User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

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

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)[reply]

PANS page requests pharmacology expert and as PhD in that subject I added something. What is your expertise for reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss content, I would be happy to discuss on the relevant talk page, where I posted two days ago: Talk:Pan-assay_interference_compounds#Note. Your question about my expertise and your claims about your own are not appropriate, as you will learn when you have been around longer. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a page advises need for pharmacology expertise then my question about your expertise is VERY appropriate, and you show how wierd you are to revert me and refuse to show expertise.

For you to be snooping through my past is wrong in so many ways and for you to not realize it shows how corrupt you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please do read WP:EXPERT with regard to the whole expertise thing. As for the rest, I replied to that at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t shrink me. I gave you NO authority to examine my editing record to psychoanalyze me. You abused your position.

It is obvious now that you were perfectly capable of editing my edit WITHOUT reverting, and the fact that you reverted repeatedly proves that YOU instigated this edit war, not I. YOU are the abuser, and I am disgusted with your abusive manipulative behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same experience with you Jytdog about Tocopherol and Vitamin E subjects; I agree you are an abuser of some kind of privilege that is part of this perverse mechanism, i.e. "reverting"! I notice you that you are doing this toward contributions like me who are well-recognized experts in the field! I posted relevant info on these subjects and not just personal citations as you quoted in your talks (the text was regarding the rolo of vitamin E on therapy of NASH and citations were about RCT and studies from other Authors). You manipulate things and this is a problem for the community of Wikipedia, somebody should stop you, but I do not have time to waste with you perversions. 141.250.63.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not read WP:MEDRS, have you.... Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, thanks for replying and continuing the discussion regarding independent sourcing on the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) page. Definitely far better to be discussing than edit warring. But to be honest I still don't fully understand why some sources are seen as independent and others not, or why references to the IACA website are not OK when Wikipedia pages about the UN and other international organizations contain many. I've filed a DR/N request in the hope of better understanding, with the help of you and other Wikipedians, what constitutes independent sourcing. I'm certainly not seeking further conflict - quite the opposite. I think we both share the goal of building a useful page about IACA. Best wishes,Richard.eames (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in on Wikipedia. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue the civil discussion and improve the page. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Samuel I count five revert diffs today at David. Are you going to report this one as before, or should I get it? I want to make sure we don't duplicate efforts by both writing something up. Alephb (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looks like I was forgetting a rule about how series of edits work. Alephb (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David - you're messing w/ conventions that are widely accepted across the board. I don't mean the idea the biblical narrative is fact, I mean the idea these dates are reliable. Time and time again on other pages people have lost arguments about dating because of the sources used to cite them. These sources you removed w/o consensus, and if they work everywhere else, there's no reason they wouldn't work here. You don't get to break convention just because you find the evidence "murky". People think the world is flat, but that doesn't stop it from being round. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following mainstream ANE history. That is a problem indeed. And you already have responded to the thread I opened on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jytdog!

Thank you for your edits on the Charlie Gard article, but I must strongly disagree with you about one thing: I really think the article needs to mention that the RRM2B gene is located in the nucleus of the cell, not in mitos. I have encountered several non-bio-trained readers and in-person people who think that the bad mutation is part of the mito DNA, and are therefore confused about the recessive nature of the disease. Someone actually tried to tell me that the disease must be inherited only from the mother, because the mitochondrial DNA comes from her! Dead wrong. So I am adding back the sentence pointing out that the gene is located in the nucleus, in (parentheses), with a reference. I am also adding a new section to the TALK page of the article, in case you want to discuss the question further and/or seek consensus from other editors.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reply on the article talk page? I have left 2 notes for you there already where you had already agreed to leave it out. You are free to change your mind of course, but please talk at the article talk page -- in the existing section -- instead of trying to force this back in. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I have replied there. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I missed your 1st note there. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I am eagerly waiting to see what you think of my reason for wanting to include the info that the gene is located in the nucleus--failing to include that info makes some readers jump to erroneous conclusions about the disease. But I'll look for your response on the TALK page of the article itself. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have been edited 81.100.25.101 by[]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.100.25.101#Edit_war_warning an EddieDrood sock, an editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. See also this talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits were strange; sophisticated yet wrong and take time to sort. good to know they have been banned Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

I have edited Voriconazole page, which has certain peacock terms. Can you please look into the details? You seem to be an expert and can help in a better and unbiased Voriconazole page. I am waiting for your contributions on the page. Sundartripathi (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally fine, but see my changes here; please do review WP:MEDMOS. Thanks for checking in! Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, Medical uses section is too much detailed and doesn't match with the Journal references. I am not experience on how to edit or what appropriate terms to use. Can you take a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, just saw your edit on the Medical uses, it seemed perfect and un-biased to me now. Thank you responding immediately. If I see issues on the other pages, can I report it to you (when I am not 100% sure)?Sundartripathi (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure. fixing that article has been on my to-do list for a while. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jytdog I am surprised that you consider the theory ‘fringey’. I am forwarding the messages I sent to Roger Haworth and also to Narutolovehinata5 with links to articles which show the reaction of scientists and scientific journalists. “The theory has generated attention in the scientific community; reports of this work have appeared in scientific publications and the news media. Pertinent news media references are: - Harvard Gazette, 25th Feb. 2015: “A new understanding of Alzheimer’s”, by Peter Reuell (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/a-new-understanding-of-alzheimers/) - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 2nd Aug. 2015 : “Alzheimer: Heilung – wie nah ist man wirklich dran?“, by Joachim Müller-Jung (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/streitgespraech-alzheimer-heilung-wie-nah-ist-man-wirklich-dran-13722068.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2) - Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ), 21st Feb. 2015: „Alzheimer – Sind die Forscher auf dem Irrweg?“, by Theres Lüthi (https://www.nzz.ch/nzzas/nzz-am-sonntag/gegen-alzheimer-gibt-es-noch-immer-kein-medikament--weil-die-forscher-auf-dem-irrweg-sind-1.18483526)"

“P.S. Regarding the fringe nature of the theory, here is an article in English, by Prof. Walter Bortz of Stanford Medical school, which you may find relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-m-bortz-ii-md/dare-to-be-100-gold-medal_b_7270616.html “

Moreover, a careful and professional evaluation of the Wikipedia entry should make it clear that the article is encyclopaedic in intent; it is not exclusively concerned with the Inverse Warburg Hypothesis, but is intimately linked with Warburg’s theory of cancer and recent work on autoimmune diseases.

