User talk:Jytdog/Archive 12

Abuse of warning
You are hereby advised that your accusation of canvassing at my TP April 5, 2015 and at the user's TP April 5, 2015 was inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of warning. As I explained to you here April 5, 2015, my efforts were about collaboration. You also need to evaluate your own behavior because it is certainly beginning to smell like hounding. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the notice wasn't abuse. if you do only contact one side of a content dispute, that is canvassing.  maybe you are not done notifying people about the essay and intend to content people on all sides of the discussions at Naturopathy; if you did or do that, that would not be canvassing.  you will do as you will. (btw I watch Gudzwabofer‎'s page, as i have had lots of discussions with him; your edit popped up on my watchlist - no hunting or hounding involved.  Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was abuse. I am following guidelines, per Collaborations.  My invitation reads: Hi, Gudz (hope the nickname is ok), I am working on improving the following essay, WP:COIducks, and during my research to find areas of behavioral conflict, I ended up at Talk:Naturopathy where I read some of your posts. Since CAM, integrative and alternative medicine are mentioned in the essay, would you be so kind as to give it a read, and offer any suggestions at the essay's TP? Thx in advance.  My response to the questions and comments preceding it further proves my course of action as inviting collaboration:   Evidentiary material can be easily researched, some of which can be found in the archives of AN, ANI, ARBCOM, AE, and on numerous TPs of related topics. It's all there for your perusal as it was for me. Just curious, do you think it is not an issue?  One way to gage stability and issues with an article is to check traffic history, disputes, reverts/undos, edit warring, stability of an article, etc.  I have no clue why you would accuse me of canvassing.  Stop it.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * we seem to disagree here. i do hope you notify other editors at Naturopathy of this essay, as they are also knowledgeable about that topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, it looks to me as if you repeatedly deny the clearly, civilly, and appropriately expressed concerns of other editors by accusing them of "abuse."  SPECIFICO  talk  20:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No worry, Jytdog. I finally have a collaborator, and good one to boot!!  He added some really nice touches to the essay.  It looks great.  Question - since the essay is sort of an extension of COI guidelines, shouldn't the participants in the survey claim or acknowledge their COI statements if they have one on their UP?  Since the essay is about identifying problem areas of COI, every participant in the survey with a COI statement needs to disclose it, including you according to the guidelines, right?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "sort of an extension of COI guidelines" ← no, it's a user essay with no guideline weight whatsoever. Even so, it's so toxic it is (deservedly) going to get deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone has a COI they should disclose it yes, and that would go for me too. Why do you ask? Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloke walks into "the Ferret and Dramaboard" pub and says "What's the difference between a COI and a COI statement?" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so if they have already published a COI statement on their UP, and they participate in an article where there may be a COI, are they supposed to indicate they have a published COI statement (like a link) somewhere in the discussion, or in the edit summary, or ???? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The boardtender replies, one is true the other may not be. SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The very hard issue is determining what is true about whether someone has a COI. We have no way on WP to know for sure. People even lie about being someone who would have a conflict. -see the recent history of Natalie Morales‎ - someone was impersonating her.  There is a real epistemological problem here - "we see through a glass darkly"  if you want to work on COI issues in WP, you need to take that very seriously.  Ditto OUTING and everything it stands for (which is deep in the guts of WP) Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * now i understand your question. There are two levels to this - Terms of Use per, and COI more generally.  The Terms of Use are very explicit, about where you need to make disclosures if you are editing for pay.  Doing any one of those, satisfies the ToU.  In practice, we have been trying to get folks to disclose both on their User page, so we have a central location to see everything so we can better audit, and on the Talk page of the relevant article (we do that, with the "connected contributor" template).  I have to note here, that although the ToU is a legal contract, there is no consensus in WP to take them as policy, and Arbcom has said that because there is no consensus to take it as policy, they will not act on ToU violations, as Arbcom cannot itself make policy.    For matters that fall outside the ToU (COi without paid editing) it is murkier.  What COI actually says, is "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question".   COI is "just" a guideline, but people that part of it pretty seriously.  I am not aware of anyone getting blocked for refusing to do that, though.
 * *broader note... b/c COI is not policy and working on it steps very close to OUTING, it needs to be handled thoughtfully, with discretion, and by persuasion more than with a stick. People with a COI who have action taken against them here, have that action taken on the basis of violations of policies or guidelines that are very near to being policy, like MEDRS.   In my experience (and while i have a lot it is not exhaustive) most editors want to be "good".  You can work with folks like that, and the work  is persuading them of the goodness of complying with COI.  It can be done.  Conflicted editors who don't care about WP, end up getting swiftly indeffed for policy violations.  Super recent example (just this morning) check out User talk:David Coburn MEP and that user's contribs, and you will see what I mean.  There are cases like wifione, though... those are hard.
 * *all that said, editors who really want to be transparent (a sign of a good Wikipedian), include a link to their COI declarations in their signatures, to make it super easy to see and avoid the problem of people ever not knowing about it and being upset about that. This is really the best practice.  Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jytdog, just wanted to thank you for your further attempts to reason with said user about Russ Martin. As you can see, I tried to be nice to him and explain in detail on my talk page. Sadly he responded with personal attacks. Hopefully he will come around. Best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sure.. advocacy is similar to COI and i deal with the latter a lot. happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would probably argue he does have a conflict of interest. He actually admitted to being a donor to the subject's foundation, which is pretty stark to me. Anyways, that's beside the point. Let's see how it plays out. Fingers crossed things will calm down now. -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  10:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * COI gets thrown around too loosely - it has a specific meaning in WP. If you haven't read them and thought about them, please do read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI.  Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia since June 2010. I'm well aware of Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." I would reasonably say that a donor to a foundation who is clearly editing in a bias manner does exhibit a conflict of interest. Anyways, as I previously said, I think this is beside the point. Let's just see how things pan out, and hope this editor sees some sense. All the best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you and i agree that he is an advocate and that this is a problem. we don't need to agree on the COI part, i reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Let's just keep our eyes on this. -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  10:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus / Medications
User jytdog, Why do you think it is edit war on medications? I am adding useful information to the section with reliable references. You want the section to talk about anti-inflammatory drug Aspirin but not an oral anti-hyperglycemic, Sulphonyl urea, why ? I am, to say the least, intrigued. Although there is a long separate article on anti-diabetic medications, I believe, we have to make some mention of different classes of medication on this page too. Please tell me what your specific objections are ? You removed, uncited text, fine but now I have included information from peer reviewed journals with citations? Is there anything that I have missed ? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * replied at talk page. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning about your incivility...
Per my comment here you have been warned. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * please tell me what I wrote that was incivil there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All of it. Just start striking the entire post because it is filled with unsupported allegations: .  I have grown weary of you discrediting me and making it appear as though I support a drug that is banned by the FDA.  That accusation alone is actionable because it is based only on your incorrect assumptions which are totally unsupported by the diffs.  For example, the natural news link was a RS to cite for content in Griffin's book, and has nothing to do with what I support or believe.  Griffin wrote the freaking book, not me.  You seem to have a problem understanding what makes a source reliable; i.e. how it is used.  The passages I wrote at Griffin (that you reverted) focused on the author and his books.  I took a biographical approach to what was written in his books including his views and motivations.  Per BLP: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. FYI, WP:FRINGEBLP further confirms it.  Let me be clear for the umpteenth time, I am not promoting laetrile, and if you don't strike your false allegations, you best start compiling some diffs.  I've asked you politely on numerous occasions to please stop making false allegations and to stop policing me.   We are allowed to write about an author's views, especially his most controversial ones, and we shouldn't have to contend with other editors creating false impressions that we support those views.  You need to stop it now, Jytdog.  I have run out of options and don't know how else to stop your bad behavior short of ARBCOM.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * policing you? i have no idea what you mean. i avoid you as much as i can.  Ok you have now made it clear that you object to me saying that you were promoting laetrile.  Let me see if i actually wrote. If i did, i will strike that.  Thanks for clarifying. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * so what I actually wrote on SV's page, was "In that article, you been trying for months now to remove MEDRS-sourced content critical of the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment, and instead to write more positive content based on sources like naturalnews.com. " I think that is an accurate description.  I also wrote there, "'l'll end this by noting that the promotion of amygdalin as a cancer treatment is actually called quackery in the reliable biomedical literature (PMID 219680). There is quacking here, but it is not financial, but rather advocacy for FRINGE medicine."    If you read that carefully, I did not say that you were promoting laetrile.  I didn't intend to say that you were, and I am sorry that you read it that way.
 * i didn't see anything about you promoting laetrile in my reply to at SV's page either.
 * in the deletion discussion, i originally wrote "This specific realization of that idea, is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP", which I later amended to say " appears to me to be is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP". . Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * completely out of left field... i bowed out of the Griffin article in reaction to your trying to edit war in, the edits to the article that Alexbrn linked to, on SV's page. I re-read that edit you made.  The content about laetrile (commenting only on that part) is actually not bad.  No naturalnews.com or other flakey sources.  if the tenor of the relationship among editors on the Talk page would change, I could see the article ending up not ~too~ far from there.  But on the other hand, even the in the current RfC you are still arguing to include content like that on the MSKCC website... so i guess your perspective hasn't changed that much.. and arguing for that, really is arguing for FRINGE, against MEDRS.   I had actually amended what I wrote on the basis of the edit Alexbrn linked to, but due to the stance you are still taking at RfC, I just undid that. I am comfortable with what i wrote.   Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your view and agree with the principal of MEDRS as it relates specifically to the substance or drug, but not with its misapplication as it relates to biographical material about an author, including why that chose to write about a particular topic, which is what was censored in Griffin based on MEDRS. If information about the author is RS (which includes self-published material about himself) it should not be censored based on the assumption that MEDRS applies to every single statement in a BLP.  In fact, FRINGEBLP guidelines which includes how it applies to BLP policy actually supports mention of such topics as long as it is not given undue.  Allowing editors to censor an author's literary work is neither NPOV, nor is it an encyclopedic approach to writing biographies.  To begin, there is a disclaimer about laetrile in the introduction of the book. Griffin wrote about the substance based on what was published by medical authorities and scientists who were mainstream at the time but were subsequently disproven.  I cited published academic papers as well as scientific papers about that controversy all of which were deleted as were other RS including what is published today regarding the way ACS and NIH approaches the topic. The BLP begs to be updated and expanded with balanced, NPOV, RS biographical material.


