User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10

Context
I think this should be restored. Without context the previous sentence makes little sense. If you agree you can revert my edit. You wanted to discuss it first. So, I reverted my edit for discussion. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi QG - we should do this on the article Talk page, if that is OK with you. If so I would be happy to respond there.  Thanks for discussing! (I did take the time to track down why you are asking me, and I guess it is b/c of this - just recording here so I don't have to do that again) Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you not going to revert my edit by now then I don't think I'm going to change your mind with discussing it on the talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * as you will! thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Depression revert
Your revert here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depression_%28mood%29&curid=840273&diff=645754210&oldid=645753821

Maybe a decision on reverting this would have been better left to someone who has first-hand personal experience with the issue described in the edit? :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * funny man. :)  i feel bad for that guy tho and i have had my share of rejection . Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (clarifying that i wasn't saying something ickyJytdog (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC))


 * That edit is hilarious. I don't mean to make fun of someone's pain, though, if he or others have went through that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we just discovered the origins of Gamergate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

 * thank you sandy! you are an inspiration to me.  hang in there! Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion
As far as Talk:Autism, I see little hope of ever getting through to this individual. It occurs to me that continuing to engage will do little more than encourage them further with the result being a never-ending talk-page back-and-forth. They've got a point to make and they will do anything to get that point across. What we've already seen with the edit warring tells me what the result will eventually be. If you get my drift. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed! I am just trying to make my point clearly, and will soon stop responding.  Thanks for your note.  Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention will be needed there. But seriously, getting trolled into suggesting an FA be merged away? I can't go back and fix all this editor's edits ... too busy IRL ... but there's a long mess. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * hey sandy. well... no. I thought about it, before proposing the merge.  folks may well disagree and i will be interested to hear what is said.  i am not pushing for the merge, but it seems worth discussing well. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But you understand that means defeaturing the FA autism? Eubulides, who wrote that suite, is long gone, and for me to keep up with all the trolls and vandals and POV pushers all these years to try to maintain an FA ... well, fine, if we defeature it, the whole suite will go to heck.  And I can have another extended vacation :))  But I'm not sure you realize that what you are proposing is to do away with a featured article.  Just checking.  They are two separate concepts and articles, so why would we eliminate top content?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand it is FA. really I do.  And i understand what went into that.  I am just proposing this and it is just a partial merge. With the rise of the notion of ASD in the literature, it is my view (and others may well disagree and i may be dead wrong) that the ASD article should be the lead article in the suite.    If folks agree (and only if they do) I am willing to work very closely under and with you to make it surgical so that we do not de-feature it, or so that if someone demands an FA review that we pass easily... Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out this doozie. And see next this editor's contribs.  Sheesh, I had a month of very hard work IRL and came back to this steaming pile of junk. A partial merge, in this case, means we defeature a featured article.  I don't see how you can stay comprehensive if you merge things that are about classic autism to the ASD article. If that's the way consensus goes, though, it's no skin off my back ... I just want to make sure you understand the process and what you are proposing.  I only watch the autism suite because it was once in great shape, written by a top editor who left, and the suite had two FAs (autism and asperger).  If you believe the content is in the wrong article, the article ends up defeatured, and I have one less suite of articles to watch ... which is not a problem for me.  They will deteriorate, though ... the rest of the suite shows where they will end up.  I'm not yet convinced that content has to be removed from autism, or that ASD can't be better written without gutting autism, but you have better access to new journal articles than I do, and I don't have time for a major rewrite of anything !  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * hm. I try to be aware of how articles relate to one another.  from my perspective, to the extent that in the real world, ASD has overtaken Autism as the "hauptgattung" then the articles should change to reflect that, and if FA holds that back, then FA is a bad thing.  that's my perspective, generally.  but i do hear you that these articles are constantly degraded and the FA status is actually very useful to keep that degradation at bay.  i don't want to mess things up for you and make things more unpleasant for you than they are!   i will drop this.  we want sandy to stay! Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the article's in the wrong place, so be it! Do the right thing. I just don't have time to write a new article, or watch a crap article, but if you say that content is in the wrong place, I will support defeaturing the FA.  Anyway, like we don't have enough to keep us busy (and what takes our time over content writing): User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox.  Yes, it would be nice if we could just focus on rewriting the autism suite, instead of the usual in here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * so, so much time wasted keeping out nonsense! Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Years ago, Colin and I had great plans for fun and interesting articles we were going to write. Now, every time I come to Wikipedia, it's to stuff like this that we can't even keep up with.  If we were actually doing something valuable in here-- like putting our heads together to rewrite autism-- it would be fun and worthwhile.  Instead, we spend our time just trying to keep our heads above water and dealing with complete garbage.  I'm not opposed in theory to exploring your idea ... it's just that it's so discouraging to try to maintain any standard of quality in here.  You take care there ... I think I'll go renovate another house :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * collaborating is the best part of working here. tell you what, when and if you feel you have the energy and desire, let me know, and we'll rework the autism articles together. only when you are ready and willing. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration is the best part, if editors know how to do it and will do it. Another thing that is awesome (and liberating) once you realize it applies to everyone here is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Its accompanying essay, WP:Wikipedia does not need you is another freeing concept. But, when you all decide (if you do decide) to rewrite Autism, might I suggest you get someone who is actually on the spectrum and has a good deal of education and experience in the subject? Just saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC) thanks for your note, Winkelvi. Any rewrite would involve anybody who wants to join and would be discussed first, of course! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FAR mergers
Background FYI: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1
 * Featured article review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division/archive1
 * Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name leading to Featured article review/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive1

cochlear implants
Hey Jytdog,

Looking for some help with the cochlear implant article. I can see that you are not happy with the changes I tried to make. I did what was initially suggested and removed the primary source and linked to a secondary source. I thought that would be fine but looks like it is not. I think that the optogenetics research is important and it builds upon the research being done at Northwestern University. How would you suggest that the research be referenced here? I'd like to make known that I am not associated in any way with the institution where this research is being done -- my interest is personal because of my own issues with hearing loss. I think it's important that everyone know what is going on in the world of hearing research. Also, if I'm not supposed to be mentioning the institution that is doing the research, why is Northwestern University mentioned in the same paragraph? Thanks 64.53.165.92 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for replying on the Talk page. that is where discussion belongs. i'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop bickering
The unhatted thread is exactly about "how we are editing" -- and that is the problem. It is editors commenting about each other, not article content. That is a behavior matter. Also, since "[you] want no part of this. Unwatching." why unhat the thread? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Please revert so that you talk from one side only. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you all are on a very short trip to arbcom. I have done my best to stop you. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I may be named, I'm confident I'll be okay. The hat was my effort to stop the bickering. Oh, well, maybe indefinite PP is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Srich, as your friend let me remind you that you've had other experienced editors chide you for your "pseudo-admin" style interventions. Regardless of the merits of your concern, it's never a good idea to position yourself that way, especially when you are an involved editor on an article.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect...
You were probably write about not making substantive edits to Griffin. The environment of that page is toxic. Steeletrap (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I stayed out of it as well. A lot not wanting to hear behavior problems and quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black type behavior there. Arbcom or topic bans are looking more like a reality there, so I think Jytdog made a good choice to withdraw now to let the troublesome editors make their own bed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's too late. The damage has been done. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  08:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a shame one of the most experienced Fringe topic editors we have feels that way, the project will suffer for it. However, I feel the newbie box ticking editors who recently appeared ought to be ashamed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin AE
Hello Jytog. Why withdraw the edit-warring thread concerning Griffin/Atsme? It seems to me that it would be clearer to have that adjudicated on the record. Or are you going to add Atsme to Steeletrap's name for Enforcement in that thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally find that 3RR threads that I file are acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit that long without being touched by an admin.  I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that were imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins there judged that it was pointless now because of the DS.  I don't know.  So I noticed Callenac of the 3RR, but callenac also took no action.  Then I saw that Callenac had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and took it there.  Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that Callanac referred Atsme to AE and it appears to me that Atsme may have understood that to be an endorsement of her complaint rather than advice about the proper venue. I would have seen no harm in leaving the 3RR thread up. It's clear cut and the AE is somewhat different.  I don't expect to participate in the AE and from what I've seen the most motivated and aggressive editors tend to dominate these AE threads.  I don't know what Steeletrap's history is with that article but I do feel that unless the case is explicitly broadened to cover the range of disruption that's occurred over the recent past, the thread is not going to help calm things down.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Callanac is being appropriately sphinx-like. I will ask him. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing I have learned from various Arbcom matters is that the Arbs and the Enforcement Admins there are, necessarily, unfamiliar with all the details surrounding incidents and histories of behavior. It takes a huge amount of effort to present a concise clear summary of the issues.  Unfortunately, although the Admins there may be quick studies they can also be misled by extraneous or incomplete information.  Often the most motivated participants come off sounding convincing simply because others don't wish to invest the time to fully discuss the matter.  For example, imagine you are an Admin coming at this cold and trying to figure out what's happening. Remarks about various content disputes, the RfC close, and the like would point you to peripheral issues and divert your attention from the overriding behavioral problem.  That's just how these things work, unless a highly motivated editor is prepared to put in the effort to clarify things.  I've never edited this article and I just happened by coincidence to see some of the talk page issues and the POV problems.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you this: I briefly edited the Bitcoin article last year. It was dominated by POV believers who seemed to know nothing beyond what they'd read in promotional outlets.  There were bitter fights about calling Bitcoin a "currency" in the lede.  I gave up and left.  Now a year later there are still POV editors but the article's in much better shape.  The lede is pretty good now.  One way or the other these things tend to get resolved in the right direction.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