Best wishes Hasperasperagus Hasperasperagus (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow there is a full court press to publicize this, huffpo and everything. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jytdog,

Started editing another page, Posaconazole. I have toned down the intro paragraph and also Medical uses & Pharmacology requires an expert editing. Can you give a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later. You can do this! Just follow MEDRS and MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the page Jytdog, now an expert review is required. Sundartripathi (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a fine start -- keep at it! There are old primary sources there, and there is no Adverse events section -- you can fix that stuff! Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jytdog. A while ago, I moved Cannabis edibles to Cannabis edible, but I think I did this incorrectly because the talk page did not move with it. Could you please help me by explaining to me the proper method of moving such a page in a method that would also move the talk page or point me to a policy that explains it? Also, if appropriate, could you move the talk page?

I also hope it is OK for me to ask you questions like this. If it is not, could you direct me to an editor to whom it would be appropriate for me to ask these types of questions? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is OK. Oy you did what we call a "copy/paste move" which is a bad thing for a bunch of reasons but mostly because it leaves the history of the former page location behind. There is a function called "page move"' that does the rename, and brings over the Talk page, and all the history of both pages. There is a thing that admins can do where they merge the histories. I will request that. I have done a copy/paste move of the Talk page so they will have parallel situations on each page.

This whole shebang is explained - including how to actually do the "page move" - at WP:Page move. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Sorry for the copy/paste move, and thank you! Michipedian (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your deletions in the Franklin v Parke Davis article. You removed relevant, pertinent additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieEdel (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your note! I replied at the article talk page, Talk:Franklin_v._Parke-Davis#Celgene_content - please see there, and you can reply there. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I came across a post on some Japanese acupuncturist and wanted to update the section here on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I referenced it right or if the source was the best one. If you can fix it, please do so, and or show me a better way to reference it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humberto Valle (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reply to the message I left at your talk page? thx Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the information in this panel is *not* available on the website (did you check?) which is why organizing it and collating it makes sense for Wiki. There are dozens and dozens of small record labels (ECM, Obscure Records, etc.) with catalog listings on Wiki and Cuneiform is right in line with Wikipedia policy on that. In the future you should put something like this up for discussion, per Wiki policy, rather than unilaterally taking it upon yourself to make changes without any consensus. This issue has been discussed, extensively, in previous years by previous editors and the Cuneiform catalog has been restored each time. Do yourself a favor, read the history.Rcarlberg (talk)

There is a discussion on the talk page, please join in it. If you continue to abuse that page for promotional purposes I will just nominate it for deletion; it is not notable enough to be worth the bother. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a couple of questions for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman. Just letting you know here in case you thought it was rhetorical. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Last Word. (And your latest comments also reverted what I had said.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it, no biggy. What matters more is that you are really stepping on your own message. Put another way: shut the f--- up. See also Logorrhea (rhetoric). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you said about feeling upset, and you are in good company [1]. That's from when I was first starting to edit, nowhere as experienced as you are now. ANI ain't gonna help you. I got over it, and so will you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ditto Trypto on this one. Nothing is going to help you Jytdog by adding more to the ANI at this point. ANI really isn't that great at dealing with behavior issues really mired in content disputes or picking up on COI aspersions. Your best bet is to let the dust settle on this one and keep track of concise instances if the problems persist in the future. It's just too much of a wall of text at this point for anything to be gained, and I see your frustration in all that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks to both of you. i have heard your criticisms as well. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently I decided to create an account instead of editing as a "IP". I have come across your name a few times now and am impressed at your dedication to medical article and enjoyed your articles on MEDRS. I was wondering if you could weight in on the article Crane_climbing as another editor feels that including a Globe and Mail Opinion article written by a researcher that discusses a concept he created called "Type T" personalities. The other editor has stated that this isn't an opinion article and wants to re-include it. I will say I have run into this editor twice now and they have decided the best course of action is to try and discredit myself rather than comment on the content. Thank you! CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm not interested in that. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) @CommotioCerebri: if the article's talk page is not enough, more public venues that could bring attention to the article would be one of the noticeboards, like WP:RSN to discuss sources, WP:POVN for neutrality issues or WP:FTN for fringe issues. There is also WP:3O to request third party opinion. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 01:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into a little problem on the Adam and Eve talk page with an editor you're taking to ANI. Just wondering if you're aware that article is protected so no one can make corrections? Would you be interested in reading my exchange with this editor on the talk page for Adam and Eve and on my talk page? Thanks. Nameshmame (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. What you are doing here is called WP:CANVASSING and it is not OK. You should read dispute resolution and use one of the procedures there to resolve the dispute you are in. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on that. Wikipedia stole two years of my life beginning in 2009. I just thought this correction was worth fighting for, but you people are not going to suck me in again. "This is not OK" indeed! Nameshmame (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

people going and finding "allies" and bringing them to the site of conflict in order to "win" is not what this place is about. what you did above is a human thing to do, which is why the community wrote CANVASSING to guide away from that and DR to guide toward what people should do. i do understand that it is hard to figure out the way you should do things. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think I was doing that's your problem. In fact this whole diabolical pseudo-encyclopedia is your problem. Have fun with it! Nameshmame (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the IP editor on an admin's talkpage today, the past contribs match the claimed identity. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i noticed that too... :) Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation never happened, you saw swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. I'm just a little creeped out. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on my recent responses to certain edit requests. To suggest that someone "doesn't know how Wikipedia works," clearly shows that you have not looked at my complete page history as well as my talk page history for other messages. Just FYI, because you seemed very demeaning to me in your second message to me overnight.