 * I think one of the most important things we must guard against is the profound censorship of important information relevant to the overall context of an article, especially when the purpose of doing so is to push a particular POV. It is an egregious act and challenges the very nature of the project's encyclopedic intent. Censorship not only short changes our readers from acquiring information that should be included, it may also pave the way for a BLP to become a coatrack or attack page.  In Griffin's situation, the BLP appears to be nothing short of a coatrack for the purpose of condemning laetrile (which should be sourced to updated reports by the FDA, ACS, and NIH), but at the same time, censorship should not prevent the author's views from being included which were cited by other RS. Did POV advocacy play a role in censoring the author's political beliefs?  Was FRINGE misapplied to justify censoring everything else relating to the author's views from a biographical perspective?  Ironically, the answers depend on one's POV.  I also don't think WP:IAR should apply to a BLP.


 * As long as the relative PAGs are vague, COI and advocacy issues will continue as will the TE and incivility born of those topics. It is not about whether you or I disagree. It is about finding resolve through clarity and NPOV.  Advocacy poisons the well, and to quote Davis, conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge".  How can one realistically eliminate all doubt about an individual's intent if they are a self-proclaimed "quack buster" or "skeptic"?  From a political bent, what about those who proclaim their dislike for progressives and liberals or vice versa via the use of polemic user boxes or otherwise proclaim their political leaning, alma mater, sports team, etc.? It would be foolish to expect liberals to not collaborate on articles about conservatism because it creates a COI...unless they are on the payroll of George Soros, and the same would apply in reverse to conservatives on the payroll of the Koch Bros.  How do we prevent unpaid advocacy groups from pushing their agendas in situations where they simply outnumber us and are perceived to reflect the views of the community, regardless of whether fewer but more experienced editors perceive it to be noncompliant with NPOV?  What solutions do you propose to seasoned editors who recognize that BLP vios exist as do NPOV vios in other articles but can't/won't do anything about it because of the COI duck behaviors described in the essay?

PS: Regarding your response above about your disparaging remarks, I totally disagree, and have made note of your response. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just two questions for starters:
 * 1) who, working at the Griffin article, do you believe has a COI?
 * 2) what leads you to think that? Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No one - it would surprise the hell out of me if any editor who insists on adding antiquated contentious labels in Wiki voice such as "quackery" and "conspiracy theorist" which are sourced to Popular Paranoia, Media Matters and 30+ year old journal article is on anyone's payroll. SMirC-smile.svg
 * My concerns are more about POV and the overall weight of the article. Just read it - the proof is in the pudding.  Review the edit history and you will see the most recent edits by a long standing, experienced biography editor (whose experience probably outdates all of us together) made mention of the article's noncompliance with BLP policy.  <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  19:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of edit warring
Please dont jump down my throat and accuse me of edit warring just because i do a single revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropathic_pain&diff=655380815&oldid=655380571

