This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Please stop making your constant uncivil comments about me on TITUSIIX's talk page and elsewhere. You are also being unbelievably naive if you believe the bullshit that he is telling you. Anglicanus (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You just removed my edit of Bayer AG's page regarding their well known brand heroin, and I just wanted to know why? Thanks Zinedine Socrates (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're too skeptical. IMHO, if ABC News covers it, I think the BJU spring break is more than an internal matter. Not that it struck me as something critical that needed adding, but the new spring break did get more national coverage than the GRACE report—something we can perhaps blame on declining journalistic standards.--John Foxe (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog! Just a quick note - if you think the COI tag should be removed all is good, but as a heads up, John Keith 00 was hired to remove to tag, so the editor may not be the best choice to clean it up. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
HE CALLED ME A DAMN TROLL MAN NOW THATS OFFENSIVE!!!!!! Coolidon (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no stake in the article at all, it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list and that's why I made any edits at all. It looks like one or more Editors want to discredit the subject and personally I could care less. But if you feel its a garbage article, then just nominate it for deletion rather than continue with the passive-aggressive POV editing.[1][2]
I'm no fan of pseudo science or medicine either, but I don't tip toe around the subject if its not worth keeping on WP. If the sources are WP:RS, then the article just needs to be factual and NEUTRAL. Let the Reader decide what's bunk or not. If not, do the right thing. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't get this either. What edit is making reference to a "book"? This edit was the only edit ever made by a throw-away account, it broke the formatting and grammar and reversed the meaning of the content that was there before. It's sourced to the journal Skeptical Inquirer, if you want to get a feel for how they treat EFT, read this. Then revisit whether the revert of that edit was appropriate. Zad68
19:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The book in question is one of the sources cited[1].
References
Sections of this article sourced to this book are being changed. This material being cited does not appear to be online, so if no one editing the article has a copy of the book, why are they making changes to the content? If no one can verify the source, then yank the content, its really that simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad68
19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jyt, I'm sorry that things went offtrack. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, nor was I making accusations about your edits. All in all, I was just trying to improve an article that I came across via the Pending Changes review. Yobol says that I owe you an apology and I'm happy to do that. As I said to Yobol on their Talk page, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll defend their right to it, plus I can respect one Editor defending another when there is the perception of wrongdoing. And to that end Zad68 seemed to be moving the discussion along productively and Yobol less so. BUT... It all happened because of the discussion that I started. So again, I apologize. I was trying to "be bold" and encourage positive and proactive editing, but it did not come across that way. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jytdog -- I was just glancing at the article on James Nairn and was surprised to see how young he was when he died. I read the cause in the very last sentence of the article. I just wondered if "perforating" is right there, or whether it should be "perforated". CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
please do not ban doors, he is very important. He did a lot good work to increase awareness about this hellish baldness drug and didn't take any money for that. Please be empathic for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.247.219 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit to the azodicarbonamide page. As you stated, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Would you like to comment there in more detail? Merci beaucoup! NHCLS (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog
Why did you delete the entire section on how the invention works? I saw no explanation. I hesitate to use the word "vandalization," but I cannot understand what you are up to. Please advise PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog Primary sources are more authentic, secondary sources are liable to spindoctors. Is banning primary sources wikipedia policy and why? 70.109.42.135 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
appears to have one of the most well-organized and pervasive COI editing programs on Wikipedia.
Currently active editor Enapolitano has edited the MSKCC-related article Joan Massagué Solé (33% of text) exclusively.
44% of the MSKCC article total text added is from user: Davidthelion2. This editor's contributions consist almost entirely of edits the the following articles. David was last active in 2013
- Simon N. Powell - Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 is responsible for 77% of the text of this article.
