User talk:Jytdog/Archive 19

August 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Philippe Cousteau Jr.. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please discuss content disputes on the talk page. You appear to be engaged in an edit war and have reached the 3RR threshold.'' EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * --Lurker response-- Jytdog's actions fall under the BLP exemption of 3RR, in that he is trying to correct the addition of promotional, unsourced materials to a BLP page. BLP was mentioned on the article's talk page. Therefore this warning is wholly unjustified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Momina Mustehsan
Hello The correct D.O.B of Momina Mustehsan is September 5, 1993. She told me on instagram via direct message. Shall i put up a screenshot of our chat as a reference? Immu01 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. That is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and also WP:BLP - the latter is a very important policy in Wikipedia and you must follow it. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I thought you had been indeffed, for an offence supposedly so heinous that it couldn't even be described. So I was very pleased to find (at Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich) that you are with us again. You do excellent work, particularly on medical articles that actually matter to people unlike the claptrap that most of us waste our time on. I hope you long continue to contribute. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of other Users
copied here from message left on my userpage in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please review the text of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment for more information on why your recent behavior related to Centers for Disease Control is inappropriate. Taking five actions in response to an edit, including multiple edits to my user page, is harassment. Any further attempts at intimidation or threats will be treated as further harassment and escalated as necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * oy Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Momina Mustehsan. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''If u think my citations are not reliable then how come u keep on adding stuff that make no sense at all on the article Momina Mustehsan? u don't either provide reliable sources.'' Immu 01 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * this is off-base, and your post above is incorrect. You need to use reliable sources for content about living people, Immu.  It  is not optional.  Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Immu 01 --lurker response-- Immu 01, your edits are in violation of WP:BLP's requirement for no original research. Until you can make edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies, you are the only one making disruptive edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: “Please see Talk”.
I do not see anything in the talk page that is relevant to your revert. Please clarify and highlight my user name on response. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
 * It is there and you were pinged; was working on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated welcome back
I saw the drama surrounding your COI work and the claims of outing. I'm glad to see you're back, and appalled that there was actually anyone who didn't see that you were doing your usual COI work in good faith. You are owed an apology from both ArbCom for instituting a topic ban, and from whomever made the call to block in the first place, in my opinion. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary revertion in “empathogen-entactogen”
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Empathogen-entactogen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Reverting without justification is not acceptable. Neither are editors in general, required to obtain consensus prior to any edit per WP:BOLD. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * As you know this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine and currently there is no consensus for what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects have no power to make any binding decision on article-space content per WP:Local consensus. Content that affects Empathogen-entactogen must be discussed on its talk page or a WP:dispute resolution noticeboard approved by Wikipedia-wide consensus. Quoting:
 * “For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.”
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Of course WikiProjects don't do that, and no one is claiming that WP:MED per se is claiming jurisdiction. What is happening is that several editors who are interested in this new approach you are taking have started discussing it and there is strong disagreement; the conversation happens to be taking place at the WT:MED page. When you do a new thing like this across a bunch of articles, it is appropriate to pause to gain consensus when people start objecting.  Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Please comment
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice 2
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * assuming you mean this thread, it's already been closed. This second notice was unnecessary -- samtar talk or stalk 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He does, but it was his second thread, so the notice was necessary. I just closed it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it is, my apologies --  samtar talk or stalk 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe
Better, much better -- conforms to the ref you cited, to wit: The ref you cited also states that O'Keefe calls himself “an investigative journalist and a leading practitioner of modern political warfare” and that "Given O’Keefe's track record, it would be a mistake to take his grand statements too seriously"-- stuff to consider adding I guess to the article. Yours, Quis separabit?  18:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you seem satisfied now.  I am not interested in elaborating content further from that source, but please feel free!  Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Creationism
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, am aware of them. Thanks.  Please remember to sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh and sorry with regard to signature. I am happy to not use those templates too often. Polentarion Talk 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Sorry about not using the correct template. Still learning. But I just wanted to make sure you were notified. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice
Your recent editing history at Mylan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Now you have reverted me 3 times. That's enough of this nonsense. My judgement on what belongs in the article is at least as good as yours. You have a very bad habit of trying to own articles, and if memory serves have been taken to arbcom about this several times. Please try to behave better while you are editing. You have no right to order me about.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * --lurker response-- Smallbones, your edits violate the well-established WP:NOTNEWS policy on investigations that have not yet concluded. Jytdog was correct to revert your edits in order to enforce the policy. Your actions make you guilty of WP:3RR, and you have no grounds. You need to read WP:NOTNEWS to understand why Jytdog's actions were correct, and yours were not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from sending me further unsolicited e-mails
Thank you. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * sure! Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Epi-pen Suggestion
Hey,