USC Eye Institute
I have rewritten the article USC Eye Institute in my sandbox and used it to replace the original article which you objected to and which was indeed speedily deleted. I hope you approve the new version. Having accepted the article at AfC, I felt an obligation to replace it when it was deleted. There is further discussion of the matter on my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments and the undeserved barnstar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! I meant it.  I have worked over your draft and in my view it is good to go.  some surprising things turned up. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks warning
I am required to attempt to resolve the problem with you here before escalating this problem elsewhere. Knowingly or not, you have been bullying and attacking editors throughout the encyclopedia, often in the GMO/GE topic area. You also have a documented habit of strategically and tactically poisoning the well against any user you disagree with by repeatedly using the word "disgusting" to refer to their arguments and the word "fringe" to dismiss their concerns. Your issues with civility have been pointed out to you many times in the past by users you trust, so I'm not telling you anything you haven't already heard. But the bullying has to stop, as does your misuse of the word "disgusting", which you misplace on your opponents again and again. Feel free to delete this message after you read it, as the diff will remain in the page history for future use if needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your expression of concern. But again, you are so dramatic!


 * I acknowledge being too harsh sometimes and I retract and apologize when I believe I have gone too far.


 * Everything in WP is "documented"; if by using fancyish legalistic language you are implying that I have ever been blocked or even warned by an admin or closer for "bullying" or incivility or anything else for that matter, this is (as far as I can recall) not true -- if you have an example of any such administrative action against me, please bring a diff. I mean that.   My block log is clean.


 * With regard to "strategically and tactically poisoning the well against any user you disagree with by repeatedly using the word "disgusting" to refer to their arguments and the word "fringe" to dismiss their concerns"...
 * a) it's a very broad statement, and the generalization is not supportable.
 * b) It is true that I work on a lot of health related topics, where proponents of FRINGE ideas have tried to mess up WP.
 * c) i may be a bit heavy on "disgust" recently. I deal with a lot of ugliness here - (including ugliness from you  - I have the email from Wer from August 2013 documenting (!) your efforts with him to out me; you and I have not crossed paths in a long time which I admit that I see as a good thing) and the ugliness is wearing on me.  I acknowledge that my burned0outness is my problem, and not anybody else's.
 * d) I have no "strategy" nor "tactics" to implement anything.
 * e) with regard to "poisoning the well", I don't know what that means.


 * With regard to my interaction with David - I was speaking with him on his Talk page trying to help him avoid wasting time.  He decided to turn that into a debate, and in the course of that, yes, he made an argument that disgusted me, and yes I reacted with disgust to it.   I am ~Ok~ with what I did there.   I acknowledge I could have been nicer about it, sure.  I've debated striking it, but it really was disgusting to me.


 * Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Happy to continue discussing if you like.  Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I thought about this more and I will strike the "disgusting" comment. It wasn't helpful. Doing that now. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Somehow I missed this interaction. Jytdog, I wrote a long response to you and Gandydancer on Gandydancer's page. I only found this when I came here to post the talkback template.David Tornheim (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: Please note. I'm not very good with these templates, etc. I have tried to look them up and the pages are so filled with information it is hard to find something simple like this and simple guidlelines for new users about something this important and which should be straightforward. Usually, as I did as a programmer, I just find some code where someone did it and copy the method they used, even if I don't fully understand it--that's how I do talkback--and I still don't even know where it is succinctly explained for a new user! Although, I have learned HTML, I am a bit mystified about how Email on Wikipedia works or is supposed to work, despite having used it for years, and every time I go back to edit it, I have to spend hours trying to figure out how to do these things all over again. It's a huge pain. Anyway, if you see me doing something using the wrong syntax, if it is not too time consuming please GENTLY remind me on my talk page, as to how to do the preferred format. I often just guess or put in something I know is inferior on the talk pages because I don't want to spend another hour trying to look up the right syntax!David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For example, I changed the response above, but I have no idea what I am supposed to do to indicate that it was changed, as I have seen you do with your responses to me and others. There are a number of conventions like that that mystify me. Many like the indentation protocols I just copy. I would love a list of all the BASICS of edits, from simplest to most difficult, but everything I found just covers a nearly infinite number of possible templates, etc. and I am always overwhelmed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI re Griffin archiving
I've just done a manual archive of 5 very small threads on the Griffin page. The total kb count is still over 250, but some progress has been made. Whether progress in the question of article content will be made is a problematic question. – S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i'm not watching anymore, but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is at mesylate
I know that these revisions and partial reversions can make even normal people angry, so I wanted to reassure you that I am up to nothing nefarious or tricky at mesylate. The partial listing of drugs that contain the mesyl group would be of interest to a wide readership. The fact that these drugs contain mesyl is self-evident from their chemical structure. As I mentioned in my edit summary, we use this motif of mentioning drugs or other commercial products all the time in Wikipedia. The verification is provided by visual inspection of the chemical structures. Not sure if these comments reassure you, but I hope so. With best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note, I appreciate it, and am not getting angry. we can continue to discuss at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