- Thomas J. Kelly (scientist) - director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, the basic research arm of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 produced 57% of the text of this article
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - 44% of the total text is from Davidthelion2
- Peter T. Scardino Chair of the Dept of Surgery at MSKCC. 12% of text from David
user: Joanvalo, whose user page describes herself as a "freelance writer", was last active in 2012. She has also edited solely MSKCC related articles, including
- Peter T. Scardino (Chair of surgery at MSKCC), 78% of the text
- George Bosl - Chair in Clinical Oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 6.5%
User: Anneclear - has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2012
User: MedEditorNYC, no longer active, has only edited the John H. Healey article (head of special surgery at MSKCC) (95% of the articel
[[User: Clearanne has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2013
User: Lyjmsk12 has solely edited MSKCC articles, being responsible for 72% of the text in the Hedvig Hricak article
User: Kzezulinski has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2011
User: Lubieh, last active in 2013, has solely edited MSKCC articles
User: Reportwritermother, last active in 2009, never edited any non-MSKCC related article
What a mess. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been notified that my [revision] in CRISPR article has been undone. Explanation states: WP:CRYSTALBALL content. My contribution was not a speculation. Primates were geneticaly modified with this new technique(groundbreaking achievement). Linked article goes on to speculate about the furture, but the fact remains the same. Slaven0 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, One of my students made extensive revisions to the yohimbine page yesterday as part of a class assignment (I teach an advanced undergraduate chemistry course). I see you made extensive revisions, for a number of reasons, and many look to be justified. Still, I wanted to make a couple comments about the revisions. In our class, we studied molecules with either confirmed toxicity or potential toxicity. All of these molecules were bioactive in some way, and many were discovered long ago and used in traditional medicine or ritual, before their chemical structures or behaviors were scientifically characterized. Therefore, in editing articles, we thought history and chemistry were important sections to expand. Is there a reason they do not belong in this article? Most other articles about complex molecules do have this information, since they are very important to the fields of chemistry and the history of the molecule (how was it discovered? what organism does it come from? why did chemists become interested in it?). This page is (or should be) about yohimbine the molecule, not yohimbine the herbal supplement (who knows what mix of substances is in that), and so, I think the content of the article should focus on the molecule, not the herb. Would love to discuss further. Ajfrontier (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have sent me a notice about edit warring because I undid an article that you undid while I was in the process of editing. Then another contributor undid while I was editing. I have now contributed to Talk. How is it possible to update an article if articles cannot be updated as they are being undone during the process of editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I made a quick table at Wikipedia:Biomedical information#The best type of source. I'm not entirely satisfied with it, and I wondered if you'd take a look at it and add or change whatever you'd recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict, yes I know im late--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick check on the citation you provided for the Agent Orange claim on the Monsanto page and the page provided in the citation doesn't seem to even mention Monsanto at all. Link here for reference. Would it be best to revise/remove the citation in this case or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. YesPretense (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is pushing the limit of acceptable length for quotations pretty hard. Suggest you reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't follow me to articles. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for these valuable and balanced contributions! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Given an unopposed PROD and an unopposed AFD, a PROD is likely to be successful. But playing fast and loose with CSDs bites a lot of newbies, so it's better to avoid it - if they're writing it to promote themselves, maybe I don't care, but if the're writing it because they're church history/church organisation nerds, then maybe I do. The squinting and guessing people's motives game of G11s is killing us with it's false positives on new editors, even if the rate is perhaps low, because genuine new editors ain't so common as vanity-ers and spammers. I'm perhaps more of a stickler for the policy and less of a cowboy than some other admins in this, I know. WilyD 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my request at WP:COIN. I'm going to be deliberately vague here to avoid outing the editor. Based on the edits of the editor he appears to be the son of the subject. Wording at the now deleted files, such as identifying the image as being sourced from his mother's house, make the identity fairly clear. There was something that identified him as the son rather than the daughter, but it was a year ago and I can't remember exactly what it was. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to "conflict of interest". Despite the drawbacks of the term, I think this is the best way to address both concerns. On one hand it applies to a broader range of editors we would prefer not to edit, while also not applying to such a broad range as "close connection" which may encompass all kinds of scenarios where there is not actually a COI. I thought the discussion was progressing and worthwhile. Should make the template useful for cases like the farm article.
Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jytdog. Botanical drug, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
this article is very hard to write without hiding info. Maybe just redirect it?