Also, I'd like to give you a tip for future requests in case you didn't know. AnomieBOT keeps track of these edit requests, which is how I've been replying to some edit requests. Since I'm extended-confirmed, I am currently keeping track of the tables at EPERTable, SPERTable, and EDITREQTable (the latter of which in the past month has been heavily backlogged.) This is how I've been responding to edit requests, much of them with the mistake of reading too fast, as you suggested in my first message to me. There's also TPERTable in case your permissions allow you to respond to such edit requests. Good luck with future responses to requests! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reviewing your other responses. If they are as bad as these two were - which were in no way good, something is going to have to change. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you have been discussing Rigvir article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RIGVIR), and I was wondering if you could have a look at the article now and maybe advise on further improvements or corrections? I checked the article revision and discussion history, tried to clean it up, removed the unsourced claims and added some new sources from Latvian media, but as a Wiki beginner I am not certain these would be accepted as a good source or considered a breach of original research rule, POV rule, and I would really appreciate a second opinion or guidance. Any thoughts or advice?--KC LV (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Working on that article has been on my to-do list for a long time.Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I have been reviewing WP:MEDMOS as you have suggested, Is it correct to mention the price of a drug? It appears like a peacock term indirectly promoting drug over other competitive drugs. Another drug page of Pfizer, clearly needs your expert attention. Apologizes for bothering you again and again. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some editors who are very concerned about drug pricing for various reason and add content about drug pricing. Sometimes that is because it is very expensive and that was discussed in sources; others do this about generic drugs (for instance, public health authorities can use this content to help them make decisions). This is fine to include as long as it reliably sourced and summarizes what the sources say. This content goes in the "Society and culture" section and sometimes that content is also summarized in the LEAD. That is all fine. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It's generally best to add pricing when it is sourced to secondary sources that comment about the pricing, but not when the only sourcing is the manufacturer themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning the favor...

Thank you for sharing your oppinions on my talk page. I havent forgotten about the article "Schizophrenia", yet. :) To show here in short, how it is nonNPOV, here another little link: ^[1]

I am well and able to discuss said article and the article alone (along with a COI within the authors conscience and scientific reasoning), but the provided link should show for now, that there is another "accepted scientific reasoning", than the cherry picked mix of primary works, it is now. If nobody consents on an unbiased rewrite, i will either show an alternate citation to each false claim within the current article or propose an alternate rewrite on my own ( or do nothing at all or both). :)

Writing as a "Survivor of Psychiatry" (as of yet :)) :

--Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Concrete proposals for content, sourced per MEDRS, are very welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for playing nice, i will study "MEDRS" immediately and take it into account, but want to add that this (mental health and modern psychiatry) is bigger than a few rules of conduct). For example, this article is very good: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/05/psychiatry-defends-its-antipsychotics-case-study-of-institutional-corruption/</html> ... but wikirules probably dont like the site and it is good but original research. Would it help to cite the mentioned books? Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i cannot find "MEDRS", if you could link it, please. But i took a short look at NOR and apparently, it doesnt relate to talk pages. :) So i think i had the right to be a bit angry, but want to say sorry, for being derogative to you and LiteratureGeek, anyway... Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article by the same author, this time with many valid citations, i guess... <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Case-Against-Antipsychotics.pdf</html> I could write a good "critic"-section for "schizophrenia" and "neuroleptics" from that, but would recommend to rewrite the "schizophrenia" to include the times before modern psychiatry, if it is possible. Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS. This applies to content about diseases/conditions, treatment, epidemiology, and the like -- statements of fact about health, including mental health. Descriptions of history (e.g. the history of psychiatric treatments) need sourcing per plain old WP:RS. As you know the ideas in Mad in America are not mainstream (it positions itself as attempting to reform the mainstream). Please be aware of the WP:NPOV policy - we give what we call "weight" (space and emphasis) to views according to their weight in the literature. So non-mainstream views by definition get less weight. Every editor is obligated to engage with all the literature, not just a sliver of it. That is the hard work and rigor of editing WP. I hope that makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, i will learn all three links, but meant that these articles hold many scientific valid citations (i could use them and take their inner citations with the same outcome). Also "weight in the literature" is not very scientific, as is "mainstream", for example i am well aware that the "dopamine-hypothesys" has many papers citing it, but it is already debunked by older (cited above) but very valid literature. In addition, NPOV surely should encompass critic views of "mainstream", but i would be happy with a small critic/alternate views section as i am lazy as ****, anyway. :) It would be nice if you would read the "MIA" articles, when you find the time to see what i mean with "very valid" and such. In addition, i was sent two other links i want to backup and address here: <html>http://criticalpsychiatry.co.uk/index.php/articles/35-documents/46-the-case-against-schizophrenia?fref=gc</html> <html>http://jpn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/31-2-93.pdf?fref=gc</html> Off course, you can "cut&copy" this whole paragraph to the schizophrenia talk page, if you wish. Happy Sunday, Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "MEDRS" might stifle us a bit, but we will cope with that. The WHO on the subject:<html>http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44219/1/9789241598774_eng.pdf</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I cite from "Sumarize scientific consensus": "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." (This should allow for the inclusion of the above mentioned sources, but i need to read on...) Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Per "MEDRS-Assess evidence quality", i include articles on toxicity: <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802081</html> <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1150265/</html> On TRS and clozapine: <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26842482</html> On minimal use of neuroleptics: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/10/a-guide-to-minimal-use-of-neuroleptics/</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Some citations on the prevalence of traumata in mental health and a very good read for outsiders: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/06/mad-psychologist-speaks-out/</html> Oldd, but a review article: <html>http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Boyle.htm</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC) A collection of links, to be regarded for inclusion: <html>http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/open_letter_knowledge.html</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC) A very definitive statement from the UN :: <html>http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2017/discrimination-in-health-care/en/</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific content you are looking to add? These drug articles all have sections on side effects.. Do not post any more links to madinamerica here please. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is an WP:ACTIVIST. He/she is not interested in playing by the rules of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and hope all is well. You were really helpful to me when I was starting out and I really appreciate your polite and friendly manner and I know that what you say is constructive not destructive. I thought I saw a comment from you about the article I resubmitted as above. But I can't find it now. Am I seeing things? Anyway to sum up I thought you said (very nicely) that you thought I was too close to the subject and that I had even filled in links to FB and twitter. I thought it was good to put external links at the bottom? I am absolutely fine to remove them. Also yes I am close to the subject but I genuinely and deeply believe that this is as valuable as many of the pages I see all the time. However I seem to have a style or manner problem so could you please, please, please help me edit it for me so it passes muster? Even if it ends up at this time as just a few lines? Of course, I am sure you are really busy with your own work and edits so quite understand if you can't help.