re Paul, Weiss editing
Hi Jytog. I saw that you undid what I characterized as formatting changes to the infobox on the Paul, Weiss page. Hoping to find out where I went wrong with my edit note. The founding date is in the wrong column in the infobox, and the number of offices (8) seems to have been inadvertently removed during your edits to the page. If the number isn't going to be used, then I'd recommend just calling it Offices. I definitely wasn't trying to change the substance of the page in any way, and I'm happy to discuss this further.Meggebrecht (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i just don't like it when edit notes don't match what the edit is. i fixed both things. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What you could do...
Is to start an RfC on including a less problematic reference to the well documented fact that he's a conspiracy crank. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind....
...but I amended your hatting on WT:MED slightly. Yobol (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it is much nicer that way. sorry for being crabby.  the endless bullshit! Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keck School of Medicine of USC
I see the saga of the USC Eye Institute has taken a new turn. What do you think of the largely unsourced Keck School of Medicine of USC? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * also bad! not as bad.   Keck seems to be on a bit of a PR kick. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing of Beta Sheet
I assume your edits are at the behest of BogHog. I would point out to you that the majority of the other references in the article are also primary in nature. For such scientific content this illustrates the need for primary references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you are new here, and you clearly have no idea how this place works. I suggest you stop making assumptions and claims until you learn how it works. (your assumption is offensive and violates WP policy, by the way.  don't write things like that going forward) If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm new and someone pounced on me. I hope that any future attempts I make at participation are appreciated in the spirit they were offered. Suggestion that my contributions be discussed, modified, or rejected through talk is perfectly reasonable, rather than summarily deleted, independent of merit or value, as was done. But, after posting a proposed edit in the talk page, which seems to be relatively un-trafficked, please inform me as to what is the proper protocol? Also, and this is a genuine question, individuals with specialized knowledge of such topics would be expected to contribute content, that is the point I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ok... that is a more promising comment. thank you for that! some blunt facts first.
 * first of all and more than anything else - you are responsible for yourself here.  if you do something stupid, it is your fault and nobody else's. it is best to own it, learn, and move on.  if you let your emotions get the best of you and you write something stupid (and oh, you will be tempted to), that is your fault and no one else's.  best to apologize and move on. (that is all in reaction to your first sentence)
 * second... we are all volunteers here, and nobody has any obligation to kiss your ass for doing the same as them.   that said, folks are often (not always) friendly and willing to help, if you act like a human, be self-aware that you are new and have things to learn, and ask real questions.  if you make bad edits because you don't know what you are doing, and someone tries to fix them, and you are start arguing with them without understanding the problem ... well the outcome of that is predictable, right?
 * turning to your questions. We want people to be bold and make changes to articles.  BUT if you are reverted by someone else, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the article Talk page and ask why. That is all described in WP:BRD. (I just left you a long message about this on your Talk page).
 * finally, please read WP:EXPERT. (in general, especially when you learning, if somebody shoots a link to you like i just did  - please read it.).   We love experts here.  They are golden,  but only if' they come to understand Wikipedia's mission, policies, and guidelines, and work here according to them.  Some of the worst kind of editors, are experts who think they are too good and too smart to learn how Wikipedia works.  They generally cause all kind of ruckus, get increasingly frustrated and angry, and end up leaving or getting thrown out of here.  I hope that is not the path you choose! Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page
There is a one-sentence paragraph in Hunter's lead that could be easily merged with the first. There is no reason for it to be separate from the main one. Please be so kind to merge them, please. Thank you! 180.191.69.3 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog - that was an accident
I did not mean to make that revert - it was an accident. I was looking through the diffs, and must have accidentally hit something. Just wanted you to know. Atsme ☯  Consult  02:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * then I will self-revert, and you can self-revert. I will do that now. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is ok for editors to be disparaging of others but they cannot take it themselves.
Re your removal of my complaint on the medicine page, I really despise censorship. Sam originally implied that someone else was guilty of fraud and yet I was not allowed to stick up for that person? Despotism at its origins...

Now kindly proceed to entrench your position as to agree with me would cause conflict between your left and right brain. Friendlymilk (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: in my experience, picking a fight only gets you a bloody nose. Leave my comments alone next time, please. Many thanks. You don't have the time for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlymilk (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This place is not a wild west where people can add whatever they want to articles. If it were, Wikipedia would be an unreliable garbage dump.  Please think about the following for a minute - as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Wikipedia ~could~ be a garbage dump of random statements and nonsense, and Talk pages ~could~ be a vicious, lawless Mad Max kind of world.   For the most part, it is not that way.   That's because over the years the community has created policies and guidelines that govern both content and behavior and that form a foundation for rational discussion.   One of the hardest things for new users to wrap their heads around, is that this foundation even exists.   Then they have to learn how it works.  You don't appear to be aware it exists and by just shouting and making accusations, and not asking any questions, you are never going to learn.  If you keep going this way, you will probably write some more angry remarks and then you will storm away all angry and frustrated.  Happens all the time, and it is a shame.   If on the other hand, you stop, go back and read what people have written to you (including clicking on the links people provide and read what is there), you will see that there is actually a rational process going on, that is repeated hundreds of times a day.   You will do, as you will do, however. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior
Hey, Jytdog. It wasn't until after I pointed out that Bfpage is following me around, and that I will seek action if it continues since it annoys me, that he announced that he would be editing in areas that I edit in; I see this announcement as a clear cover for the fact that he intends to continue following me around. Stating that he will be editing in the same areas I edit in, when he was not active in these areas until his involvement with me, is what I believe to be him thinking that he can avoid legitimate accusations of WP:Hounding. So my questions to you on this matter are: What are your thoughts on it? How should I handle it from here on out? For the record, I do not trust Bfpage, and I believe that his definition of being neutral is not in line with Wikipedia's definition of being neutral. I have several WP:Administrators that I could ask about this case, including via email, but I decided to ask you first since you and I both edit topics that Bfpage has stated that he will now be editing. Right now, he is editing the Pelvic inflammatory disease article.

Also pinging Doc James (though he is a WP:Administrator), Yobol (another medical editor), NeilN (because I trust him and he witnessed Bfpage's edits at the Sexism article), and Roscelese (since Roscelese also edits LGBT topics). For another editor I trust, and who likely has a positive take on Bfpage, I am also pinging Cullen328. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I received replies about this via email. Thanks to those who replied, though I prefer that comments on this not be private. I noted this matter here so that my take on Bfpage's announcement would not be private. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Complicated. I read the dif you cite where Bfpage said he she plans to follow you around (at 18:39, 21 February 2015)  This bit is especially unfortunate for him her : "I believe what started this controversy was that I did not consider editing the sexism article to be controversial. And since you informed me that you have had much experience with controversial articles, I thought I would try to learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished."  In my view, that is a very admission that he she indeed consciously set out to start following you around.


 * and he she has moved pretty aggressively.
 * 22:50, 19 February 2015 concluded this run ofedits to Sexism; not much of an improvement.
 * then the two of you got into a bit tangle, then
 * 23:04, 19 February 2015 concluded another run of edits, more aggressive now, his her first effort to get rid of definitions by putting them in edit notes
 * you had a run there mostly reverting the hiding of definitions
 * 00:38, 20 February 2015 he she concluded a run, mostly moderate now
 * 02:08, 20 February 2015 another run by him her, now deleting the definitions (this is in my view edit warring by his her )
 * 02:09, 20 February 2015 you restore deleted content and mentioned some discussion on your Talk page - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22#Your_editing_comments_on_the_sexism_article this I reckon and then you had a bit of a run
 * 23:17, 20 February 2015 he she concluded a big big (49 edits) run that include some pretty "false balance" edits like:
 * changing "Sexism is especially defined as discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping against women, on the basis of their sex" to "Sexism is discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of gender. Sexism is most often expressed toward girls and women";  (original was not dead on but his her version ignores the immediate association with "against women" in both dictionaries cited)  (this was fixed in this dif by an IP address)
 * Changing "Women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men; it was only after the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures that men began to institutionalize the concept that women were inferior to men" to "Women in pre-agricultural societies held equal positions with men. After the adoption of agriculture and sedentary cultures the concept that one gender was inferior to the other was established; most often this was imposed upon women and girls" (which is not in the source)
 * Change to paragraph on rape in war, which is too long to quote here but which in my view is egregiously bad - where he she wrote that rape of men by men in war is an example of sexism Which the article that is cited doesn't say and is just to me, sloppy and frankly stupid "parity" writing.  Sexism does come into it, in the particular difficulty men have in dealing with it and in the lack of support for male survivors of rape. But that is different.