I see on you talk page you have been accused of incivility on previous occasions.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i have made no false accusations. you added content, i reverted, you reverted without discussion. That is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * People do single edit reverts all the time. It is not edit warring. Are you for real ?--Penbat (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * reverting a revert is editing warring. please read WP:EDITWARRING. if you edit war 3 times it is actionable.  but the prior ones are already edit warring, yes. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes but there are thousands of single reverts every day. You dont have to make a big deal of it and start world war 3.--Penbat (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I also gave a lengthy edit comment explaining why I made the single revert.--Penbat (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

single dealer
Hi again JYtdog. As per our discussion on March 19th, would you have time to look at the two pages Single dealer platforms and Paul Caplin? I note they still have warnings at the top of them, and this really detracts from some great content in there. Would you have time in the next day or so to review these in an effort to get these pages back to a non-warning status? Your efforts are very much appreciated. Kind regards, JenniferJennifermaitland (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, will try. many balls in the air right now. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog, I appreciate it. I would just like those pages back to being sound pieces of info and once that is done I will propose some additions that I think will be helpful to single dealer platforms. A lot of students use the page so having it warning free would be a big help. Appreciate you're very busy though! Jennifermaitland (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Jytdog - I wonder if I you'll have time to look at this before we head in to Easter weekend? I would really appreciate that. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog - if you don't have time to do a clean up of these pages, can you suggest or nominate another wikipedia user who can? I am happy to reciprocate by reviewing and cleaning up any other pages that might be on your list. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog - hope you are well. Are you monitoring your talk page? I am still waiting to hear about the pages Single Dealer Platform and Paul Caplin as per our discussion on March 19th. They still appear with warnings. Is there another editor who can do a clean up if you do not have time? kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jennifer, you didn't answer Jytdogs question on March 19th, and so he has acted as such. If you want this sorted out, you need to answer the question on your Talk page first. Having seen the totality of your edits to both pages, this should be easily sorted out, but only if you engage with Jytdog. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Roxy the dog. Jytodoc and I have actually talked extensively about it (if you take a look at my talk page) and we left it that he would try to take a look at it over the weekend after March 19th, but so far just hasn't been able to get around to it. If there are outstanding questions I am more than happy to answer them, but I just understand at this point what they might be. Kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should read your Talk page again. I read it twice. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Jennifer, I was wrong. I've just seen the long section on your Talk, below the initial section where Jdog and yourself had an exchange. I hadn't realised the conversation went on to another section which I didn't initially read. I think that the issue has become a little overdone as far as your edits are concerned, but JD has appeared to be totally snowed under with stuff recently, and this may have escaped him. Unless Jytdog objects, I may remove those tags myself later on. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks Roxy the dog. I know he's very snowed under. Basically my concern are the big tags at the top of the articles. If there is stuff in the articles that still needs to be removed I certainly don't mind, but I'd just like to see the articles get back to looking more valid and without those tags as they are a valuable resource with some of the only non-biased information out there (you'll see that any other article referencing single dealer platform is usually on a big bank's website, and all the other stuff about Paul Caplin is to sell music). Happy to help in any way I can with clean ups of other pages if anyone needs a hand with anything. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog. You've been busy, so I thought I'd deal with this. Feel free to double check, but I've just removed tags from articles, left them on Talk pages, and 'consulted' Jennifer (also the name of one of my daughters) to take baby steps, ask us questions if she wants, and enjoy. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * super nice of you to do that. the key thing is that the COI tag should not come off until after you have reviewed the article for NPOV. if you have done that and are OK with what you find, it is great to take off the tag.  i'll assume you did!  so thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll go back and make that point clear. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly resent your COI claim
User_talk:Penbat. I have neuropathic pain and have researched about a dozen different possible treatments. Scrambler device recently came to my attention and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia article for it so i thought it was worth doing. Pleaee withdraw your smear immediately.--Penbat (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking a question is not a smear, and it would be best if you actually said "yes" or "no" to the questions I asked there. You do not answer yes or no, even here.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For this, starting an AFD and my previous complaint about calling a single revert edit warring you seem to be totally hyper in all respects, starting world war three on any excuse.--Penbat (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am really offended you thought there was a COI. I have no idea why you thought so.--Penbat (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the bottom of User:Penbat it says: Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. To my knowledge there has never ever been any activity in any way related to acrambler devices in the UK whatsoever.--Penbat (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You did more than just ask me a question. You started by dumping a dirty great big official Wiki COI template on my talk page. I had already taken the trouble to engage on the scrambler device talk page which you seemed to take no notice of. --Penbat (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Penbat, Jytdog and others experienced with dealing with COI here don't engage in smear campaigns, but ask very pointed questions to reach a resolution and to avoid drama about it. The template is there to help guide editors through the various guidelines we have related to the topic, not as some form of punishment. When an editing pattern like yours suggests there may be a COI, it's perfectly normal for someone to ask very basic questions to address that. If you don't have a COI, all you simply would have needed to do was clarify that and it wouldn't have come up in the conversation at all anymore. COI questions like Jytdog posed can be wrapped up quickly and without drama rather easily, which is exactly how we're supposed to handle questions about COI. There's no need to be offended at the way it was handled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm completely lost why it was thought there was a COI.--Penbat (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While I'm certain that you (i.e. King of Faces) and Jydog meant no offense, and are, from long familiarity, entirely desensitized to how someone seeing this coming at them for the first time might see it, notice that the template begs the question of COI almost entirely: it assumes the guilty bastard is guilty, as we used to say in the army. You have convenient examples of different forms of conflict of interest listed, but skip over the important option of pleading not guilty.  It's as though you discuss wife-beating, list various examples of the practice, and end with a questionnaires about when or whether you've quit.


 * The same clues that point to a hit-and-run commercial editor often equally point to a good-faith editor who's found the first subject they feel they have something new to say about, no? Anmccaff (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As well as the COI template, Jytdogs text seemed to be from a parallel universe https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penbat&oldid=655383862. He stated as a fact: "Your account is what we call a "single purpose account" (see WP:SPA)" - if he had taken a few seconds to look at User:Penbat he would know that scrambler therapy is actually way out of my usual sphere of interest which is psychology. He also wanted to know if i was "a scientist that worked on developing it, a clinician who tested it, an employee or founder of a company selling devices to administer it or that administers it, or someone hired by any of those." - no my interest is psychology.--Penbat (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * we are having discussions about what a paid editor looks like, elsewhere in WP. Here are some signs that you are showing:
 * brand new account, but editor is very familiar with Wikipedia (for example, your claim here about how people edit "all the time". It would be strange for someone who had never edited before to have a sense of that, and you do not disclose any past accounts on your User page.
 * WP:SPA focused only on one product
 * copying content about that product, into several articles.
 * reacts aggressively to nomination of article being deleted. (that is pay day for a paid editor) a new editor, who is here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to one who is WP:NOTHERE, would be somewhat more likely to ask for help, than to become aggressive.
 * does not respond directly to questions asked about COI. (no answer here, answer about something else here.
 * important note. it may be that you are not a paid editor.  it may be, that you are ticking off all the behavioral boxes, and you are really a person with neuropathic pain (which is a terrible condition, and if you have that, i am sorry).  but it would be better for you and for the community, if you respond directly to the question i asked on your Talk page.  It really is important that we manage conflicts of interest in Wikipedia. And straight answers are an important part of that.  Please don't be offended. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * -- also want to note that i goofed when i looked at your contribs, Penbat, and didn't see your much longer contribs. you are VERY much not a SPA, and VERY much not a "brand new user". uncheck both those boxes. Those are two of the key boxes that add up to "paid editing" sorry!! because i got that wrong, the COI question really goes away - i would not have asked, had i gotten those correct.  my apologies again! 22:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But he's a writer of bad articles, like this one, Social undermining, created by him in 2010 that he doesn't fix. And this new one: Legal aspects of workplace bullying. He's created number on the subject of bullying that are mostly made up of links and lists, and the bullying template containing mostly his articles: Bullying which he has ownership over. Another favorite subject is reflected in the template Narcissism. IMO, these just show his knowledge of psychology is just enough to put together unrelated "facts" or terms with no understanding of theories in psychology. (He also takes every opportunity to use the word "fuck" in article titles; see latest article Fit in or fuck off. I don't object to the word, just his many articles with the word in its title. ) I could go on but won't. Just my opinion. And probably, these are mostly harmless if misleading articles. EChastain (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI
FYI: The discussion beginning in Talk:Sherman Skolnick appears to be similar in nature to the one you are having in Talk:The Three Stooges (2012 film). - Location (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I
I don't believe you've been notified, but you're mentioned at a new section at AN/I. Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The omission of the notification is my fault – I offered to do it on behalf of the OP, then stepped away from my machine without waiting for a reply. I'm sorry about that. Since I'm here: I'm sorry to see two editors that I respect at such loggerheads, and hope that calm collaboration and good humour will soon return. Please let me know if there's anything at all I can do to help make that happen. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention...
Despite our past differences, I actually do appreciate the work you do for WP in your area of expertise. Maybe the day will come that we can actually collaborate in harmony but until that day comes, let's do our best to not burn any bridges. Ok? <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  01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sounds good.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