I have so many ideas of things I want to write about and edit but I am feeling there is no point if it just ends up being an exercise in failure so I want to get this right before moving on.

Many thanks for any help you can give me.ECURBEC (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the draft talk page. Please do see WP:ELNO about the social media links. I'll take a crack at the draft later today or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2017.

The request for formal mediation concerning Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

While my TBAN doesn't expire until the 27th of this month, I was wondering if photo like this would be usable as an article image. It says that it is "Open access distributed under the creative commons license", but I just want to check. Thanks ahead of time Petergstrom (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN means you don't deal with this stuff, at all. Happy to discuss this when the TBAN is over. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to the wikipedia policy, surely that isn't part of the TBAN??Petergstrom (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your TBAN was because you refuse to listen to other people and to actually pay attention to community norms. You have not learned anything, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just clarifying what you said. I wasn't sure if I had clearly written what I intended to, or if this was actually a part of the policy. My bad.Petergstrom (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent additions on the article Book of Joshua could use further copyediting. You describe a city as "an early battled". Should this be battlefield? Dimadick (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will go look again! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! An account has been messing around with the finalized wording on the recent ancient Egyptian DNA analysis. Could you please have a look here? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you considered that the link to 'rockstart' was spam, but the rationale comes from elsewhere: see this discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AI_accelerator_(computer_hardware)#This_article_needs_a_better_title

from this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_accelerator_(computer_hardware)

now referenced from this DAB to clear things up (as per the request)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_accelerator

it might have looked like it was spamming 'rockstart' but listing others would make it more neutral? (e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/13/zeroth-ai/ https://medium.com/cyber-tales/unsupervised-investments-ii-a-guide-to-ai-accelerators-and-incubators-4dc762d57c4b

Tangentially it's also bugging me that this article has the term 'hardware accelerator' which also bring ambiguity to a computer hardware term. MfortyoneA (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on the terminology. I fixed the problem at the disambig article. It is not clear to me that the startup accelerator article should exist - most of the sourcing is very bad and it should probably merged into the incubator article.. Will look later today. gotta do RW stuff now. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in Breitbart "Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Editors Attempt to Minimize Evidence Supporting Google Memo" that mentions your user name as well as User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Nanite, purportedly written by User:The Devil's Advocate. I'm just letting you know that this has been published, but if there is anything I can do to help, e.g. if you view the article as harassment, please let me know.

Sincerely, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding pings here to Aquillion and Volunteer Marek, who are also mentioned there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there's an ani discussion about it already too. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you thank you for catching that Steve Friesan quote. It was from the original article and I thought I had caught all of those--but that might not be the only one I missed! I went through and checked every reference--but have not checked everything that failed to be referenced. You really are a great editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to look at my edit requests at Talk:Porter_Novelli. I know you felt my requests were insufficiently neutral, but I’m hoping you’ll be willing to take a second look at a few of them—the infobox, the lead and the History section. I believe these edits would add sources and accurate information to parts of the article that are currently underdeveloped. Hopefully we can reach an agreement. Thank you! AngelaMPena (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make an additional reply there. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I inserted a section about surgery costs here. You reverted my changed with the comment "unreliable source". What does that mean? The source is a page maintained by a specialist in his field with dozens of years of experience, best references (see here and a chair in an association of leg experts (Gesellschaft für Fuß- und Sprunggelenkchirurgie e.V. (GFFC), see here). If that's not trusty what else? What do you mean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basbert (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in general having content about costs is fine. with regard to the source... the people selling the "precise nail" have been adding spam and promotional content to this article and its predecessors for years as have various individual doctors. We are not using spam like limblengtheningsurgery.com as a reference. Please see WP:PROMO and if you have a relationship with the specialist or his practice or the people selling the precise nail device, please disclose it per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I hope all is well for you. Can you please help with a WP:COI and WP:PAID issue? I am paid by novelist Carl Hiaasen to manage his online presence and he has asked me specifically to post a photo of him that was previously posted on the page Carl_Hiaasen. Another editor removed it, citing possible copyright concerns (i.e., the photo may have been posted without copyright holder's permission). Both Hiaasen and the photographer (his son) grant permission to use the photo on that page, and nobody has specifically claimed a copyright violation, just stated concerns that the photo may have been posted without permission. Hiaasen specifically asked me to have it posted there again. As you suggested regarding earlier edits to this page, I followed the "Making edit requests" steps as per WP:COI and requested this edit on Talk:Carl_Hiaasen on 11 August, but I haven't been able to gather consensus as nobody has responded. Can you please have a look at this? Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. For anything other than obviously public domain stuff, I find the the application of the copyright policy at the commons to be .... opaque at best. In my view the most simple and most auditable way to handle this kind of thing would be to have Hiaasen and his son post it on a personal website, with a clear indication that the son owns the copyright, and a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license grant by the son right there on that webpage. Then you or anyone can download it and you can upload it to the commons using the Commons upload wizard, and at the license page in that wizard you can cite the website and CC4 license grant there. That is how to get the image into the Commons. As for adding it to the article I suggest that you can probably do that yourself, with an edit note saying you are editing for pay, and leave a note on the talk page, saying the same. If anybody else doesn't like the picture then talk about it, and do not edit war if someone removes it. Hiassen doesn't get to choose the picture used at the article - the editing community decides that. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) What Jytdog says could work; otherwise, two simple steps:

• the photographer (the son) should upload it to Commons as "own work"
• and then follow the steps at Commons:Email templates.

He should receive an automated reply. If the reference number ("ticket number", starting 2017…) from that reply is posted here or on my talk-page, I'll try to follow it through. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying that other process! I was trying to avoid the email-y stuff. :) Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. Seanjsavage (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: You just posted a warning about possible COI and paid editing to my user talk page. For the record, I am not a paid Wikipedia editor for ANY cause, and I have no conflict of interest relevant to Medical Marijuana, Inc.; indeed, I had never even heard of that company before I found its article in the AfD list a few days ago. I am an inclusionist, and I believe that deletion of articles is frequently harmful to Wikipedia, a policy I have applied to articles on a number of topics. Despite being phrased overtly as helpful advice, I believe your warning amounted to a personal attack, in that it insinuated baselessly that the edits you quoted gave you reason to suspect me of being a paid editor. As such, I have deleted it from my talk page. Please do not repeat any such personal attack. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the question that I asked here. The question is not a personal attack and was not intended to be one. There is nothing wrong being an "inclusionist" - there is something very wrong with adding very low quality sources and promotional content to articles. You are pretty new here and you will learn to do better with time, I am sure! Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to promotional content: I acknowledged from the first that Medical Marijuana, Inc. was written like an advertisement, and I think few if any of the links from the company website that you removed will be missed. One the whole, your rewrite improved the article, and may even have saved it from deletion. On the other hand, I cannot agree about sources like The Motley Fool or TheStreet. I actually did search the archives of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for evaluations of The Motley Fool before using it as a source, and found nothing; I would not have used it if I had found a consensus that it was "low quality". I don't see any fundamental difference between these online sources and a printed magazine like Fast Company—or even Forbes and Fortune. Business reporting is business reporting; inevitably it will be written to inform readers whose overriding concern is with how to invest their money. Nor is there yet any consensus against online stock magazines as sources, not as I read WP:Consensus. And COI-warning users who try to rely on them is hardly the way to create such a consensus—especially when, as in my case, the material from these sources is largely unfavorable to the company in question.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you bring penny-stock flogging websites like those to RSN they will get shot down in a heart beat. They are subject to all kinds of manipulative bullshit.

About the question I asked. I have !voted "keep" so I am on your "side" in the AfD, and the intention of asking you the question - and it was a question - was to ask. I don't know the answer. Many conflicted/paid editors are actually not aware of our policies and guidelines in that area. So get over yourself and stop complaining. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I witnessed you doing this more than once. Thank you for your excellent work. —PaleoNeonate – 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quote from you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! You are pulling out some themes there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following "Modern scholars therefore see the population of these states Israel and Judah arising relatively peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan.[26]" is a fair statement of what the source says. You have inserted (pretending to "correct" but actually re-inserting a clearly false version) an extremely POV wording while also removing the POV tag. Then you are trying to intimidate other editors by accusing them of edit wars. The only revert was to the version that NO ONE objected to and which only minimally corrects the quote. The expanded paragraphs (to resolve the POV) are on the talk page. If you can't respond to those or improve them, leave this article alone. Your edit, which was a revert to what amounts to a misquote, leaves the article claiming that "Israel" (whatever that means, it means many things) "arose peacefully" - in direct contradiction to all literary sources and archaeologists finding walled cities, etc. You can't leave the article in that state, whatever you think of my edits. Fix it or get lost. 19:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk)

Two things. Please discuss content at the article Talk page. Also, what you have written there is incoherent. You are obviously passionate about this, but it is hard to understand a) exactly what you want to change, and most importantly b) what sources you are citing. Please be sure to cite reliable sources for the changes you want to see, and please engage what the currently used sources say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog,

thank you for the advice on WP:PAID and WP:COI - much appreciated. I edited the page hastily as I felt strongly about the edits from the user Bjerrebæk.

However, I would still ask you to assess the points I made, and consider to alter the entry. In particular, the following sentence "MDPI is especially known for the controversy surrounding its inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies" is made without a reference and there are no grounds for this claim.