 * i also read the exchanges you had with him her . Frankly, Flyer, you are harsher than me (and that is saying something!) and I think he she "took the bait" and decided to go after you.  Which was unwise of him her.


 * I looked at this series] that ended 21:24, 21 February 2015  to Pelvic inflammatory disease  and they are on the whole not bad.  But the pattern is unhappy.


 * i am going to ping him her . I think he she should back off. Most of these articles are under DS and by entering them in this way, he she is heading over a cliff.   If he she continues, and continues to push a parity agenda, I think you may be able to get him her topic banned at AE, and maybe get an I-ban too.  Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (fix gender errors, with apologies)


 * Thanks for weighing in, Jytdog. After I posted the above, I saw that Bfpage identifies as female on the Bfpage user page; so I will stop using male pronouns concerning this editor. Before your comment above, I was going to mention on my user page that my attempts to edit with less agitation are not working out as well as I would like; I will still add that, and elaborate on it. I know that I am apparently a bitch these days. As for Bfpage following me around, Bfpage also stated at User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, "I am a user who tracks other users' edits strictly for collegial purposes that would assist me in helping to support their efforts at editing. I have done this carefully and with good cause doing my best to avoid the mis-perception that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I have no perceived slight. I have not been offended in any way by comments from other editors. As a matter of fact, I take the suggestions and comments of editors who have much more experience than I do constructively so that I can improve my editing." I mean, Bfpage clearly followed me to the Hymen and Gender role articles; I know those articles need a lot of work. I am interested in fixing up the Hymen article, but not so much the Gender role article, which falls victim to bad WP:Student editing. Regarding the change from "Sexism is especially defined as discrimination, prejudice," that was made to the Etymology and definitions section, not the lead; it's still currently there. I don't mind that change much. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Jytdog, what did you mean above by "DS"? Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, in this section, I see what you mean by "DS." Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about my gender mistake. I fixed it above.  I've done what I can do for now. I am watching..... hopefully everybody will act sanely.  People are free to edit whatever they want, but there are some boundaries being crossed here, perhaps.  We will see how this plays out.  Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The more eyes watching the article and talk page, the better. Some odd assertions made on the talk page in the last couple days and not all changes to the article have improved it. --Neil N  talk to me 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As requested, I will keep an eye on this situation. I encourage both parties to remain calm and assume good faith. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all, for helping to de-escalate this situation. I think as an 'emergency' first step in accomplishing this, I will impose a ban upon myself and will stop any editing on the sexism article. Hopefully, this will demonstrate my good faith regarding the questioning of my involvement on that particular article.

For my part, I have had no interactions with Jytog prior to the request of a Teahouse guest asking for some assistance with editing difficulties on the Sexism article. I reviewed the editing log for sexism, noticed some names and then checked into the editing histories and contributions of those who were/are actively editing the sexism article. Could this be the point where 'following around' began? Checking editing histories?

After not finding what the Teahouse guest identified as problems, I assumed that I had not looked closely enough into the editing history or the contributions made by the editors to that article. I then began to read some of the user pages to better orient me to the editors who contribute to the sexism article. Is this considered 'following around'? Reading User pages? I read a lot of User pages to assess the possibilities of enhancing or promoting the work that another user is involved with. I learn a lot by reading user pages that helps me edit.

Not finding the problems that the Teahouse guest had indentified, stuck in subzero weather with everything accomplished on my personal to-do list, facing hours of free time ahead of me for a few days, and reading an article that could use a lot of editig help, I finally could look forward to cleaning up something that could really use it. Some people call it an 'editing binge'. I had no idea that it would turn into a situation where someone would perceive my higher-than-typical editing activity as a form of hounding.

This is the first part of my response. I need to take a break and read up on all the policy and references that are cited above so that I can formulate a better response to some of the more complicated issues. Thank you for your patience.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your gracious note . What makes it appear as hounding is your stated intention to start working on the articles that Flyer works on, followed by your edits that are themed by adding "gender parity" to the articles, yes at high volume.  The narrative you give above is helpful for explaining the last, but not the first two.  And  it is the first two things together that make it look like you have an ax to grind and that you are chasing Flyer with it.  I am not saying you are doing that, but it looks like it.  And if your edits continue to follow that pattern, you will end up looking very bad, regardless of your actual intentions.  I don't see a way to salvage this bad beginning, so my advice to you is to avoid going further down that road, and just edit elsewhere.  The other road, is to declare very clearly that adding "gender parity"  to articles is not important to you, and that your goal really is to learn how to edit controversial articles, and to proceed with the behavioral tentativeness of someone who is actually trying to learn - show it in your behavior as well as what you say.  Do you see what I mean?   Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I appreciate you mediating this. I know that being dragged into this type of drama can be a pain. If you ever need me to return the favor, I will...with a cool head. Bfpage, I also wish to deescalate this matter and I realize my part in escalating it. My issue in this case is that after I pointed out that you targeted articles that I edit, including having clearly followed me to the Hymen and Gender role articles, and that I do not want you to follow me around because I would rather not interact with you, you declared, "I believe I can bring a neutral point of view to articles that may be considered controversial. This has nothing to do with you. I intend to copy edit articles that have to do with sexually-transmitted diseases. I intend to copy edit articles having to do with reproductive anatomy, I have found some errors in some of these articles and they have very few sources. I intend to copy edit articles having to do with gay lesbian issues . Since I'm letting you know this ahead of time, perhaps you can now see that I am not following you although you are welcome to follow me."


 * To me, that declaration was you making sure that there is potential for us to interact when you know that I would rather that we do not interact. I can and do collaborate on Wikipedia, but we got off to a rocky start and it can take time before I am willing to work with an editor that I feel very irritated by and/or had significant disputes with. There are editors on Wikipedia that I initially dreaded interacting with, but eventually was fine interacting with. I realize that stating, "You can't edit the articles I edit." can be childish, but I am not stating that, and context is key. For example, a WP:Interaction ban would be context. But I don't think we need an interaction ban either. I reiterate that we got off to a rocky start. I therefore wished to remove myself from your orbit...other than occasionally editing the Sexism article. And you seemed to want to place yourself directly in my orbit. I don't seek to work with editors that are causing me annoyance. And instead of occasionally interacting with you, you pretty much declared that I would likely be interacting with you on a daily or weekly basis. That is what I mean on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Replying
I'm going to be slammed with work for a while, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Darn it - it happened it again
I posted what happened to Callan's page - I was looking through to get the diffs he requested, and I'm not quite sure why it reverts when I simply click on previous edit. I tried to revert back, but PP won't let me. Not sure what to do now. Atsme ☯  Consult  15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw, and saw that you were able to self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Grapes of Rath
I might have been ever-so-gently trolling :o) Guy (Help!) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * laughing :) Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sticking around
I really wasn't planning to stick around. I just wanted to contribute to that section is all. I spent an hour preparing that contribution. My wife, who is a is a biologist and teacher helped me out also. Then it was reversed with "requires secondary sources" which we didn't fully understand so we reversed the reverse with comments stating the citations were from respected peer journals, and asking why would this be reversed. I still have no clear answer to this question despite your "helpful" template pasting.