I changed the phrasing on the epi-pen article to give a more descriptive phrasing of Mylans market share and how it "dominates" the market, which you revered. Do you have a source of the Mylan 90% figure? I think the sentence you reverted would read better and be more descriptive by actually showing the reader the figure, rather than the ambiguous statement of "dominates". Thoughts? Peter.C •  talk  •  contribs  21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, ~90% market share, which it has had pretty consistently since 2007 when it acquired the product, is very far from "majority". Everything in the article is very carefully sourced.  You can check the refs yourself. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments.
Please refrain from editing my comments. What policy justifies this action of yours? SageRad (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to say "Whatever..." and let it go. I am not the punitive or litigious type. However, i do note this action and ask for your supposed justification for it, and urge you to be civil in the future in your dialog with me as well as to refrain from editing my comments, which i think is not kosher. Also, this is not the first time that you have edited or deleted comments of mine, so it seems to be a pattern of behavior. SageRad (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use this moment for some good dialog. Would you please explain to me in what exact way you found my comment to be "personal attacks"? And in what way you found the comments above mine to not be "personal attacks"? I would truly like to understand, Jytdog, what is the reasoning behind your redaction. Also, how is dialog about the nature of the source that is being discussed off topic? What if i had solely stated that the Hall source itself appears to be an ideological axe grinding to my reading, but said nothing about an apparent pattern of pushing such a piece into the article? I ask these as clarifying questions, and i hope you will answer them genuinely and with civil language. Thanks in advance if you choose to do so. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While I applaud you for seeking dialog, SageRad, and agree generally speaking that personal attacks of any kind do not belong on WP - and also acknowledging that I tend to align ideologically with Jytdog on most scientific topics even if I don't from a personality perspective - I agree that his removal of your comments was correct, for several reasons. Your comments egregiously violated WP:TPG, specifically "Comment on content, not the contributor", "Stay objective", "Be positive", "Deal with facts", "No personal attacks", and several more. Have other authors, including Jytdog, violated in the past without repercussion?  Certainly.  But we are looking at this specific conversation, with its diffs, in isolation.  I sincerely believe you're the only one who went over the line here, especially with the "you're stalking or marking me" and "intimidation and chilling effect" comments.  It strays very far off topic and off policy, which I don't see any of the others doing.  Even JzG's "inappropriately edited his article" comment, which you take umbrage with, is on topic and is objectively verifiable, excepting the "inappropriately" article.  Frankly, your redacted comment could easily have caused a temporary ban, if JzG or one of the others had chosen to pursue it, and so you should be thanking them.
 * If you still disagree, feel free to ask any unbiased editor or admin for their opinion...I sincerely believe you'll get the same response. So please take this as a learning opportunity...we all need to keep our emotions in check, keep on topic, work to build WP constructively, and recognize our own biases and shortcomings even when we're calling out others'. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts, Jtrevor. SageRad... hm.  Talk pages are for getting work done on the article.  In WP "work" means building content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, and working out disagreements over how to apply the policies and guidelines to sources and contents.  We do that work on article Talk pags.  That is what they are for.  They aren't a place for people to discuss their feelings or personal perspectives about pretty much anything.
 * The RfC is dealing with a longstanding tension in WP between the two policies, BLP and PSCI. which is often exacerbated by the lack of reliable sources in the scientific literature about fringey notions.  Discussions that spring from that tension are often made yet more difficult by passion.
 * All work in WP requires self-restraint and self-awareness. Me, for example.  Rigor is really important to me generally, and here in WP with regard to editing per the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit).   In addition, I have a bad temper.  I can't tell you how often I write a first note and then revise it five or six times before I hit save... and I often redact even after I save - fighting off my passion and striving for rigor, expressed simply,  and to limit myself in that to discussing content and sources based on the policies and guidelines.  Sometimes I fail (infamously so) to restrain my frustration.  It is a struggle for me.
 * I imagine you at your key board reading the RfC question and responses, with your history with the SBM site and your current focus on skeptics overtaking WP. Did you reflect on what is appropriate to write on a Wikipedia Talk page?  Did you seek to limit yourself to getting the work done on the Michael Greger article?
 * It seems to me that you didn't, but rather let yourself go, first with the attack on the SBM source in your !vote (not grounded on or referencing any policy or guideline), and then after you were called on the justification for your !vote, in your response, most of which was about your bigger picture issue. That note was almost all un-self-restrained soapboxing of your frustration with what you see as (to frame it in Wikipedianese) systemic bias.