if you whitewash the situation, that is dishonest. if you tell the truth, it is an ugly picture of suing, deceit, money, etc. Neutralandnotinvolved (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog,
I have asked you at least three times to stay off my talk page. You are free to respond to me, and let me know how sad and unwise you find me at articles talk pages and elsewhere, but not my own. Understood? I think it's time for me to be honest: I care so little for your opinion that I usually don't read a thing you write. So it's nothing but a waste of your time to express yourself to me, and it could be considered harassment at this point to continue violating my request to leave my talk page alone. petrarchan47คุก 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You had reverted an edit on Sesame Oil used in Japanese Rayu, without any explanation, which I find extremely puzzling. Would appreciate if you can answer why you considered - that the removed content - was not appropriate Encyclopaedia material? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
[3] and [4] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
May I ask that in this discussion, taking place elsewhere, would you think twice when you feel tempted to guide the discussion -interjecting and commenting as I have seen you do in the past. It attracted some comment last time, which was perhaps harsh, but nevertheless. (please note that I'm not saying don't, but do think twice before.) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I would change it to "added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote in bold." QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You in no way owe me an explanation. Thanks for offering one none the less. I apologize if the final part of my message was abit harsh. It's not personal. And that wasn't completely directed in your direction. The point being the individuals would not be in the wrong simply or solely because they are an alt-med practitioner and they are editing an article related to their field. Then again based on their actions it can rise to the level of a COI. I like to think of it along the lines of obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio, to use the words of Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." This is all my point.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearmind (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2015
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Atsme☎️📧 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Just popping by to say that I saw your last reply after RexxS comment, and I think we have a clear enough understanding of where each other is coming from to drop the topic, declare a truce and move on. I blanked the discussion at my talk because it seemed to be drawing in yet more people and I suspect further discussion isn't going to be terribly helpful at the moment. I said my piece at the RfC and am content to await further developments. Cheers and all that. Montanabw(talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you again for your time and patience. I apologize for my ignorance about the rules and protocols at Wikipedia. I really don't use Wikipedia and am not acquainted in its dynamics. My frustration with my bio has been considerable and that along with ignorance is the explanation for my behavior, which offended you. I have apparently been authenticated and am now taking your advice to proceed very slowly with edits one word or fact at a time. There are many errors in my bio, but taking them one at time slowly is apparently the way Wikipeida works. Thank you for pointing all of this out, even if it did take awhile for it sink in. All the best. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! Do you have an access to this article[5]? If so, could you please send me that one? I'd like to see if and how they might have possibly studied the subject. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I'd like to ask you to stop changing your posts and timestamps. The former means people are replying to words that no longer exist, and the latter makes diffs harder to find after the fact. It also means there are lots of edit conflicts. If you could use preview more, it would be very helpful. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
On 14 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Botanical drug, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first botanical drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration treats genital warts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Botanical drug. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your advice on what to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH which seems to be going nowhere. Perhaps it is better raised at the COIN? Or maybe I should just wait for the SPI to happen? — Brianhe (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Come chat with me in the talk section. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed what I saw to be some pov and promotional wording from Eric R. Braverman and cleaned the article up a bit with wording, links, format, etc. What else needs to be addressed to remove the tag? Also, that entire "Caveats" section is unreferenced. Are there sources for that? Thanks. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog could I get your opinion on this articles talk page in regards to the "treatment table".thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
...your user page.--TMCk (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
On my talk page you posted the Edit Wars template and the Real Science (RSPlease) template :
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.
and signed both Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, I feel free to drop you a note saying first and foremost that 'We' includes myself. Besides the fact that we at Wikipedia work together in good faith, and respect those who spend their time and efforts in order to bring quality content to our website, yours and mine.
You could at the least have had read my note on the article's talk page. Actually You SHOULD have been the one writing there first. I've been here on wp as you can see if you care to look at my modest contributions, for quite a time, received some stars and a few thanks here and there. I explained what may have happened on the article's talk page (I'm still not sure where exactly and in which part your criticism lies). I expect you to discuss it with me over there, and to give a bit more respect and credit to contributors. I realize that you follow a lot of corrupt or bad material, as I saw on your contribution page which is mostly negative, but still that should not be your immediate response to any editor who's edits you find problems with.
You simply erased my whole paragraph. You finally wrote on my talk page (nothing on the article's talk page, only templates with no specific information on mine) AFTER I wrote on the article's talk page explaining my good faith. So where is yours? Please refrain from being uncooperative with an active Wikipedia author who spends much of his time and works hard to bring scientific research based non-controversial well-sourced material to the Wikipedia, and instead, before erasing an entire section discuss the problems on the article's talk page. If you DO for some reason believe an extensive edit has problems that merit your deletion of it, at least notify the writer on his/her talk page... and BEFORE you do so, that would show them some degree of caring.
In any case I wish to emphasize a line in the Edit Wars template:
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.
So, since you are the first one to undo my work almost in whole and leaving only a very small "in part", you should notice that you too are warned not to remove my edit, and if you have, to put it back (with changes or warnings) until we have the discussion on the talk page.