COI ?
Tetramethylhexadecenyl_succinyl_cysteine ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * oh my. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome job on that messy article Jytdog, couldn't have wished for a better outcome. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for bringing it to project med! glad you are ok with it. i am not so sure... Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Transcaval TAVI
Hello Jytdog I request you allow my contributions to remain regarding transcaval TAVI. It appears effective, has been applied in over 90 patients to date, and has been lifesaving in some cases. The text is clear and has a high quality medical reference. I believe it important for patients and physicians to be aware of the alternative to other access techniques described, because lay sources of information are limited and because symptomatic aortic valve stenosis is quite dire without treatment. I'm new to wikipedia so regret if I am not following some appropriate procedure or technique Thank you 216.15.0.209 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! please discuss on the article talk page - you can just copy your message there, and i'll be happy to respond there.  please also read WP:MEDRS and the definitions there - the source you are using is a WP:PRIMARY source.  Please also read our conflict of interest guideline and if you have anything to disclose, please do so at the article Talk page.  (WP is like any scholarly work - you have to disclose COI here too)  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Flame of Peace
Hello Dear Jytdog,

please help to translate the Text in this Article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.174.197 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * would love to help but i don't have bandwidth for that now. lovely organization though! Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Exodus
Please stop undoing my reference-backed changes on The Exodus. Your version only accounts for one perspective, and omits various archaeological evidence and historical commentary to the contrary. My changes offer users exposure to the full breadth of opinion, whereas your version forces--with clear agenda--only one set of opinion. Clearly, your actions lack academic integrity and violate Wikipedia's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neherz123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * glad you have figured out Talk pages! Please bring up your issues at the article Talk pages, so everybody can discuss what you would like to do... i will tee that up for you, actually. just give me two minutes.  (oh, and please sign your posts with four tildas, like this ~ - doing this is described in the welcome message i left on your page.  the wikipedia software turns the four tildas into a "signature" with links to your userpage and the date.   please do read that stuff on your talk page! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on your talk page
As I said at AFD, I don't strongly disagree but I take issue (in the most minor of ways) with the premise that, "Editors who want to cite primary sources and create extensive or strong content based on them are often agenda-driven". Often? Perhaps I edit differently but I know I've included sources in various articles that are borderline primary sources and none of that related to agenda-driving. I edit extensively in areas of history (and very rarely in medicine-related topic areas) and primary sources are almost relied-upon to develop content. I don't consider that "original research" - in 99% of cases I'm simply restating facts from primary sources without commentary - x died on x date, he sailed on x ship, he was appointed to x position. When it comes to notability, there has to be a middle-ground between acknowledging that x number of people have written about something in a manner that substantiates "significant coverage" and acknowledging that some of those people have an agenda in publishing their material such that their coverage shouldn't be considered to confer notability. My point at AFD is that if the subject had been written about extensively in non-medical sources, it would likely be considered notable, regardless of the validity of those sources with regard to MEDRS. MEDRS is not a notability guideline and transferring its overly strict restrictions with regard to primary/secondary sources and tying them into WP:GNG and WP:RS for the purposes of assessing notability seems contrary to the purpose of MEDRS itself. It seems, to me, that guideline was created to restrict editors from making medical claims about subjects without proper sources to verify those claims. The guideline (surely) wasn't created to restrict the depth of medical subjects written about and I can't see that it makes any comment with regard to notability anyway. Anyway, I'm glad someone is talking about it and you've certainly been a good sport about it at AFD so kudos for that.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and my hatting there was not designed to restrict further discussion ("last word" sort of stuff) so please amend as you see fit.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * no what you did was great at the AfD and I appreciate your thoughts! i have to run but will respond more later.  thanks for talking - i really do appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * interesting points. i agree with you that if the device had garnered significant coverage in NYT etc that would make it NOTABLE. I will make that more clear at the AfD. (but if it had reached those kinds of mass media sources, it would likely have been discussed in some secondary source in the biomedical literature too) There are tons of things we could mention in Treatment or Research sections of health-related articles (gazillions of primary sources about many possible things) and reliance on 2ndary sources is really essential there.
 * i hear you, kind of.. on the use of primary sources outside of health. if you don't mind i would be interested in seeing a diff of the kind of use you describe... if you wouldn't mind...
 * i very much hear you about my generalization - i will change by essay/soapbox to refer to my experience in articles about health... thanks for pointing that out! 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest issue is applying the WP:MEDRS definition of "primary source" to a WP:GNG-related discussion about notability which really should use the WP:OR definition of "primary source". Agree they are similar but the WP:MEDRS version includes restrictions that the other doesn't. Referring people to WP:PRIMARY in a AFD about a medical subject doesn't (or shouldn't) carry that much weight because the standard you're suggesting should be applied cannot be derived from that guideline as easily as it can be from the other. That's the fault of WP - maintaining two different versions - but you're seeing in AFDs like this one that others don't necessarily share that view.
 * More than happy to give some examples of non-medical contexts. Perhaps the most well-known (to me) is that of John Bargrave who lived during the 17th century and wrote extensively about his contemporaries - their roles, positions, rises and falls, scandals, marriages, affairs and all manner of things. He lived among those he wrote about - he was highly respected and was free to move among noblemen and women, courtiers, The Vatican, the homes and "palaces" of the well-to-do and gained first-hand knowledge of goings-on. He has been cited extensively (by me and others) with regard to a wide range of subjects, many of which he "participated in" directly. We use his descriptions of people, his opinions of their actions, his responses to their responses and his personal view on a range of issues. We also use his writings as sources for the absolutely mundane (he lived on x street, x met y once, he was appointed to x position, he died on x date). In essence, he functioned as a 17th-century Geraldo Rivera or something but many of his accounts were never intended for publication. My point is that the line isn't always clear. Just like your research scientists, Bargrave's accounts are based on direct personal experiences including personal meetings with those involved as well as analysis of specific situations and his take on the results (eg. he was sent to x as a result of y scandal). But he was respected then and nothing has happened to diminish that since - coverage by him would likely be considered sufficient to confer notability.