Best, Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Please look at the article again. Btw per PAID would you please add a disclosure to your userpage (User:ErskineCer - a redlink, as you have not written anything there yet). Just something simple like "I work at MDPI and have a conflict of interest for that topic and related ones" would be fine. thx Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes I had not completed the setup before -- updated now at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErskineCer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I could not see that you ever replied to my question and it would just be helpful if you could let me know how to post my request edits if not via the talk page - as you had advised earlier. Many thanks, --Princessella123 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I had a few rounds of discussion with you for User_talk:Jytdog#Voriconazole, User_talk:Jytdog#Posaconazole and User_talk:Jytdog#Fluconazole. I have blocked a sock farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ/Archive, which included two groups, one of company's previous founder and the current company. Now the blocked sock has accused me of COI, which I don't have. What is the best way to handle this situation? Details are at User_talk:DeniseJZ#Sundartripathi_has_COI. I have been accused of COI at View's AFD by Jd22292, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/View, Inc.. Digging into the deep details, adding a competitor section, mentioniong the first founder in the infobox has been a reason behind this, what is the best suggestion for me? Sundartripathi (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all you can ignore an indefinitely blocked editor's efforts to edit by proxy. I have avoided looking at the article deeply up to now, exactly because my attention was called to it invalidly. Now that you have called my attention to it, I will look at it. At this point i have no comment on whether your editing there shows an WP:APPARENTCOI. When I look at it, I will let you know if I have any concerns. The best thing for you to do is to respond once (honestly) and then just carry on. If someone thinks you are not being honest there are ways to escalate that, and if you feel you are being hounded there are ways to escalate that as well. But getting into a one-on-one back and forth is not the way to go.

I have asked Jd22292 to strike their comments at the AfD for reasons other than what you discuss above. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all this, this is again a great learning. I will again deep dive into the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Sundartripathi (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog, hope you're well. I've been working on improving the BLPs of a few Memorial Sloan Kettering doctors, and I was wondering if you had the time or interest in vetting my work. I appreciate the standard you hold me to, and you were a big help with making the MSKCC page what it is now.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

Thank you for the work you did on the Spinal cord stimulator page. I am an instructor for a course that saw medical students providing updates to medical pages. I noticed that you deleted everything on the talk page for the article. I am new to Wikipedia myself - Is it incorrect to post edits to a talk page regarding a plan to update the page as the student did?

Thank you for helping me understand Wikipedia.

Mgiulietti (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When classes use the Talk page like that it bothers regular editors, generally. I try to ignore it but got irritated. I will restore it. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You said you would like to have a go at re-writing this. I had already started but it's such one heck of a WoT that it's hard to know what to cut out without offending he original authors of it. 00:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I will ~boldly~ take a shot now... Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject. The page is a nightmare from a user experience point of view. Show it to a novice and ask them "what is the first thing you do here"? If they don't answer "click Article Wizard" within 5 seconds then it's wrong. The Article Wizard link is buried and followed by pages, literally pages, of additional text. Subsequent pages aren't any better -- the next thing you're supposed to do is search for an existing article. Guess what? It's a dead end at the search results page.

You may create the page "Foofleberries".
There were no results matching the query.

Pretty friendly huh? Never leave the user staring at an error message. To make it even better, now you have to click the back button and answer "yes I found" or the reverse. So we both tell the user they're an idiot, and demonstrate that the designer of the UX is an idiot as well. This whole thing should just be re-done with user journey concepts. This site explains how, also ACM describes user stories here, and chapter 7 of Jon Kolko's Exposing the Magic of Design is also good. Unfortunately for us, it is a specialist task for UX experts (which I am decidedly not, more of a systems guy). ☆ Bri (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oy way over my head. who can do it?? Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a negativist but amateurs can just take small shots at the existing text without making a radical overhaul -- polishing a turd, if you will. IMHO we should think big; Wikipedia deserves world class stuff for this critical area, and sadly I don't see much world-class engineering and design here. But if the budget is large, Frogdesign comes to mind. There are some other names in this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) I wrote my first full-length from-scratch article in October 2008, when it looked something like this: [2]. I don't know how it grew to such bloated proportions. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aren't you something! I just stole that big beautiful yellow bordered search box. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as a stopgap we could figure out a way to create an Article Wizard link (pref. a big button) on the search page when entered via this path. At least then, the user doesn't get a dead-end page with no further instructions. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OH now I see what you mean! Hm. Well hopefully they would have the sense to go back to the YFI site to see what to do next. But I see what you mean about the flow... My sense is that changing that page would involve the people who do "search"... not sure that is feasible. ... ?Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have pinged the WMF engineering team offline – will report back with results.

I'm pretty sure we will be directed to Mw:How to report a bug#Reporting a new bug or feature request. In anticipation, have created T173988. This conversation is linked from the request. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The Phabricator task seems to have been misunderstood as a request for WMF to redo the Article Wizard. If anybody can tell me how to improve it (maybe w graphics?) please advise. Meantime (thanks to DESiegel) I found Template:7STEPS which is a nice dovetail. A meta-process that wraps Article Wizard, perhaps. Worth consideration if we are thinking big in terms of a total article construction workflow overhaul based on best practices. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started having a look at using a guided tour to return the user to the Article Wizard after being shown the search results. An example of what this could look like is available when visiting this link -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, two wierd things about that. The little flag is sticky, and now pops up every time I visit a new page! (How do i get that off me!!??) and it is a one-off for that page, so if I close it so i can read what it is obscuring, i am bereft of its help (we do want people to read the search results!) Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-visit this link and click the tick (that was a bug). As for it obscuring the results, I'll try moving it elsewhere.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2: Extension:GuidedTour was also suggested by WMF Engineering, I will update them on our results... they suggested we may need some engineering "to allow parameters to be passed to the search page". I can continue to be the conduit to engineering via Phabricator, or other people feel free to add comments there. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have added links to chemistry to a whole slew of articles. Please go back through and self revert. The content in that site is user generated, and such cites are not reliable in Wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED (the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source here) Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copying response left at my talk page in this diff here, to keep the discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the references I have added are all well-sourced, see e.g. Roderick MacKinnon. The sources Academic Tree provides specifically address the issue of mentorship. For Roderick MacKinnon it happens to give an interesting titbit of insight, i.e. that the controversial Gilbert Ling was his academic 'ancestor'.
Please respect my contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks. Michaele and Tareq (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link violates the WP:USERGENERATED guideline. You have not dealt with that. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog is correct, please revert. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I don't agree. Basically what this is about is sources, there need to be references to reliable outside sources, and the links I added all contain such references. Also, the sites I added were authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.