Anyway this has all grown to a large waste of time. Although I guess I did ultimately get the entire "alternatives" section wiped out now. I guess that is something. Wow, you nuked the entire Treatment section? Not even going to mention CPAP or surgeries which are standard treatments? Jytdog

Honestly I never expected my contribution to be perfect. But I figured people like yourself or NeilN or the other guy would correct, or help fix improve the content. Now you guys are just being lazy and destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somazx (talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * as you will.  this would be the "brief stay, leaving frustrated and angry" thing, that I mentioned on your userpage.  I am sorry this is how it played out.  the treatment section isn't gone, btw, it is here: Sleep_apnea.  the article has been re-organized to follow our manual of style, WP:MEDMOS.  Jytdog (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy
Would you mind very much editing somewhere else for a short while, other than the CLL article at this precise minute? I am aware of the house style, and it is not helpful to modify my every edit immediately after I place it. Please feel free to come back at another time and clean up after. If this isn't clear I'll cite policy up and down for you. Have a nice day. If I was sarcastic before, I apologize. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ironic section title. "if" you were sarcastic before?  if?  I tried to discuss this with you at your Talk page, and what you offer above is a non-apology.
 * If you want space to work, you can request that by putting the "under construction" template on the article.  Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good suggestion regarding template, which I am happy to learn. RL calls now, but when I come back later I will briefly use the template as I work. I do apologize, and it's totally inflammatory and inflexible to label it as a non-apology. The gentle suggestion I have to you is that rollbacking immediately after an edit is intrusive and disrespectful, particularly when you label it a "pile" (sic). Please don't feel put out, I feel you bit my nose and I bit you back. As I said, I will be pleased to cite policy re not immediately reverting, but why don't we de-escalate instead? If another apology is needed, this is it, bro: I'm sorry. Plain and simple. But please do not label my edits as a "pile" and I sincerely promise I won't bite you back.FeatherPluma (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When people say, after someone tells them they were offensive, "I am sorry if i was offensive" it is a non-apology - an apology for show - there is a fundamental "i don't hear that" in the "if". And that you continue to justify your lack of self control, makes it even more of a non-apology.  Your lack of self control and your ugly comment are entirely your responsibility.  I am done with the matter, and I am not your "bro".  Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

dang 1RR / week
Technically your edits are less than 7 full days apart on the Griffin BLP - argh! Collect (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not made more than 1 revert in a week.
 * 1) 22:46, 9 February 2015 REVERT when atsme was too bold
 * 2) 02:23, 21 February 2015 null is a revert and self-revert (not a revert)
 * 3) 19:16, 21 February 2015 add wikilink not a revert
 * 4) 11:07, 24 February 2015 removed EL now redundant, as link was added to body by another editor per WP:ELNO
 * even if you want to claim that 4) is a revert (which I would argue against), it has been more than 7 days since 1). neither 2) nor 3) are reverts.  Feel free to bring this to Callanecc's attention, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not file reports, really! I was going to make an edit and noted I did an edit which added 5 line breaks - I was complained about once for even less of an edit and was assured any characters were a "revert" LOL -- My aim is to get quiet compromise in place - leaving the wars to those who relish them. Which is why I said "argh!" after all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i hear you, being under DS really blows. thanks for the heads up - i appreciate it.  we all have to help each other stay out of the weeds. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get a dang compromise done soon? The longer we wait, the longer the wording gets (from mediation experience)  and all I want is a short lead adequately summarizing the BLP and as readable as we can get it. Collect (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you on that. but i am pretty doubtful that the article is going to see any significant changes for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I blanked your spurious allegation
You made a spurious comment at my TP regarding other editors - I don't know what you are referring to, so I blanked it. If you have something to say to me, please say it on Griffin Talk, and provide a diff. Atsme ☯  Consult  02:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, if you have an issue with someone's behavior in WP, it is best to give them a polite warning on their Talk page. Article Talk pages are for discussing article content, not editor behavior.  So that is what I did.  I am glad you read it and I hope you take it into consideration.  If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.  Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You put a warning on my TP but you didn't say why, and you didn't provide a diff. What is your issue because right now what you just did is an issue for me.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In many, many comments you make on the Griffin Talk page, you comment on contributors. I'll give just a few of examples:
 * dif edit note says "POV is showing" and the comment is: "Guy, your POV is showing. Rein it in, please."
 * dif comment says in part " You don't see it because you're focused on calling him a promoter of conspiracy theories. You have to step back to see which approach is encyclopedic vs most suitable for Popular Paranoia."
 * dif edit note: "your POV is showing" and comment is "Oh my. POV is showing, and so is what appears to be a zest for tabloid journalism in your further attempts to discredit this BLP.  You have incorrectly identified Griffin's American Media company.  Hmmm, mistaken identities - I think Breitbart is hiring writers.   Please check your sources more carefully, and read or re-read some of the things we've already discussed on this TP.  Above all, stop trying to make this an attack page.  It will not stick, and neither will any attempts to suppress RS material to make this article NPOV."


 * WP:TPG says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." It also says: "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person."
 * Each of those passages wikilink to the policy, WP:NPA, the first line of which is, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."
 * Please comment on content, not contributor.
 * If you think your behavior is fine, so be it - I've told you that I don't think it is. I am asking you to review your comments going forward and asking yourself if anything there is commenting on another contributor, and if there is, to remove it, before you click "save".   You will do as you will.   As will I.
 * My goal is get the discussion on Talk focused on actual content and sources, and see if anybody can propose changes to content that can win consensus. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I truly wish WP:AGF was apparent in your response, Jytdog, but it's not. You are doing exactly what you just accused me of doing, and with diffs that don't support your allegations. I've been noticing a pattern of rather disruptive behavior, including abuse of warnings mixed in with a little WP:Bullying. While you may have the best intentions, you need to more closely monitor your own behavior. Consider this post a polite warning to you with a request to tone it down. I was going to provide 20 diffs to demonstrate the disruptive behavior, but decided against it. Those diffs may be better suited for a future purpose. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme ☯  Consult  18:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone shows diffs of your problematic behaviour and your reaction is "Consider this post a polite warning to you with a request to tone it down". That's a pretty damn ballsy reaction. Jytdog has demonstrably shown exactly what he stated. Second Quantization (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme has been warned a few times for the pot calling the kettle black type behavior. It doesn't look like warnings are going to solve anything though based on this conversation (as has been a few months now), so it looks like Jytdog is taking the high road in trying to give the reminder. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I saw that you mentioned potentially bringing a case up soon. As an FYI, I've been considering bringing one up as well at WP:AE based on one of my conversations with Callanecc if it looks like these problems are going to persist at the article. I'm pretty busy this week, but after that I might go forward with it as a primarily uninvolved article watcher (instead of someone within the content dispute) if things don't seem like they'll improve. I'm not committed to that action yet, but just a heads up that I'm considering a similar option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingofaces - I have warned folks and want to see if behavior improves... Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's also why I'm holding off any action for now. Hopefully there's improvement this time around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, poopers. It seems that whenever I try to be cordial, it tends to invite threats and other hoopla as evidenced above. Sorry, but I don't wear Intimidation well. Now I feel obligated to provide more detail....and I really was trying to avoid further comment, so for the sake of brevity, I'll only include a few highlights. Ok, Jytdog, let's start from the beginning with your spurious allegations. The diffs you provided above do not support your allegations. My comments to were not PAs, (surely you don't want to go there), however your accusation against me could be considered WP:Casting aspersions. I think avoiding the latter would be the best course of action for you. WP:PA states: ...referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. I think the evidence at the TP will confirm that Guy has been focused on adding "conspiracy theorist/theories" to the lead, and he cited a source incorrectly assuming it was Griffin's publisher. We can safely say the latter is content related. I simply pointed it out to Guy in a humorous way with a smiley. His gaff wasn't too unlike the case of mistaken identity by a Breitbart writer in that both he and Guy confused identifies because of name similarities. Guy's gaff confused the identities of American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer with Griffin's publisher, American Media Inc. As for my POV comment, again content because I was pointing out policy issues which is a long way from a PA. It's part of the collaborative process, btw. Read Guy's comment and tell me how it's not POV: "He is part of the glorious tradition of classical American cranks described in Idiot America. His ideas are wrong and his website full of hilarious nonsense, but I simply cannot see him as evil or deranged, merely credulous and blinded by self-belief."