 * In the end, surely the fact that those respected independent scientists have elected to conduct that study, research that methodology or product, analyse the results and write about it, confers notability on the subject? They have no personal stake in the success (or otherwise) of the product or methodology, per se. That's the same as a respected independent reviewer writing about a movie they saw or a piece of music they listened to. That's coverage of the subject. Now we don't take that review and (in Wikipedia's voice) say "it's a great movie", just like we don't take a scientific study and say "it's a great drug". But surely "it exists and it claims to do x" isn't pushing that too far?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Without looking at John Bargrave, from your description the article sounds unencyclopedic and more like a secondary piece -- it should be tertiary. From WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (my bold). A lot of editors don't realise that their function is to be a mere minion, skimming the top off existing secondary sources (in which you find "accepted knowledge") and assembling it here. Quite often the good ones will turn out secondary-type work which is, frankly, way too well-researched, thoughtful and original for Wikipedia. Researching is something we must not do. I sometimes feel too guilty taking the axe to such stuff, and leave it alone, even knowing it violates foundational policy about what this project is. We really need some WP:WRONGLEVEL writing which spells this out, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, John Bargrave is the source, not the article. As a source, Bargrave is referenced in dozens and dozens of articles. His article is probably okay.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's not a matter of including everything and anything but some of the events in question were clearly important (having been written about by others) though Bargrave's is the only account of specific aspects (precursors to the Wars of Castro, political machinations surrounding the papal conclave of 1644). Those are important (obviously notable) events but without Bargrave's personal accounts, they would be limited to "x battled y" and "x was elected" stubs.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing back Stalwart.  Part of my (pretty crazy) background is that my college and post-graduate studies have dealt a lot with history - i'm well aware of historiography and the tools/methods used in the discipline, and the risks & rewards of relying on contemporary accounts like Bargrave's.  Sources like that historians' raw stuff - their primary sources.  I don't work on that stuff here much, but in editing WP, I would stay clear of them, and instead would rely on secondary sources that contextualized and verified what they said.   I wasn't familiar with Bargrave (thanks for telling me about him!) but Vasari is an interesting parallel, right?  Our article on Vasari makes it clear that [|his his work of art history] while seminal,  is often unreliable, and i hope that our articles on artists don't cite Vasari directly.
 * i am pretty inexperienced at AfD (am starting to work more there, as part of my work dealing with COI and its effects on WP, and am learning what works and what doesn't) and have been noting some of the reactions to citing MEDRS. When sourcing is an issue at an AfD, going forward I may not cite MEDRS and instead may just cite NPOV/OR/VERIFY and their emphasis on secondary sources, to avoid having MEDRS become a distraction - the goal is to make a clean and persuasive !vote.  (AfD is an interesting laboratory - the consensus building process is so focused and condensed!).... anyway, thanks  again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose the interesting point about Bargrave is that he didn't actually write all of what is credited as his work. He took the commentary of others (in some cases no better than gossip) and added his own (often extensive) notes based on his own travels/meetings/observations in an effort to create his own reference work which he never intended for publication. We "history" editors (in my experience) tend to see the marriage certificate as a primary source but an account of the wedding by someone who attended as a secondary source. It is never that cut-and-dry, of course, but it usually comes down to common sense. Giorgio Vasari is a bit before my "time period of choice" but is an apt parallel - I would perhaps use his work as a reference for "x painted y" but not for "y is an outstanding example of the z period and makes use of a range of techniques including...". Yeah?
 * An effective case at AFD is almost always grounded in WP:N as that is the issue at hand in 99% of cases. AFD is designed to determine whether the community considers something notable enough for inclusion. NPOV, OR and V are all WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems, provided there are sources available. A lack of good writing can be fixed by the addition of better writing, but a lack of notability is insurmountable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hm - thanks! but N is by sources, right?  do you find that articles based on primary sources survive N? seems like 2ndary should be necessary -  that is the angle I am considering.  really thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For sure, per WP:GNG, and so we return to my original point which is that people might not see WP:MEDRS "primary sources" as WP:PRIMARY primary sources. So to their mind, those are suitable for conferring coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've seen plenty of subjects survive on the basis of coverage in sources that MEDRS would consider "primary" but WP:PRIMARY would not. That's not a fault of MEDRS but, then, MEDRS was never designed to be a notability guideline. In many instances, its like the difference between "innocent" and "acquitted". "Sufficiently not primary in this particular context" isn't the same as "secondary" if you get my drift, though truly secondary sources might be ideal.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i see what you are saying. Well we'll see how things go for me with working AfD on the basis of not N b/c of WP:SECONDARY straight, not MEDRS. I'm happy to work on that basis and will be interested to see if I can convince folks. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks for the chat - has been fun.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Group
Jytdog, My only POV is a support for fact. I am not upset with company or have COI. PGs journey from inception to present dilemmas is a piece of Qld history needing to be comprehensively documented in an encyclopedia. I am interested in these topics and Qld history repeats itself if not told or covered up. If its hard to find positive RS for PG then that may be a reflection of factual situation created by them or by authorities inaction for so long. Alloduckie (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Signum COI Issue
Hi, we are related to Signum Biosciences. How we can disclose COI for future edits? We would like to understand the reasoning behind the reason EHT and Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine pages were redirected to your edited Signum Biosciences page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigrd (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. let's do this on your talk page, OK?  I'll reply over there. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I'm notifying you that I am opening a dispute in order to bring a third party and community into the discussion. I have tried to explain my changes, but all you do is link things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mr Scottch (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * you are new here. we do things by policies and guidelines that are explained in the links i am giving you. see you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Procainamide text
Thanks for the welcome. I didn't do the text on my own, it was a group project. As a task, we had to write for the cursus toxicology at the Radboud University Nijmegen about a chemical substance, about which isn't much information found on wikipedia. It was quiet interesting, but a lot of work. Maybe in the future I'll write another page. Hjg1008 (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistake?
The COIN case I opened on Lajosgents was archived without comment. Is it a mistake? Brianhe (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I think I see, it was automatically archived after 7 days and there were no comments in hat time. However I still thinj there is strong evidence of COI. What action do you recommend? — Brianhe (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i ,m sorry that is just the bot. I am sorry I didn't to it yet... I will pull it out of the archives.  Thanks for catching that! Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Stifle (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the Active Release Technique page
Hey there. Thanks for fixing my mistake on the Active Release Technique page about primary sources. I didn't know about that rule. However, I think there's one important thing we still need to adjust. See my post on the talk page Talk:Active Release TechniqueThanks. Armadillo1985 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yep i responded there, thanks. and thanks for opening the talk discussion. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

SPA/COI/SELFCITE comment
Hi Jytdog, You asked my on my usertalk page if I had any relationship with the authors whose work I've cited. I work at the same department at Leiden University as J.F. Brosschot, one of the authors of some of the works I have cited. However I am not paid by him or the university to make these contributions. I am a psychologist myself so therefore I also have some expertise on the matter. I'd be happy to disclose this if that would be relevant to the article, if you would be so kind as to explain to me if and where I should disclose this.