Now, to completely change the tone, I truly wish to read your criticism, which I expect is probably mostly about the bypass surgery, and which, as you can see from many of my contributions in the past, I will be more than happy to accept in the combat against pseudo-science, and countering quackery, fads and scams, and to promote good science and scientifically acceptable medical practices. Yours faithfully, Moshe aka פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Why have you removed a mention of another compounds?87.252.225.23 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You removed mention of the fact that people invest in silver on the grounds that it was unreferenced, per the requirement for verifiability. People have chosen silver as a means to store their wealth for thousands of years. Did you look for reliable sources and fail to find any? If not a "citation needed" template would have been more appropriate that the removal of content. Edison (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Edison (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. If you have time, it would be great if you could provide some input at High fructose corn syrup. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Do e-cig users have a potential COI? I assume an e-cig user is someone who personally uses e-cigs. I don't understand all the details about WP:COI. Maybe you can clarify this. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I'm going to take this live, but first would be grateful for any feedback you may have (wording etc.). cheers Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry if I came across as rude or unhelpful, not my typical style, but I guess everyone says that.18abruce (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you think this article and talkpage need the COI/Connected contributor tags? I'm not sure how strog the evidence of COI editing has to be. — Brianhe (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: this, do you think it's best to visit WP:SPI at this point? If we're really dealing with socks (still trying to digest all this) we're looking at 13 reverts at least by one person in less than a day. Even though the page is protected I get the feeling there are larger behavior issues that need to be addressed (something like seven reverts without socks), so maybe AN3 needs to be visited if SPI doesn't really fit with this case? I'm open to opening a case at either if it seems like the last option, but I just wanted to see if you had any other thoughts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Anmccaff (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you again for your time and patience. I apologize for my ignorance about the rules and protocols at Wikipedia. I really don't use Wikipedia and am not acquainted in its dynamics. My frustration with my bio been considerable and that is the only excuse for my behavior. I have apparently been authenticated and am now taking your advice to proceed very slowly for edits one word or fact one by one. There are many errors in my bio, but taking them one at time slowly is apparently the way Wikipeida works. Thank you for pointing all of this out, even if it did take awhile for it sink in. All the best. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Thank you for defending me at WP:ANI against User:WordSeventeen. Thank you for finding evidence of their previous misdemeanours, which seemed to be a key factor in exposing their harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC) |
It's not altogether obvious why the declaration of COI in a company called Nautilus leads to a tag on Blackbeard. Could you expand the tag a little? --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A dynamic IP is not an "IP hopper". Dynamic IPs occur because of how the user's ISP operates and are beyond the control of the user. Intentionally changing IP addresses is another matter entirely. 32.218.35.36 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a question I posted in the "Discussion" section. Hope you are able to answer it. TFD (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked another editor, Andy the Grump, to look at the page. I have come across him in a number of articles that discuss academic consensus and thought his contribution could be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you made this edit, removing most of Butler's honorary degrees and awards. It's not typical for academic to require every award given or appointment to be sourced, especially as she is such a well-known and prominent scholar. Do you have some reason to doubt that this information is accurate? Liz Read! Talk! 14:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
So, I see you just reverted my addition to Opioid. When I look through you contributions, I see one deletion after another, some of them much more effort than my trivial addition. You know, you could just add "Needs citation" if the addition really bothers you so much. Going around deleting other people's work is so destructive to the Wikipedia project. I know you've probably heard it all before, but Deletionists are the reason I don't bother editing here much. --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I hope you don't mind that I've moved the list of former discussions to its own section. It was making it harder to find where to post. I think it's important that we develop something for the guideline this time and not let it slide, so I'd like to keep the discussion focused on how to find a solution. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your refusal to provide a good-faith explanation for why you reverted my change. The thread is Jytdog repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations concerning an edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC) GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, You have tagged talk:Underwater diving with a COI for user:Caprockranger, who has made no edits to that article which suggest a COI to me. Could you explain the motivation for this tag? Maybe I have missed something. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, On the GMF page I was in the throws of writing:
usual haters".
do not misrespresent what other people write".
Please correct me if I am wrong in counting" and openly pinged all editors for comment:
I edited back on the first and last lines but suspect that this is something that you may seriously need to hear. I don't know you that well but the bits I have seen have for me raised questions. I know that there may be things on your mind at present but think that it may be to your advantage to take some time to think things through here. I don't mind if you delete any of this. It is just good faith concern. GregKaye 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
.. repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations .." which, as far as I saw it, had been precisely my experience. Please do not take up interpretations that I "
follow you around". Please consider, even with this, how instantly argumentative this is.
usual haters" my have jumped hack at me. Stands that I have taken of the talk pages on the Israel and Antisemitism articles have led to a period of vandalism on my talk page which, with exquisite timing, has only just come to light, and I thought that it might be involvements with ISIL that might lead to trouble.