Rather than focus on my behavior, I highly recommend that you focus on your own. The diffs below clearly demonstrate behavior that is bordering on WP:INCIVILITY, if it hasn't already crossed the line. Also, striking thru one's own comments after they've been archived serves little benefit beyond acknowledging the fact you shouldn't have made the comment in the first place, but I'm sure you'll have a good reason for it anyway: There are many more diffs including comments on editors TPs, and diffs that demonstrate WP:SQS beyond a doubt, but this isn't ARBCOM or AE and I hope it doesn't go that way, but if it does, it does. In the interim, please stop abusing the warnings, and leave me alone so I can get some editing done. I'm sure there are other PS-Fringe articles out there that actually need your attention. The Griffin BLP isn't one of them. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme ☯  Consult  04:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - false accusation of edit warring against an admin
 * - false accusation of edit warring against an editor who was following consensus
 * <---suggested picking your own closer to review your RfC
 * <-- explains why the admins actions were appropriate and that you were being disruptive
 * <-- noted WP:Civility issues at a different article where you also use the Fringe argument like at Griffin
 * <--called an editor's response "baloney"
 * <--accusing an editor of "concern trolling"
 * <--my response to another of your accusation of PAs without diffs
 * <--accusing an editor of having not read the sources
 * <--misleading editors
 * <--accusing them of ignoring sources
 * <--warning everyone about snark and comments about other editors when it was you who was doing it
 * <--accusing me of not taking action when I did, and you also used profanity.
 * <--arrogantly accusing me of walls of text when I simply pointed out policy (your accusatory hatting headers don't bode well for you, either)
 * <-- notes the tag team disruption
 * <-- must have also noticed something odd as well.
 * "I'm sure there are other PS-Fringe articles out there that actually need your attention. The Griffin BLP isn't one of them." -- I think that is a blatant violation of WP:OWN. We are not allowed to run anyone off an article on our sayso alone, as much as many would like to be able to. If you are hoping for this, you'll need to go to a dramaboard like ANI or AE and ask for page-bans for specific users. jps (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * hey all I notified Atsme that I found her behavior problematic, she disagreed and called for difs, and I responded. She doesn't agree that her behavior is problematic. She took the extra step of bringing up her issues with me.  I don't find the "it's not me it's you" kind of response to be reasonable (not in WP and not in real life) so am not responding.  Atsme is free at any time to bring up her issues with me under her own initiative, politely and directly, here or at whatever forum she likes.  I will say that I had already struck or self-reverted most of what she cites above (some of it immediately after I wrote it), and will strike the others that I had missed when i did my other strikes.  what i didn't strike or self-revert, i am Ok with or is not my comment.
 * My goal at Griffin is to ask editors to show more self-restraint and to focus on the content. What is happening here is the opposite.
 * Please don't continue this discussion here; I'll be archiving it soon if discussion continues against my wishes. Otherwise I will let the bot archive it.  Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, since I was pinged here...Jytdog's note is, in principle, justified, though one might quibble with its tone--"Please discuss content, not contributors. I am going to start taking action on this pretty soon." That's not very nice, of course, but then you all seem to have some history. One might argue that a diff or two should be included the first time around, but again, history. Atsme's response, blanking and then coming here for an explanation, is justified too, and in turn Jytdog supplies three diffs: "Guy, your POV is showing. Rein it in, please." is probably a violation of NPA in content and tone, though it's mild; "You don't see it because you're focused on..." is probably technically a violation but meh; and "I think Breitbart is hiring writers", which I assume means "you are a writer for Breitbart" is really a terrible accusation (it's worse than being accused of eating children or cat shit, in my opinion), but it's followed by a mildly disarming smiley face. (Participants here are warned that using humor in fiery discussions is verboten, per ArbCom ukase no. 47.) Atsme, your responding with a list of your own accusations against Jytdog is a textbook example of -- I forgot the name of the rhetorical move, but it's not relevant. If Jytdog is evil, that doesn't mean you're not. I'd ping jps but typing out that name is not recommended above 40--that particular claim of ownership is so mild that "blatant violation of WP:OWN" is silly. I don't know what avenue for progress there is for this mess, but wikilawyering isn't one of them. Atsme, it would be wise to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that those comments were, well, not OK. Saying "he did it too and worse" or "but they were mean to me so I said it" doesn't take away from that. Jytdog, that's a pretty long list, and while I haven't checked them (all), there may be a learning moment in it for you as well, maybe just a teensy-tine one. As for the fringe: good luck. Hmm...almost March...ArbCom is in the air...glad I didn't run... Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing, for clarity sake: that I think they're mild doesn't mean I think they're OK. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your remarks, . I noted above that i had already stricken or self-reverted most of what she cites there, before she cited them.  i agree that it would have been better had i not written them, which is why i struck or self-reverted them.  I do appreciate feedback and will keep what you wrote in mind. Thanks again.  Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The informal fallacy I think you were looking for,, is tu quoque. jps (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For your corrections to the changes I made on the Niall Mellon‎ article. The Irish Times is a much better source. 79616gr (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sure! Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

GMO articles
I just happened upon your discussion in GMO articles. I was in particular, quite interested to read this:


 * I have done a lot of work on this suite of articles over the past few months. When I came upon them, they were a real mess. By "mess" I mean things like:
 * (i) the same matter was discussed across all these pages. At great length, sometimes verbatim but often one stretching out randomly in X direction and another in Y direction. Most of the overlapping material concerned the controversy - namely, people emphasizing studies, especially from the Seralini group, that endeavored to show that GM food is very risky and regulators as not being strict enough.
 * (ii) the same study would be cited three or more times in a given article, described differently and with the reference formatted differently, making it appear that there were many more studies than there actually were.
 * (iii) there was not a lot of actual content. For instance there was really nothing about how farmers use GM crops or why they matter to farmers. But farmers are the ones actually buying the GM seed and using them. And the GM food article, remarkably, said almost nothing about what food you find in the store is GM. Again, remarkable.
 * I think that the articles were messy for three reasons:
 * a) fact: there is a set of people, anti-GM people, who are emotional about these issues. They are worried and angry and want other people to be motivated to help change the current system. (I still don't know much about the demographics or size of that group. Something on my "to-research" list)
 * b) fact: There are a few "segments" of material, each of which is fairly complex in and of itself, that read on each other, again in complex ways. The 'segments' can be divided up as the articles are -- the underlying science (genetic engineering article); broad examples of application of genetic enginering (GMO article); agriculture (GM Crops); what you actually might eat (GM Food), regulation of GMOs and food (regulation), and the whole controversy (which touches on all those and more).
 * c) judgement by me: a lot of the people (not all!) who are the most emotional, and most motivated to edit wikipedia, especially in what I call 'drive by" editing (don't have a logon but edit from an IP address, one or two times maybe) are also (gulp) ignorant about a lot of the complex matter. I don't mean "ignorant" pejoratively, just that they don't know stuff and I don't think they care to know. (see iii above) There is also a lot of half truth "information" about these matters that is passed around in that community. For example, much online discussion of Monsanto vs Schmeiser is wrong - and was wrong in several places in Wikipedia.
 * Therefore, when I cleaned these articles up by separating matter, getting NPOV sources, editing POV text to make it NPOV, etc, I tried to also signal very very explicitly to readers and editors what they could expect to find in a given article. This is to try to help prevent readers from expecting to find -- or wanting to add -- something about environmental damage from GM Crops in the article on GM Foods. The way things are configured now, nothing about environmental pros or cons of GM crops belongs in the GM food article, because that article is about actual GM food - the stuff you eat. What is GM food, exactly? That is what you should have learned after reading the GM article. And you should know that there are articles on other, complicated matters, that you need to read as well if you want to understand the whole picture.
 * I realize that this explicit guiding language is not normal wiki style. But because of the above, I think is essential to retain these explicit guideposts. Otherwise the articles will moosh back together again.
 * Two regular wiki editors, arc de ciel, and aircorn, have also raised concerns about this as well -- see User_talk:Jytdog#CommentJytdog (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly helps me better understand where you are coming from and why you have such a heavy investment in the articles and can be fairly protective of any changes to them. I doubt some of the others were aware of this and misattributed and misunderstod the purposes of the execution of the goals you described above:  When they saw major overhauls that became more industry friendly, they made accusations that you worked for the industry. (I do think your edits have been more industry friendly than GMO critic friendly, but that's a separate matter, I didn't come here discuss. I imagine you would defend all those changes as justified asserting that the original language was too GMO critic friendly, or lacked appropriate RS, etc.)