Just for argument's sake, compare that to the Mathematics Genealogy Project. A quick search by Google reveals that there are something like 6,000 to 8,000 references to Mathematics Genealogy in Wikipedia. There is even a Template:MathGenealogy to facilitate adding such references. Yet, Mathematics Genealogy does not disclose its sources, so we don't now where their information came from, and how reliable those sources are. Clearly, the Academic Tree maintains a higher standard than that since it does disclose its sources, so everybody can examine those sources, and decide how reliable those sources are.

Please consider this question: Why do you think that references to Mathematics Genealogy are acceptable as a source, but Academic Tree is not? Why is it that you hold Academic Tree to an higher standard than Mathematics Genealogy? Michaele and Tareq (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog. I know this is going backwards and forwards between talk pages, but have you got rid of all the spam links? I looked at the user contribs, and each of the ones I looked at, you had done the removal. I'm happy to do it, if it still needs doing. Good work btw. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Roxy I got them, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michaele and Tareq you are quoting from part of USERGENERATED now so that is useful. Here is what the "about" for Academic Tree page says: "The Academic Family Tree is a nonprofit, user content-driven web database that aims to accurately document and publicly share the academic genealogy of current and historical researchers across all fields of academia. As a modern web application, The Academic Family Tree leverages the knowledge of thousands of individual users into a single, self-correcting database. Access to Tree sites is free, and users are able to contribute content directly." And at the bottom of each page, it says "Is someone missing from the tree? Register/sign in to make changes." That is precisely what Wikipedia is like; there is no editorial staff between the user base and the content. So I don't understand your claim that the entries at the site were authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. Please explain. To address your question about the difference with the Math project, here is the form where you submit data to the editorial staff which reviews it and then implements it. The process used at the two projects is different, and that is why they are viewed differently when analyzed under WP:RS.

The nature of your editing and the quality of this discussion is also starting to raise issues of WP:APPARENTCOI. There are many academics who want to cite their own papers or projects in Wikipedia; people have a range of motivations for this behavior from frank self-promotion to an honest belief that the thing they created has value that they want to share, and humans being what they are, often there are a range of things mixed together. But like all COI, that kind of COI leads to conversations that are just ... weird. If you have some connection with academic tree, it would be useful if you would disclose that connection. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance your moving this thread here was... weird. Weird. But I don't mind as a lot more people will see it now. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the question why you think that Mathematics Genealogy is acceptable, but Academic Tree is not. As said, Mathematics Genealogy does not disclose its sources, and we are left in the dark about how reliable those sources are. One the other and, Academic Tree does disclose its sources, and everybody is free to look at those and investigate how reliable they are. It is really about reliable independent outside sources.

Have a look yourself: compare the entry for August Föppl on Mathematics Genealogy with his entry on Academic Tree and see for yourself which one is more reliable, and in particular which one is more careful about sources. Or compare Johannes Peter Müller on Mathematics Genealogy with his entry on Academic Tree. Or Gustav Kirchhoff on Mathematics Genealogy compared to his entry on Academic Tree. And and so on.

But this isn't really about Mathematics Genealogy or Academic Tree or reliability of sources or whatever; it isn't even about me, no it is about you and the way you are treating other Wikipedians. From the moment you happened to come across one of my edits you jumped to the conclusion that I am a spammer, and you have been harassing me ever since. Yet, if you had thought about it for more than one second it should have occurred to you that I am not. Just think about it: If I were really a spammer I would have taken care to cover my tracks; you know very well that there are plenty of ways to do that. Just the fact that that I am straightforward about what I do should give you plenty of reasons to give this a second thought.

A while ago I noticed that many Wikipedia articles about scientists do make mention of academic advisor(s). In most cases it does not provide any reference to its sources, it a sort of comes out of the blue with no reference at all. In many cases the the Wikipedia article is simply wrong about it. It is really a mess out there.

So I decided to do something about it, using the most reliable resource that it out there. If Academic Tree and the Wikipedia article were in agreement I didn't spend much time one it. But if I found a disagreement I investigated the issue a bit more careful, and decided for myself who was right and who was wrong. In every single case I found a discrepancy Academic Tree was right and the Wikipedia article was wrong. So I made corrections as needed.

What you have done by vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia it that you have restored the mistakes I so laboriously uncovered, and meticulously corrected.

This really it a prime example of what is wrong with Wikipedia: People with the necessary know-how to make a difference in improving Wikipedia articles are routinely harassed to the point that they give up and quit.

What you should do is stop harassing me, apologize for the way you have been treating me, and undo the mess you have caused by vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia. Michaele and Tareq (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain the difference between the sites, with respect to the way that sources are analyzed here in Wikipedia. It is a process issue; the way data is entered and changed. This method of analyzing sources is the outcome of 16 years of community discussion - we call this "consensus". The foundation of this place is that consensus-building process. That is how the policy and guidelines have developed.