In response to your ridiculous suggestion on the "Peter Hitchens" wi8kipedia entry, Do please try not to be so silly. See the note on that page from many years ago 'Of course I edit this entry'(April 2008, I think it dates from) . I have done it quite openly under my own name, and have limited myself very carefully to correcting factual errors made by others, which I am in a unique position to put right. On this occasion, I have been trying to insert a photograph of myself. The photographer has given me his written permission. I had taken it through the entire wikimedia commons procedure following all the required stpes. And an officious person then removed it without explaining why, and needlessly *deleted* it so that I have to trudge through the whole weary procedure again. I am seeking HELP from wikipedia editors in reinstating t, and get nno help, just these futile heavy-handed bureaucratic bureaucratic interventions. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)
Any idea who 2600:1010:B04A:5273:7F:BB10:CBE2:75EB might be? I can only make out a temporal connection. This page he edited is now on my watch list.--Aspro (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Good doggy :) --TMCk (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the COI assist on this one, much appreciated. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that I'm back from a few days off, I see that you've got on a spree of accusing me of being a sock puppet in a variety of places. Of course, as I don't use sock puppets, it turned out that you were wrong. You left a pithy apology on my talk page, and that's a start, but you didn't go back and strike out all of the accusations, such as on high fructose corn syrup. If you are at all sorry for this buffoonery, I highly suggest you show it by going back and cleaning up the mess of false accusations. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you always accuse someone that has an issue with your actions of personal attacks and commenting on you instead of content? You know, he does have a legitimate complaint. @Bloodofox, I would just let it drop. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog, I only just now noticed that you reverted this edit by saying that it lacked context. That's true, it could have done with more context, but I think the more productive approach would have been to drop me a note asking for some more context. Safety regulations surrounding the production of aspirin are really important because it is such a powerful drug and as such, the information has since been restored by another editor with more context. Please, next time, assume more good faith on my part. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Jytdog. Since Bfpage no longer wants you posting at User talk:Bfpage, and since Bfpage has removed your posts in ways that left the remaining text somewhat incoherent or without defense (such as when you noted that you did not call me a disruptive editor), as seen here and here, I think it's best that you only comment there unless necessary. It seems you stopped commenting there after the removal of your posts. The reason that I don't comment there unless necessary is because besides my history with Bfpage, Bfpage, as you know, sometimes makes changes to the others' posts in ways that conflict with WP:Talk. I will try not to interact with Bfpage, which is what I had been doing for months, and I will try not to mention Bfpage after this point unless necessary, which is fair considering what has been outlined at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines by Bfpage and Kevin Gorman. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
You deleted information I added to the Academic section because of my paid editor status. May I ask what was wrong with it? Dbilodeau (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all the hard work you do on Wikipedia. Don't let your "fan club" get you down or provoke you into doing something silly. Keep up the great work! Yobol (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
I couldn't figure out how to work this article into genetically modified food controversies, so I am putting it here for your consideration in case you want to add it. Everymorning talk 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming, due to the lack of response from the user, that my initial assumption (which you echoed) was correct, and being called out on it caused the user to bail out on WP entirely. The edit history showed that those edits were the focus, and I don't buy the claims that were made subsequently. However, as no action occurred, what's the next step in case this happens again (though I doubt it, as I think the underlying tech has no traction)? MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I note that you have made several reversions of late from IP address 89.240.133.249 claiming that they are socks of the blocked user Nuklear. Whilst there is obviously no problem with reverting any contribution from a sock of blocked user (as in WP:BE), I am at a loss to understand why you believe that the IP address is in reality Nuklear. There is no history in the two articles of Nuklear making similar edits. I B Wright (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Further to the above, I have now checked out all the alleged sockpuppets of User:Nuklear listed at [6]. The editor interaction utility clearly proves that none of the listed accounts are sockpuppets of Nuklear. There are ten articles that Nuklear and User:Yid had both edited, but the period between edits ranges from 69 to 264 days. There are no common articles between Nuklear and any of the other listed accounts. This proves that even if Yid were to be the same user as Nuklear, there is still no evidence of socking by Nuklear. Whoever, created the Sockpuppets of Nuklear page, may have done so in good faith from the other pages or because there was circumstantial evidence that they may be the same user, but its creation was erroneous as there is no supporting evidence of actual sockpuppetry. There seems to be some evidence of copyright violation by the listed accounts but that is another matter entirely.
I also note that many of the edits that you are reverting are potentially good edits to articles such as this one. WP:BE is not a catch all that gives the right to revert any and every edit from a blocked user. Indeed, WP:BE states, "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism [and presumably good faith contributions] can be allowed to stand". It is generally only the continuance of disruptive edits where the sockmaster was using the sockpuppet to support that should be reverted (though policy does allow you to err on the side of reversion if the case is not clear. I B Wright (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, don't follow me around. Mind your own business! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.65.196 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please could you mind your own business and i'll do likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.70 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Wikipedia, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. SageRad (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Consistenly destroying my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Wikipedia community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be WP:HERE for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and WP:HOUND-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Wikipedia..... why? Who are you? SageRad (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This.[7] The malformed template ref means their ping wouldn't have worked. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)