 * When I read that, I thought a few minutes about how to respond, in light of policies and guidelines. I ended up redacting the beginning, which had nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, and left the end, which a) noted that you had redacted your !vote,  and b) basically repeated what you had redacted.  I left b)  (which was inappropriate for a talk page), throwing you a bone to avoid complete drama.   I debated doing nothing.  Maybe I should have.   If you insist that what you wrote was correct, I will self-revert - I am uninterested in drama.
 * So there you go.
 * Oh - the relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM and the relevant guideline is WP:TPO: some relevant bits of that: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" .... " It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above" Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked at what happened, and I think that you (Jytdog) should not have redacted that part of Sage's comments. All it does is make you look (again) like the self-appointed wiki-police. That does not mean that Sage was right and you were wrong on the underlying content issues. It just was needlessly adversarial. If you think that another editor is in the wrong, one of the best ways to deal with it is to let their comments remain visible for all to see. It seems to me that the response, from multiple editors, to Sage's initial RfC response was needlessly personalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback; as I said, maybe I shouldn't have. SageRad has further edited his 2nd comment now.   Also User:Tryptofish I don't know if you are aware of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales and the earlier thread it was following up on .... Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of all that. Well, welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. A privilege extended to all that is retained by each user as long as he or she abides by our policies.  This is not a platform to use anyway you like..... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly with Trypto on this one, Jytdog. Technically right or wrong you shouldn't be the one removing comments simply due to the optics. I think you know there's no shortage of editors waiting to pounce on any slip up to drag you to a drama board and drag up the past. Stay cool. You do a lot of good work around here but if you keep giving people ammo they're going to shoot you in foot themselves. If there's some kind of obvious issue then it will be obvious to other editors too. The edit war that blew up a couple days ago on Mylan for example. I obviously agreed it wasn't a good edit too hence my revert and comment on the TP but I wasn't going to go further than that one revert. It wasn't an egregious edit just one I viewed as needless so it wasn't worth it. I thought Smallbone's response to your first revert was horribly antagonistic and unwarranted but that's the kind of shit you're going to get. The same argument we presented, that there's no rush, applies to most edits too. If you think it's really bad use the tools WP provides. Start an RFC, post on relevant notice boards, etc. Capeo (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much. Will keep that all in mind. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you've persuaded me as well Trypto. SageRad's comments clearly crossed the line but the best way to handle this would have been to urge them to self-redact instead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The polemic removed was typical of the sort of crap Sage is posting when not blocked, (and on his talk page when he is blocked). It is quite normal for off topic crap to be removed from article talk pages, which are supposed to be about improving the related article. I agree that it doesn't happen a lot, but that is because generally experienced editors know how they are supposed to behave. Sage knows this, and frankly I'm surprised than many more of his rants haven't been removed. Somebody whose only purpose is to complain that he isn't allowed to write what he wants in article space, must expect this sort of thing. It is also worth noting that the serial complaining is merely a continuation of his pre-wikipedia experiences with the evidence based internet, where he was justifiably given short shrift. I'm frankly very surprised it hasn't happened more frequently, and to other anti-science editors too. meh. -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Roxy, that's not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is turning into drama. There are various perspectives on what SageRad did there and what I did there.  I have heard what everybody has said.  The issue is moot as SageRad a) isn't responding here and b) didn't revert my redaction, and c) as noted above, has further edited his own comment, so there is no going back in any case. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Your narrative on AT
You created a narrative about my intentions and actions on the AT article which is false and which mischaracterizes me and my actions. I will assume your intentions were honest rather than a rather transparent way to railroad an editor into a bad situation. While I, as I said before on the article talk page, will not edit in an environment where this kind of mischaracterization takes place; I also feel its necessary to make my position clear on what you did.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
 * I just collected diffs on the discussion over the section header. Nothing about your "intentions" but only about what you have actually said and done.  In my view any reasonable person will see your clear misrepresentations in the discussion about the section header.  That in itself was a trivial thing (really it was) but the misrepresentations are something that have made the discussion at that article difficult in actually dealing with content.  It is just one example that is ready to go should you continue to be disruptive there.  If you want to make drama out of that set of diffs about the section header, that will probably not go well for you.  You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You heard what I said. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Presbyopia
Hi Jytdog, I appreciate your efforts on the Ageing article, but your latest edit "People over 35 years old are at risk for developing presbyopia.[11]" is meaningless. '''Think about it: Any human over the age of zero years old is at risk for developing presbyopia. Sooner or later..'''