I wasn't aware that my edits would cause you to think I have a single purpose account. I was under the impression that the perseverative cognition article was accepted, and it said that it shouldn't be an orphaned article, therefore I added some links on other relevant pages to the perseverative cognition page. I thought that was what I was supposed to do? I am new to wikipedia and still figuring out all the guidelines, so I'm sorry if I did anything wrong and any tips or advice are welcome!

Thanks!Wikimoort (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for responding! I'll respond over at your page. Jytdog (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As a thank you

 * you are welcome.  you did handle the COI thing poorly -- which happens sometimes and when it does it, it is a bad thing.  (see above).  I really meant it though - we need people to be looking out for COI at AfC so I can show you how I do it (which does not usually end up like the above, where i made the mistake in analyzing and I made the mistake of nominating the article for deletion at the same time that I was trying to have a discussion.  The nomination destroyed the trust that is required to have the discussion.... that was just stupid of me. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a highly complicated issue. I'm really done with NPP because I just get criticised for it all the time - the last straw came when I was heavily questioned for patrolling someone's article right away (see the bottom of my talk page lol). I don't think I was so stupid about what happened but sadly being an NPP puts you right in the firing line to all sorts of accusations so I think to protect myself I'm just gonna do my own thing and be a bit left field like I have been before I tried NPP. Again thank you for sticking up for me because I really got a bit fried that night Huddsblue (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride
I felt that your comments on my Talk page were a bit off point.
 * Having a content dispute with a COI editor should not and never has been a reason not to report a case to COIN. Content disputes are the inevitable result of editing articles at which such editors have been at work
 * The statement " I suggest each of you file a case at COIN, and stop raising this issue about one another" is a false attempt to appear neutral by suggesting a non-existent moral equivalency. While this accusation has been thrown at me in inappropriate venues again and again in an effort to gain the upper hand in content disputes, to the best of my memory this is the first time I have ever raised the issue. And I have done so strictly following the suggestions in WP COI.
 * Again, I cannot help but feel that the double standard regarding corporate vs. other forms of COI raises its head again here. If this were a case of a SPA that
 * actively deleted well-established AEs from the description of a drug
 * hyped that drug's efficacy using poor sources
 * became belligerent when others: tried to correct those edits
 * and went so far as to engage in retaliatory edits on unrelated topics
 * there is little doubt in my mind that you yourself would have taken the case to COIN months ago. This is about as clear cut a case as can be made from editing behavior that one will encounter.

Formerly 98 talk 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. It is a tricky thing to bring up COI issue when you have a long-running content dispute with another editor.  The content dispute will inevitably get brought in and will cloud the picture.  i am not saying one can't do it, i am just saying it is tricky.  Sorry if I said that too strongly.  Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was a tactical error not to bring this to COIN long ago and it is much more complicated now. Formerly 98 talk 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What? No self-analysis?
"many editors here have misread the proposed addition, its possible uses, and its intention - some wildly so." Curious - was there no self-analysis before making such a harsh comment against those who opposed your proposal? Remember, it's always better to stick to content, and not comment about editors. It actually gave me an idea for my next essay. I've always been amazed at how things circle around...and keep spinning. Inertia is a curious thing. <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  15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i meant that and can support it. I did think about it, yes, and thought about how you might hear it. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't hear it but I did read it and also could relate to it.  <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  18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking time to explain how wikipedia works -- it is confusing for someone who is new to it. I will read through the different sections, and I understand that everything needs to be evidence based. I started out not wanting to be combative, it's just everything I write gets ignored and the page doesn't change. Because the naturopathy page is classified as "fringe" my understanding is that there are administrators who get to dictate the content, and it really seems like they have a bias against Naturopathic Medicine. Just the line in the intro, about naturopathy being replete with unscientific, potentially dangerous practices is a pretty harsh and insulting judgment. Even WebMd's page on naturopathic medicine is far more respectful. I want to see mainstream sources with other perspectives used to create content, but nothing I write up gets on the page. This is why I am so frustrated. I guess the best thing is to keep trying to post sections that are well cited with mainstream sources. I really appreciate everything you wrote on my page, thank you for taking the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs) 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * signed your comment. I will reply over at your Talk page - you can reply there too, I am "watching" your Talk page now. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

COI notice
Hello Sorry for the delay of my answer, but I contribute on Wikipedia content only on my free time. To answer to our question : No, I don't have any relationships with companies or people involved with the subject. I have past a lot of my free time to add my contribution on Wikipedia, checked with references, so if you find some part not neutral, just tell me precisely where and I'll rewrite it. Our goal are mutual we want a rich and neutral Wikipedia as possible. Regards Poulpii — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Edit warning.
Good job violating WP:AGF, dear sir (as you can see from my contribution history going all the way back to 2004, I'm not known for WP:VAND). Of course it's easier to insult a fellow editor (violation of WP:CIV, mind you) who is honestly trying to improve WP, and revert what you don't like, rather than attempt to join forces and search for the proper sources together. Good bye, I am outta here, enjoy your WP:Adminitis -- Wesha (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * it was discussed yesterday on the Talk page; there are no secondary sources at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As you might have noticed, I'm not complaining about the fact that you reverted the edit, I'm complaining about the attitude you did it with. Could have written a couple words explaining it, but NOOOOO, you had to do a formal warning. Really? I'm waiting for your apology. -- Wesha (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

