising in the crypto area, please forward it to me and I will impose both an indefinite block and a topic ban. MER-C 18:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. MER-C 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

great! will do. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?