What the reader really wants to know is at which age the probability becomes larger than 50-50, or indeed when presbyopia becomes a general phenomenon. According to the deleted Weale reference, the general onset of presbyopia is late 20s for Somalia, 36 for Philippines, late 40s for British, 48-50 for highland Bolivians. Surely this specific information is more useful than the present meaningless risk statement? 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss article content at the article Talk page. Please discuss there.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, nooo, please not the Ageing Talk page. I have spent all day trying to reason with an editor there who cannot even write intelligible English. Once she joins the conversation, we are both stuffed. At least you seem to know what you are talking about. Therefore I prefer to use your Talk page specifically for this topic, then you can delete this section on your Talk page once we have agreement. Thanks in advance. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an option. I do not have private discussions about content; I will be happy to discuss with you at the article Talk page. If there are content disagreements we will work them out on the Talk page and if that fails we will seek other WP:DR; if any editor behaves disruptively there are means for dealing with that as well.  Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not prepared to reason any further with that editor on the Talk page. She is incompetent at writing English rather than intentionally disruptive, so I doubt you can sanction her. So I leave the Presbyopia problem in your hands. I hope you have understood the statistical problem inherent in your sentence. Signing off now. Good night and good luck. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

hello ip one first I'm a guy, second I keep my grammar decent when editing. Also you were removing a ref I put in  for a one over 30 years old with out any reason from what I saw. finally you putting becomes apparent in British adults in their late 40s, but at earlier ages in warmer climates. Presbyopia can occur in adults as early as 40 or sooner but is much more common in older adults was redundant, I am also completely fine with Jytdog edits.