GSK
Hi, you've violated 3RR today with these edits. I know there were two Ribena sections (I was about to remove the old one), but you removed the new one, and that had nothing to do with your removal of the paroxetine material. I'd appreciate if it if you would retore the Ribena material and if the reverting could stop. The article could use a copy edit. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * your behavior here is ugly but well-played. i will self revert to step back from violating 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove reliable source is vandalism
Remove reliable source as Indonesian Embassy and El Mercurio is vandalisme. Please respect what other people contributed...--AdvPrima (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicotinamide riboside
Hi there. I've advised the editor adding a review of this nucleotide about the need to rely on secondary sources. He's a scientist, so was trying to cite the original literature - as we're trained to do. I've reverted back to the expanded version and added a tag about needing more secondary sources. Hope that's OK. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yep if you look at his talk page you will see that i asked him if he was a scientist, based on his post. it was right after that, that he added the description to his talk page. :)  we gotta train them up right!  Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
I had dealings but not in a while. I just believe that the editing here has not been totally altruistic or objective, and because of the issues he cares about he often attracts opposition. That opposition has no place in this article about him. TLVEWR (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors AN/I
Hi Jytdog, just a note to let you know that I swapped the headings to Break 1 and 2, rather than Survey and Discussion. It didn't seem appropriate that one of the people supporting the ban moved relevant material posted by Doors to a different section (as Formerly just did). This isn't like an article RfC where discussion might continue for 30 days. AN/I discussions are much shorter in duration, so that kind of tight structure usually isn't needed, and in this case it didn't seem fair. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

NuScale Power
didn't show an interest in reviewing the COI draft. You had started reviewing it, so I wanted to see if you wanted to take this one on, or if I should see if I can drag another editor in to review. Should be a pretty easy one, as it's not a controversial company. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a COI tag as well
Jean Miller. Part of the Brice Stratford cohort. Just wanted you to know, so you could properly tag it. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ER visit response, not appropriate on the page after you edited your own comment.
I'm just posting this here because I understand your position, and I want to make sure you understand mine. You are a rational editor in my experience, and while you may not see it, I'm still engaging in an effort to be a rational editor, myself.

I'm not attempting to remove information about the possible harm of the drug (if you look in the previous section, you'll see where I mentioned having once driven a friend to the ER after smoking cannabis interfered with his pre-existing heart condition: I know it can be dangerous, even life threatening under the right circumstances!), but am working to ensure that Formerly 98's stated goal of shifting the focus of of the section to put more emphasis on the dangers of the drug doesn't devolve into POV pushing. Were he not involved in this effort, I'd be fine with the language as it is, but with information being added and re-worded to put more emphasis on the dangers, I want to ensure that there's nothing even remotely questionable about the contents.

In this case, my only objection was to the sentence which characterized the incidents reported on as being "determined" to have been caused by cannabis. We're talking about a field (medicine) which most people don't understand very well. It's not a stretch for the average person to assume there is some sort of test a doctor could perform which could conclusively identify the cause of the visit as cannabis injestion, when the truth is that there is not. It's a judgement call on the part of the medical professional, something which is better described as "implicated" than "determined". The use of the word "most" doesn't bother me at all. In fact, given the relative popularity of marijuanna, I'm a little surprised it was only 30%.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I don't see it as a major issue except that the section is being shifted towards a specific focus and in that context, I am nitpicking anything which might push that change in focus over the edge into POV pushing. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i hear you.  thanks for your note!  Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding the link. the cannabis articles broadly speaking have been subject to a lot of tug-of-war between members of Wikiproject Medicine and cannabis fans.  Formerly 98 (who does work broadly on articles related to drugs) seems to think the section has been "tugged" too far to downplay the risks.  Such is wikipedia.  It is good you are watching for over-corrections!  Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, guilty as charged! It absolutely was my intent to shift the POV of the safety section of this article, which was dramatically non-NPOV. When I started editing this article, the section started out by summarizing a Lancet review on the safety of cannabis with the sentence
 * "the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high."

Here is what the source actually said All of which was summarized with the sentence "THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high." The article then went on to cite the AE profile of nabiximols as evidence for the safety of cannabis, even though the dose is 1/10th that normally absorbed as a smoker. But I'm a POV pusher. Right. Formerly 98 talk 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The acute toxicity of cannabinoids is very low. There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning"
 * "Cannabis smoke may be carcinogenic; it is mutagenic in vitro and in vivo"
 * "Chronic heavy cannabis smoking is associated with increased symptoms of chronic bronchitis, such as coughing, production of sputum, and wheezing. Lung function is significantly poorer and there are significantly greater abnormalities in the large airways of marijuana smokers than in non-smokers."
 * "In view of the adverse effects of tobacco smoking, the similarity between tobacco and cannabis smoke, and the evidence that cannabis smoking produces histopathological changes that precede lung cancer, long-term cannabis smoking may also increase the risks of respiratory cancer
 * " About one in ten of those who ever use cannabis become dependent on it at some time during their 4 or 5 years of heaviest use."
 * "Large doses of THC produce confusion, amnesia, delusions, hallucinations, anxiety, and agitation"
 * "There is an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia"
 * , I've responded on your talk page to avoid cluttering Jydog's. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The summation of the Lancet that troubles you remained virtually unchanged after the complete overhaul by Project Medicine regulars (Doc James, SandyGeorgia, Alexbrn and AnthonyCole).


 * The November 2013 version:
 * THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has an extremely low toxicity. A 1998 study published in The Lancet reports: "There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning, and the dose of THC required to produce 50% mortality in rodents is extremely high compared with other commonly used drugs".


 * ProjectMedicine version (December 2013):
 * THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of rodents is very high...


 * That "pro-cannabis" or biased editors are to blame for this section is based on evidence I have not seen.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Took your suggestions into consideration for User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks
There is now a section titled Make no mistake wherein I modified and emphasized several aspects based on your criticisms and suggestions. Under Keep your behavior in check, I'm a little iffy on whether the last bullet point belongs there. It was originally added by and it's a good addition, but I'm not sure where it should go. Thanks again. <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  16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the thank?
Um, thank you--Sigehelmus (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for providing a source! :) sorry if i missed it the 2nd time. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice
Hi, thanks for stepping in there with the Titus case. I am trying to figure out if I could have done better. There was a similar case where I got called in, did my best, but a new editor got really bitter and quit. How far does a conversation have to go before I should report it, and where? Thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the key thing in my view is to the person upset about COI to stop trying to fix it, and bring it to WP:COIN. Things are much messier now than they needed to be.  You did a great job trying to help! Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! will keep that in mind. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Howdy
Check out the mess this making: Education_Program:Boston_College/Environmental_Disruptors_of_Development_(Spring_2015)... anything relating to MEDRS shouldn't be edited by unwilling students: ! On a brighter note, if you have a moment, do you have any further ideas about this? SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You've Got mail
I have seen your notes to me, and the answer is that I only have influence over the edits I make. I cannot speak to anyone else's. Yet, I comment on the talk pages and make my views known. In the case you just reversed, I would surmise that you reversed it just because you believe the editor was unwarranted and not necessarily because of the intent of the change. With that article in particular I would think that editors would be more concerned at being objective and not try to paint the subject based on his/her own opinions or beliefs. While I admit that there can be a lot of heated debate on the issues involved, Wikipedia is supposed to be an neutral center and not a news site for ideological positioning.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * as head of communications i reckon you have hiring/firing authority, and that if you said "Activity from our firm on Ronn's WP page is going to be a problem for us.  I will fire anyone who edits Ronn's page. Don't do it"  I reckon nobody would do it.  On the other hand, if all those socks are Ronn I can see your problem, of course, and have sympathy for you.
 * i reverted the change b/c that has been a subject of discussion and that sock just woke up and changed it out of the blue. it will require discussion.  Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * btw if you emailed me, i haven't gotten anything... Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you oversubscribed me here. I am a group head here for the Corporate practice.  While I have a say in firmwide policy, I am primarily devoted to the work my team does; not that of the whole firm; and thank you!Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * :) gotcha. well whatever you can do, with some internal lobbying of your fellow group head, would be better for everybody involved. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't mean to bother you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning
"I will say this one time. do not stalk me." I found this on my talk page just after editing on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. First, I have told you that you are no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet you have posted twice since this request. Secondly, the post is hollow, as it appears that you have been stalking me. Thirdly, the post is a threat. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI Wuerzele, but if a user is posting a warning, WP:NOBAN doesn't really apply when it comes to warnings about behavior, etc. Personally, I'd prefer more information in such a warning on the stalking note to be specific on what it's about, but that's for you guys to figure out if you're going to sort it out through normal discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * again no surprise of you turning up, Jytdog stalker, Ive been waitig for you to rush to defend!--Wuerzele (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to refrain from casting aspersions or personal attacks here as you just did or on article talk pages for that matter. It's rather difficult to claim simply letting you know about the scope of WP:NOBAN as "defending", nor is the continued incivility towards me appropriate. My post was just a letting you know about NOBAN and nothing more as I never intended to actually step into whatever this kerfuffle is here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wuerzele you followed me into COI and shortly after I edited the Sipuleucel-T article you moved into it - I was the last one to edit that article before you: the latter is what provoked the warning. Do not start following me around. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are threatening and attacking on the basis of assumptions without evidence. Then syntehsizing and repeating the threat. You keep on tryting, but wont wp:hound and wp:bait me.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