It might be help if when someone comes onto any of these pages and starts making changes or recommendations to tell them up front how much time you put into the articles and the goals you have had for them, past problems and concerns and the desire not to repeat these problems, that you hope to be able to work together to achieve these goals if they are agreeable. It might still be a bit heavy handed, but I think it would help them understand your resistance to changes in the article, especially resistance when someone is trying to do a better job of presenting the GMO critics concerns.

Some of the things you wrote above, especially some of the initial concerns, are something I have seen in quite a few articles on Wikipedia that make articles difficult to read, confusing, difficult to use and easy to get bored with:
 * (a) bizarre outline structure
 * (b) lack of any sensible flow of material and/or narrative
 * (c) unnecessary redundancy
 * (d) pieces of information thrown together that have no logical connection to each other.
 * (e) overlapping material in related articles that would be better be briefly summarized with a simple note "For more on this subject:  See _______________".
 * (f) lack of important information
 * (g) because of (a)-(f), I have often spent time going to an articles on a subject I am unfamiliar with (I'm not talking about GMO's but in general) looking for certain information I expect might there and could not find it, but wondered it was there and I needed look more, but I didn't know where to look in the article because it was so badly organized and filled with fluff, and the writing was so bad, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing to see if it was there.   Now in one GMO case, with the Séralini article, I didn't realize the citation for the republished study was already in the footnotes, because it wasn't in the logical place one would expect to find it.  Call me paranoid, but I thought that was because the industry didn't want anyone to see it!  Now I think that might be better explained by the CHAOS you described above!
 * (h) large stretches of writing with NO citations.  That is a problem with the John Paul Jones article I am starting to work on.  I probably get more irritated than most with that.  Living in a conservative area, I am used to people telling me certain things are absolutely true which I know are not true, and then when I ask them to give me ANY reliable reference that backs up their claim, they won't, and say "Google it".  When I have done this, an hour later, I can't find a single Google hit that says whatever they claim--likely they misread whatever it was they had reported to me or put their own mistaken and hopeful spin on it.  So now, I won't Google it for them, and they say, "No. the burden is on you to prove me wrong."  I say "No. If you want to say something that I know to be b.s., you give me the source.  Not my job to prove what I now is highly doubtful.  If you think something I say is untrue, I'll give you a source" and usually I do without their even having to ask--as if I was sending them a Wikipedia article!  They of course don't like that either.  Can't win with them!!  :-)  Sorry for the digression...

Anyway, I think we might be able to see eye-to-eye with a number of the goals you describe above.

David Tornheim (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. One of the reasons I thought the articles had many of the negative qualities you described, was that I thought the GMO industry was trying to make the articles confusing, disorienting, uninteresting, etc. so that people couldn't learn about the concerns. (Call me paranoid! :-)) Now I think you are right it is because random "drive by" editors don't have a commitment to making the whole article read well and put some random thing in their they think is missing. In fact, this is one of the reason my focus has been in the lede--the rest was too hard for me to get through.  It just seems like a hodge-podge of random stuff to be honest.  I have some recommendations on how that can be vastly improved -and- maintain NPOV.  I was trying to keep people from getting turned off in the first two or three paragraphs thinking it was written by the industry. David Tornheim (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So fun to watch you work through the history. being born is like walking into the middle of a movie; ditto starting to work on a mature article in WP. (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * indeed, it's fun to find these, and a bit like trying to solve a mystery, although sometimes it's very tedious and some things like that I wish I had known much earlier on and would have given me a very different way to view edits I may disagree with. :-)  David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But I have to object to some of what you say above..
 * a) i don't own the articles. (from Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I know and know that is not really permitted in Wikipedia, but I think some of the GMO critics feel you act as if you do, that there is a fatherly treatment of them--which is not all bad--leadership is very important. Your interactions with editors remind me of my interactions with students when I was a teacher.David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i am aware that people have said that... and people say all kinds of things in WP when they don't get what they want. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * True! David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of work on the GMO suite but it was done in conversation and collaboration with other editors who did a lot of work before and after i arrived on the scene. Not a solo effort by a mile. (from Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes, I saw that. One of the concerns I have is that such collaboration is not unlike the "canvassing" you had accused me of.  If the people you are most able to work with as a team share the same non-neutral POV (and those that hold a different POV are alienated), then the article will reflect that.  I believe that is indeed the case (I imagine you disagree), and that is why there was so much drama and accusations of COI, and why I was very hesitant to make an appearance on the page without first understanding talking to those who felt alienated from the team of collaborators who shared the same POV on the article.  Again, you likely don't see the work of the collaborators as non-neutral POV, but people who understand the GMO critics' concerns definitely do and it upsets them--it upsets me too! But I'm getting used to it and will not let it interfere with collaborating with you!  (This issue will likely keep coming up and will likely be part of our biggest disagreement on the articles; so far, I think we have been learned to be civil with each other and gain mutual respect, but I expect there will be future conflict between us on this issue--and I think both of us see the potential for trouble, but rather than prepare for conflict, we gaining rapport and are willing to open up and find common ground and trust so we can work together productively even though we don't see eye-to-eye on this issue.)
 * I think many of your fellow editors are scientists, and scientists bring a particular non-neutral POV to articles--if this is not obvious, that may be hard for me to prove or convince you of (if you want me to try, I will but that will not be easy to do). This is part of the issue, and will be an underlying part of the disagreements over content (even though it may not be explicitly stated as such).  For example, The debate about "mixing" vs. "contamination" involved that exact problem (not stated, but clearly evident to me), where the editor wanting the watered down language felt it was justified not based upon what was in the cited source but based upon "the science" at least "the science" as that person understood it--injecting their own bias which is OR.  I think that editor mistakenly thought that was okay, because science is a higher "truth" even than RS!  It can be a bit like Christians talking about "truth" in the Bible--where the "truth" there trumps everything else, definitely including science.  So overemphasis on science as the one and only "truth" (or a "higher truth") is itself a kind of Ideology among scientists,  until I started to study the humanities, philosophy, literature, etc., and saw science is definitely only one kind of "truth".  Science is best for something like physics, but gets into trouble when ethics, values, social and cultural norms, politics, etc. comes up, which is why Psychology is so often referred to as a "pseudo-science".  I honestly think literature is more valuable at understanding ordinary psychology than the Psychology classes I took!  I look at some of their studies (at least as reported in the less than reliable mainstream media)  and am baffled by the experimental design and the assertions made after the study about things like 'happiness'--often their investigation and assumptions going into the studies are both amazingly superficial and often incorrect, and hence the studies are a waste of money and time.  David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not canvassing. The discussions happened on article Talk pages or boards.  not on user talk pages.
 * I disagree that the articles fail NPOV. NPOV  doesn't mean we represent all views equally.  It means that we give WP:WEIGHT to the relevant mainstream view - and in a science-based topic, that is the mainstream scientific view.  We have a Public Perception section (topmost in the article) to discuss  public perception.   With regard to "contaminated" vs "mixed", as I wrote on the article Talk page, the lead is a bit messed up, as what is discussed there is not discussed in the body, and i am thinking about how to fix that.  I haven't decided yet what is the best way to handle that bit of the lead, which is why I haven't weighed in on the debate going on, on the Talk page.  I'll not go too much deeper into this, as detailed discussion belongs on the article Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))