-- (Plmokg22345 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Please see above. Closing Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A good idea
I read what you wrote about engaging with BLP (on Seth Rich talk) and fleshing out you Ivote here, which you had already accomplished here. So I decided to do the same because it is a good idea. Ciao ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok then! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Subst
Someone must have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reliable_sources_please without subst it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * that was me. I fixed it now. Sorry! Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About the other editor's talk page
What Laser brain said. I really mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am done there, as I noted there before you even wrote that. I would be interested to hear you flesh out your thoughts on this more, and will share mine, if you are interested.   Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in discussing scientific skepticism, because I expect that my opinions are pretty similar to yours. My concern is like that of the unidentified Arb who reportedly said that you "need to calm the fuck down". I'm saying this for your own good. And by now, I really should not have to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am done trying to talk with him for now, as I noted there. I was not asking you to comment on the other editor's issue (scientific skepticism, which I don't care about).  I was asking you to comment further - to flesh out - your reaction to what I had been doing, which you have clearly found alarming.   The strength of your reaction was surprising to me.   I guess what I was doing looks ugly to you (and to laser brain too).   I offered to explain what i was doing.  If you are not interested in either, I understand.  Just wanted to make sure you understood what I was asking you. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that you already said that you are done, and that's good. I don't know that it struck me as "alarming" so much as "oh, not again!". I've had vast numbers of content disputes where I found the other editor exasperating. It's almost never useful to issue a warning on that user's talk page, unless you are actually preparing to go to WP:3RRN or WP:AE, where prior notice (of 3RR and DS, respectively) is required. All you had to do was say what you wanted to say at the article talk page. It came across as very battleground-y when you wrote that warning, and I see that the administrator considered it to have elements of harassment. Why am I particularly concerned? You came out of your most recent interaction with ArbCom with them telling you that, if there is a next time, you are looking at a site-ban. There is no shortage of editors who would be delighted to use that warning you posted as a reason to start a complaint against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes that last interaction was about OUTING and to put a fence around that, the TBAN was with regard to other editors' potential/actual COI. So OUTING and COI.  I have stayed far away from that.  I did not bring that up nor even come close to it, in anything I wrote to him.  I see now (and thanks for taking the time to reply) that where you are coming from is that OUTING is part of the harassment policy and what I was doing has been perceived as harassment. I see now. Thanks!!!! Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even more broadly, please be careful as not coming across as battleground-y or bossy. That's really the bottom line, more so than any details of those sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can't speak for Trypto but I'm thinking that's not precisely what he's getting at, Jytdog. You know as well as I do the exact specifics of a prior warning have little bearing on how editors perceive it when it comes to applying a new sanction. Really, general antagonism is all anyone is going to see. I'm guilty of it too. I was literally going to post here to advise you to just leave it alone then I saw that last comment and unfortunately couldn't help myself. We should both take my advice above. Let other editors handle it. Capeo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks, that does clarify what I was trying to say. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, same pages all around. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing Comments
You may not remove comments made by another editor accept in a few rare cases. Disagreeing with the message of the comment is not one of these cases. This is inexcusable. []. EditorDownUnder (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, started a thread about this at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Medicinepedia
So far several editors have mentioned that you have a habit wherein you seem to treat wikipedia as if it is a medical journal. Its not a medical journal and we shouldn't treat it as such. Please stop that habit of yours. Its frankly quite annoying. Even topics completely unrelated to medicine end up reading as if you just stumbled upon  complicated pharmacology or biochemistry once you start editing it. The primary audience of wikipedia readers are not sicence researchers, nor are they university professors who have a PHD in chemistry. Most wikipedia readers are laymen and as such wikipedia language should reflect that. If you do not alter your behavior from hence forward I will assume you lack competence in the ability to differentiate between science vs non-science topics, or the sufficient social acuity to allow yourself to extricate from health-related aspects of your occupation. Wikipedia is not medicinepedia so do not turn it into such. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect I disagree. It's surely in Wikipedia's interests to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, especially in the medical field, primarily because of its search engine ranking giving any article such a high placement - and that includes medical terminology where relevant (I agree that for complex terms not referenced earlier in an article these should be wikilinked where possible, primarily for the benefit of laypeople reading the article - and Jytdog does this 99% of the time). Both him and - amongst others - have put a lot of time and effort into keeping the medical articles here comprehensive but in a way that's relevant to both laypeople & professional, and I for one encourage them to continue doing so. Mike1901 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What specific article is this about? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike1901 on comprehensiveness. However where me and mike1901 disagree is how formal our language should be and to what extent we should simplify language to allow our audience to understand the content. Also, since professionals already have other resources, they shouldn't be our primary focus. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pwolit iets you come here echoing Tomwsucler's misguided accusation at Talk:Coregasm.  Not sure what to say,  since you don't ask any questions of me, so I will just say: a) of course we are not medicinepedia - its a slick label but false claim (I edit lots of stuff that is not biomedical information); b) yes we are aimed at a general readership and I always try to write in WP:Plain English; c) our mission is to communicate accepted knowledge per WP:NOT - you seem to misunderstand this per your post here and at Jimbo's talk page  here.   What you and Tomwsulcer also don't seem to understand at the Coregasm article is that popular media is not a reliable place to find accepted knowledge about WP:Biomedical information, as well as what biomedical information is.  The source guideline and the definition aren't  my views - they have been established by the community.  If you want to take issue with that, this is not the place to do it.
 * The exact boundaries of "biomedical information" can be tricky to find, and people can disagree in good faith. I have offered to discuss that here  - as of last night neither you nor Tomwsulcer have responded or tried to actually discuss the specific content you would like to source from popular media nor why that is appropriate sourcing and content. I look forward to seeing your responses.  Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was pinged. As the opener does not mention any diffs of concern there is not anything to follow up. But yes we should definitely be writing in easy to understand language per WP:MEDMOS. We should do this using the best avaliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctors
I love how each citations in the first paragraph is to one discussing the phenomenon in general, and to one discussing Dr. Oz. It made me laugh. While I know it's not synthesis, be wary of the celebriDoc fans, who will almost certainly scream "SYNTH!!!!!1!1!!!1!1oneoneone" as loud as they can when they see this. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, just getting started and not ready to be live. I need to go do stuff and wanted to save my work and invite others to work on it too, so it would be well vetted when we move it to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

BPDFamily.com
I believe your revert was made in good faith but that you did not look carefully at the neutrality edits that were made. 1. The only content change was the following and it is referenced and it is more neutral:
 * OLD The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to a single-title, online book discussion group which was created after the 1998 release of Stop Walking on Eggshells - one of the first books to help family members and romantic partners identify Borderline personality disorder traits in a loved one.
 * NEW The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to the AOL online support groups that provided all the case studies used in the self-help book Stop Walking on Eggshells (1998). The AOL online support groups went on to become a single-title, online book discussion group for Stop Walking on Eggshells and in 2007, were spun off by the book's author to became an independent multi-national support group.[6][7]

2. Other neutrality edits included:
 * Changing medical establishment to medical providers (establishment is over reaching, specific medical providers are cited in the article)
 * Changing organization supports and members have participated to have been involved and referenced in (replace general with specific statement as the reference support this)

3. The rest was changing the order of paragraphs without content change. 4. The COI banner was removed as provided in WP:MTR referenced on the banner itself. ''If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.'' We should assume good faith. I spent an hour looking this article. I'll hold off reverting so that you may double check the above.2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would put this message on the Talk page of the article, I would be happy to reply there. Thanks for being willing to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done

2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Alleged link spam for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin articles
Hi Jytdog. I am writing this comment as you suggested I could do on my talk page.