The analysis is not difficult nor is the result ambiguous, here in Wikipedia. If you disagree, please ask others at WP:RSN if academic tree is USERGENERATED or not. If you continue trying to add links to academic tree without consensus, you will likely end up blocked.

That said, I very much appreciate the effort you have taken to ensure the accuracy of data about academic advisors; you just need to use acceptable sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could you discuss why this site, sciNote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SciNote) does not get pinged as unsourced marketing or promotional or considered marketing language Teamscience (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Due to the interaction with Joobo i have reread in particular the Alternative for Germany article, in both english and german, and noticed that their ideology in the english language article does not include antifeminism like it does in the german article. Well sourced there, 4 different sources for it. Have only read two of the sources as the other two are books. One qoute in a source is "Together with fundamentalist Christians, supported by key elements of conservative media and programmatically taking up the theme, the Alternative Party of Germany (AfD – Partei Alternative für Deutschland), is stirring up feelings against the quota for women, abortion and “gender madness”.", in regards to feminism, obviously, for example. The other has a similar theme with one direct qoute by an AfD person from facebook stating he finds "the ideology idiotic" or how "reason" should be put above ""gender madness""(whatever the term "Genderwahn" even means, useless anglicism in german, how i hate them haha) all the while "finding true womanhood beautiful". Unsure how to access the book sources though. Would just assume that all the sources are reliable anyway knowing the germans love for rules and order and the contentius nature of the topic. The main body goes into it as well in the german article as does it in the english one to a degree. But anyway, i am getting ahead of myself... i have looked at a couple recent archives on the talk page and have seen nothing in regards to the matter. You think it would be possible or even prudent to hold an RfC on the topic? Just find it a bit odd that one includes it and the other does not, assuming the rules of the german wikipedia are very similar or even the same to the english one in regards to sourcing.(not actually sure about that as i don't lurk there but one would assume i guess) So anyway, your oppinion on the matter would be valued. 91.49.76.201 (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind the issue regarding the book sources, i was just being stupid and blind. Availible through google books. 91.49.76.201 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to post this at the article talk page, i would be happy to discuss it there. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later today or tomorrow then. No rush in the end. Just did not want to do anything stupid or raise something that had been talked over recently and me missing it by being blind etc. Might even make an account then even if i resisted it and did not want to for... a very long time lol 91.49.71.123 (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added AFD at Housejoy, created through AFC. Can you fix AFD template on it? It is used only for Online presence without adding value, doesn't pass WP:GNG, all news for only funding. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the current proposal doesn't gain consensus, please do try again with a refined one. If the wording could be cut further (says the most tumid guy around), it would probably garner more support. Using WP:VPPOL might be worth a try, for increased breadth of editorial input. Ping: Masem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"tumid"! Nice. :) Masem did post it and it sat there a pretty good long while... But thanks - i think a lot of people care about this and it will come back around. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something I often say, but I agree entirely with SMcCandlish. Per my comment on my talk, it's clear that much of the opposition is coming from people who don't understand the proposal and think it's a proposal to ban coverage of current events, rather than a proposal to ban giving undue weight to the opinions of whoever happens to be first to comment on a given event. ‑ Iridescent 23:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good nutshell, or problem statement, to re-use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I really have been trying to understand you.I appreciate that you are trying to help, but now you are going out of line.Since you wont communicate with me it has to be solved somehow else.

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

Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—== The issue here ==

The issue of all this is your approach. I believe you want to try to participate in the Project, but you are not communicating. Instead all I can see are endless criticism but no solution.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you and i don't share an understanding of the mission of Wikipedia nor of the policies and guidelines that have made this project possible. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to consider that also WP:IAR has certain advantages to improve Wikipedia, especially the WikiProject Investment which is trying to set new standards and guidelines for articles.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is for doing Picasso-like things; Picasso mastered the fundamentals first. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well what fundamentals are missing in my case? Cheers mate.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the responses you have gotten at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing mentioned there was the threating (which is a pretty small thing).Look I do not want to make this a bigger issue.So maybe you should come to a conclusion of your arguments regarding to the WikiProject Investment so that we can end this dispute. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @WikiEditCrunch: The best thing for you to do is see that you were wrong, apologize to Jytdog for wrongly starting an ANI thread, and then maybe take a break from Wikipedia for a while. The more you continue to press this, the worse it looks. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman:No one is right or wrong here.It is also not about how it looks.What matters is just ending this dispute and moving on.I personally think it is not that big of deal. Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made a complaint at ANI. That's no small thing. Your fellow editors are learning about you as an editor based upon these interactions. I think you're a good-faith editor but you seem to have sought vengeance when you felt wronged. That effort is resulting in a boomerang and now you're back-pedaling. Why not just admit you miscalculated and drop it? Perhaps you'd like more editors at ANI to look into your editing? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I has been closed.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. I was interested in this comment. Where do you see a "change of policy" in my proposal? --John (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How we enforce BLP, generally. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you in favour of not enforcing the rules we have, then? I would argue we should enforce them properly and rubbish like this would not occur. --John (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bad faith, fake interpretation of what I mean. You can strike that, or stay off my page. I do not tolerate bullshit here on my Talk page, not from anyone, and especially not from admins who should know better, and behave better. I am happy to discuss things, but not on that kind of basis. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog - I responded to your inquiry on my talk page. The answer is no, I do not have a connection (paid or otherwise) to the JASK Labs. The firm is an up-and-coming firm that is doing some innovative things in IT security, but I do not have a connection to them (not employed by them, not employed by a subcontractor or PR firm). Regards, Cryptodd (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your second inquiry - I was not paid to create the JASK Labs article. I do not have a paid connection to the firm (I am not employed by them, not employed by a PR firm, not paid to write the article). Cryptodd (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]