 * b) the notion that i would somehow introduce myself to new editors and explain my history there to them is ... well... wrong-headed wikipedia-wise and icky, in my view. first it is way too much about contributor not content.  second, i know that i don't own the articles and that i have no intrinsic authority over them.  i have to justify whatever changes i make per PAG, every day, just like the next editor.
 * i may somehow loom really large over those articles in your eyes, but i have been engaging with you by far the most, especially off the article Talk page. some of the other editors have already engaged with you on the article Talk page and you will see more folks, if you keep working on these articles. and you'll see that editors working there have various perspectives on things.


 * with regard to your ideas about improving the articles, i look forward to reading your thoughts on that, over at the article Talk pages.


 * thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * My comments are intertwined in your above text.David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC) David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * responded within. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * You had said "i am aware that people have said that... and people say all kinds of things in WP when they don't get what they want. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)". True!  David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above about canvassing and introducing yourself as an editor:
 * I have noticed that you do introduce yourself to new editors--as you did with me--and that interaction especially with those that have GMO concerns has a negative ring to it, with a kind of "it looks like you are about to change the article in a way that is unacceptable, break some rules or already have and now I'm going to set you straight before you find out the hard way just how powerful I the experienced user is, and you the novice are not. So back down before I make things very unpleasant for you." (<yes, exaggeration.)  That's the message I got from you when I started, which even Sunrise noticed.  And if you look again at what Viriditas wrote here, that's the same way he read it too.


 * An example I discovered early on in my research was when user Alexlikescats  raised questions about NPOV of the article here  at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)  and   107.2.182.250(talk)  agreed and then took it a step further  saying that Monsanto's “goons” had destroyed the article and turned it into an 'informercial' (with no evidence proving these harsh allegation).    I could imagine this later allegation could be upsetting if you felt it referred to your work where you tried to be NPOV.  However, I think there is much truth to what  Alexlikescats said even if it is not tied back to Monsanto and/or COI having too much influence over the article.  I am not bring this up about Alexlikescats to convince you that there is an NPOV problem or to convince you that Alexlikescats position is correct.  I already know you disagree.  That disagreement on NPOV we should discuss on the talk page.  I'm still working on preparing my case for that, but was illustrating a very minor example of it on "contaminated" vs. "mixed." (and I agree with you, that we should discuss that one there).  Now back to what happened with Alexlikescats...


 * When Alexlikescats raised the NPOV issue, besides responding on the GMO talk page, you immediately engaged the editor on his/her talk page, first with the standard welcome at 22:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC) and  then at 22:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)  (only 32 minutes after the user had spoken about NPOV):


 * Hi Alexlikescats
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. While this is indeed an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there are actually a lot of policies, guidelines, and customs that guide what we do here - it is not a wild west. So far, all your edits have been on one article, and so your account is what we call a "single-purpose account". Please have a look at the link I just provided you, and please consider what it says there. We always want more folks to edit wikipedia, but there is a lot to learn, and it is a bad idea (on a bunch of levels) to start a dispute when you are just getting started and don't understand how things work yet. It is a recipe for unhappiness for you, other editors with whom you will interact, and it doesn't improve the encyclopedia, which is why are are here. So please - slow down, learn how things work, and hold off on making accusations and starting disputes until you better understand the relevant policies and guidelines, and the ways we interact with one another. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That was the last thing the User did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.   This is another example of what Viriditas likely meant by “poisoning the well” here.  I *do* think that is a problem, and it is similar to canvassing, creating a POV bias against GMO critics by scaring them off like this...   My phrase for this is “disappearing” users and their reasonable dissent (a phrase that is indeed an exaggeration referring to what happened in Argentina.  If you are not familiar with the "Dirty War" people who were "disappeared" are described here; Viriditas phrase is certainly much kinder!).  Alexlikecats and his/her criticism have indeed both disappeared from easy view and are difficult to find unless you look hard like I did.  This fact makes it look like the article is being scrubbed of certain opinions (reasonable dissent), POV that controlling editors don't want to see in the article.  So, I do feel that the way you treated me initially and how you treated Alexlikescats is a form of canvassing.  And I'm trying to make suggestions so that when you do engage with the new editors it won't add to the problem any more than the problem that you had accused me of.  I had considered responding in kind when you made the accusation about canvassing, but I was trying to avoid things getting too heated.  I should note that your allegations of canvassing against me are still on the talk page, but I have not brought your behavior I described there to the page, even though it has in my opinion and others, indeed been a problem.  I hope my telling you about this doesn't interfere with our cooperation.  David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing all this to my attention. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to help new editors figure out how Wikiepdia works and I think that is a good thing. It is 'not canvassing.  As I have done with you, I strive to avoid discussing article content outside of article Talk pages and boards.  I will keep in mind how someone might take my efforts going forward. In light of what you have said here I believe it is best if we stop talking off the article Talk page.  I am unwilling to risk being perceived as canvassing (no canvassing is an important WP policy, and important to me) and you are clearly taking it that way, and I also don't want you to feel intimidated. See you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've striken what I wrote to you. it was unwise for me to have engaged with you like this.  I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion
Thanks! I guess my undo didn't save!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * :) so much vandalism all the time, i totally understand what just happened. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback from bella.me
hi - thanks for your feedback on organic certification - i will go back and put in more links right now Bella.me.organic (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * great, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Antidepressant
hi jeatdog (sorry for my english) yes my "source" was french. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/fr/d/Js4896e/9.html "To avoid the association with dependence, an increasing number of researchers have used a different term, discontinuation syndrome, instead of withdrawal syndrome. The number of hits for discontinuation syndrome in searches of the international medical literature began to increase, relative to the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome, in 1997 after a symposium on antidepressant discontinuation syndrome held in 1996." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_dependence&oldid=647840566 "SSRI drugs, which have an important use as antidepressants, are considered to cause physical dependence, although it is considered mild compared to drugs like opioids and GABA modulators, but they engender a discontinuation syndrome, which was originally called "SSRI withdrawal" until a 1997 symposium sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly (the producers of several anti-depressants including Prozac and Effexor) was held, with the drug representative attendees concluding that "discontinuation syndrome" sounded less threatening than "withdrawal"
 * you revert a modification i had made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antidepressant&diff=648986292&oldid=648978820
 * i have seen the source exist in english too. lucky we are.
 * ok it is not written elli lily or pfizer. because it was a sentence i found in this version.

and steppi333 had {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_dependence&diff=647844370&oldid=647840566 revert this] because no source. (and perhaps because the end of the sentence:"with the drug representative attendees concluding that "discontinuation syndrome" sounded less threatening than "withdrawal". i have a source, and i have revert the problematic end of the sentence. what the problem? Vatadoshu (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * please discuss on the article Talk page. I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)