i really have no idea what has made you take such a personal disliking to me. have you noticed, i am not engaging with you. i walked away at 24D. I walked away at WT:COI. due to the way you immediately personalize any content dispute we have, I want to stay the hell away from you, and would prefer if you do the same -- do not follow me around. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Tired
Am tired of being abused and insulted with biased editors here. I appreciate any assistance you can have to ensure accuracy. I'd appreciate confidential emails to ronn@5wpr.com if youd like to correspond directly. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It grated
Hi, Jytdog. I'm not much of an advocate for "wikilove" and "WP:CIV" and that, but your post here grated on me, compare my own comment. Please consider that the "usernames" are people of flesh and blood. Did you happen to look at the person's userpage? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
 * thanks for taking the time to write here. i did look at their page - so many gorgeous pictures! i'll go back and review what i wrote - i don't want ever to be dehumanizing.  thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice - Vote Stacking
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I need people to work on new shows with.

SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * thanks for the invitation, but i have my hands full now and a whole bunch of medical content on my to-do list... but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your
…patient and kind attention at the Mol binding page, but I will not be editing there any more. There is a very, very long history of disrespect and even stalking with this editor (hence my brief puffery), and I have consequently wasted months of life with him. His modus operandi is always the same, to come into the midst of a period of my work—thanks on the keen intel on the "work in progress" tag, a technical detail I'd note he could have shared with me anytime in the last two years. He then reverts, and and on attempting to discuss, belittles my differing ideas. This proceeds to a phase to wear me out through (i) muddying broader Talk discussion by continuing to making changes during cool-down periods where I've called for expert attention, (ii) removing the calls for outside attention, unilaterally, and (iii) persistence in reverting in various ways, alone or through networks. As such, I have given up on every article where this editor has come on. (In this case, I mistakenly wandered into his turf; in past, his pattern has been to follow me to articles I have earlier engaged, under guise of keeping tabs on a problem editor.) I now stay away from most science (because his and my interests overlap too significantly), instead publishing elsewhere (and not freely contributing here), esp. because of the stalking time-wasting, but also because of his apparent complete lack of self-awareness about his bias and perniciousness. Even when other editors have come on and argued, as you did today, that there was value in what was being reverted—thank you again for your voice—the result, most often is that they depart, being worn out by the tension. This is a further reason—wasting others' time, added to my own own—that leads me to always depart when he arrives. Note when you can, at that article, the discrepancies that have been introduced through fast, careless reversions/edits, and if you can, see the article to better standing. I am out of contributing there, but will support you in any way that I can. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for the offer but i don't need any "support" i am orthogonal to your conflict - you both had really good points.  i always want everybody to think for him or herself here.  no gangs or tag-team.   but i do i hear you. hell is other people - and that is WP all day long. :)  you need a lot of self-discipline and a thick skin to work here.... and flexibility.  fwiw, the times we have interacted i have found you to be kind of... stiff (i think that is the best word) and i think you are maybe used to getting a lot of deference in the RW, and i think those are dispositions make it extra hard for you here.  i am sorry about that.  and boghog can be gruff, for sure.  i do hope you stick around!  you have done some great work here. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If only the real world were about deference! I am formal, because I am not American in my beginnings, but from places much more formal. (My secretary would have called me by three titles daily, were I at home; here I am lucky to be called "Hey you," for tea.) No, I can count on one finger of one hand, the individuals with whom I have had the conflict that you are witnessing. It is not pretty, but it is not all superficial either. The last time this editor was at this article was in Januar 2013. Then today, 15 minutes after I have edited, I am part and parcel reverted, with sanity only reverting when third and fourth editors arrived. This bias I have no time for. (The same precise following and reversion happened at Natural Product, an article directly in my field of expertise, where I had made a commitment to colleagues to see it revised, having to drop that because of all the time wasting nonsense. There, no others interested enough to arrive and restore sanity.) No it is not gruffness, that I can handle. It is patent dishonest and biased dealing, and so, while I will reply to falsehoods, and make comments in the article there, I will not edit in it again. Otherwise, note the support mention is to offer to you the same orthogonal involvement. Today I joined a discussion about an article deletion, and voted neither yes (opposing a friend) or no (supporting them), but voted to table, to force both sides to accommodate the other. This neutrality and commitment to respond is simply what I also offer. Cheers, bonne nuit.  71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry it has been unhappy. it is hard. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather the
…clarifying information about the meaning of covalent be left in, because, while accessible via wikilink, having key distinctions made in the article actually being read helps readers avoid distraction and gain most of the required information before they first click out of the article. This is a matter of personal pedagogic preference (PPP!), on how we think our students best learn, and so an individual matter for educators to wrestle with. But here in particular, a key editorial issue of the article remains whether covalent adducts are complexes or not, and so this detail I would ask to remain in. But, I am not editing there anymore, so it is uo to you, mate. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * oh you are back out again! OK then. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since adding the primary source tag, the only edit I have made at the article since being reverted, I have only engaged in the talk—there, pointedly I admit. But I have long experience with some editor's selective acknowledgment of facts, and I do not allow them to go unaddressed. Still, even as far as talk is concerned, I am near done. Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)