First of all, thanks for your interest, but according to the guidelines, I think my contributions are legit and should not have been marked as spam.

"from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links [...] What can be normally linked [...] Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. [...]"

I honestly think the PDFs on material safety datasheet for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin all meet these guidelines. It's neutral, it's accurate, it's relevant to an encyclopedic understanding, etc.

There were no sections within the wikipedia articles that related to material safety, which I think is quite important (esp. regarding the controversy levels of these additives in mainstream media). This is why I didn't simply suplement the section with the information contained and added the PDF as source/reference. Do you think adding such a section would be better?

Also the PDFs provide phyisical properties and other facts that are otherwise not available in the article. I was wondering if this would qualify as too detailed for the article. This is why I didn't add them and cite the PDF as a reference (e.g. Melting point is not provided in Cyclamate or Cyclamic Acid articles but it's present in the PDFs).

I ask you to reconsider the spam classification of those PDFs and/or at least provide suggestions on how to include that relevant information in the article. Thanks. Sr.Bernat (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr.Bernat (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many sources for technical specifications and MSDS and yes there is good information in them. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is that I add similar external links but from another source? If so, which source(s) do you suggest (I don't want to be accused of spamming again...)? Or are you suggesting that I should try to extract the relevant information/contents from the MSDSs and place it in the article with a reference? Thanks! Sr.Bernat (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Before you embark on a project like this it is usually a good idea to get input from the relevant WIkiProject. How about asking the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry how they like the idea of adding a bunch of MSDS and tech specs to ELs of articles?  And if so, where they think the best source would be?   That would probably be the best place to ask.   (I just took a quick look through their archives and found some past discussions - see here - you may want to review those before you ask.)   Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into that, thanks for your help! Sr.Bernat (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_3#Wikisource_MSDS it seems that the correct thing to do is to create a _(data_page) for the main Wikipedia article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_tribromide_(data_page) ) and then add the MSDS information there. Thanks for the tip! I think I'll do that (unless you disagree) Sr.Bernat (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ~Maybe~.  That is a discussion from ten years ago and things might have changed since then.  Really the best thing to do would be to ask the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry what they are doing these days. I am sure they will be happy that somebody is interested in updating chemical data. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Sr.Bernat - I went ahead and asked myself - I am curious. See  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bottom
Says published by Takeda Pharm Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * James, no it doesn't! It says copyright Takeda, and says the drug is distributed by Takeda.  I don't what the "Publisher" field is supposed to be, but I take it as the owner of the site where the document appears (is published)  and in the case of that ref, the publisher is the FDA.  If we were citing the URL for the label hosted on Takeda's website, I would agree that the publisher would be Takeda. See what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah okay makes sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dietary supplement page
Hey, I saw you edited the "Dietary supplement" page. It does make a lot more sense now. I think there is some room for improvement however (isn't that always the case ;D ).

The first part of the content of the subsection called "Use as food replacement" doesn't match the title of the subsection. It looks like this section is more about disease prevention than about replacing food. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this?

Furthermore the source for the first part of that subsection does not mention the terms "hope" or "iodine" and does talk about succeses in preventing vitamin deficiencies. This part of the article seems contain original research.

I have not looked at the other information in the subsection but it might have the same problems. Can you take a look at it again?

VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for your note - addressed via editing. If you want to discuss please repost on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves are not ok?
As far as I can see unilateral page moves are perfectly okay by Requested moves. That page is if there is a dispute over the move or some other reason it is difficult. Are you disputing the move of scientific skepticism to skeptical movement? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not OK. But see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is okay. The senond sentence in the lead says
 * Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
 * You should have given a reason for objecting to he move. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Partially my fault. Already in 2014 I should have formally requested the move or just have done it, in line with WP:BRD. The move was in line with policy. But: I should have waited longer after stating "Lets do it then" on the talk page. Polentarion Talk 09:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart
I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem.
Don't climb the Reichstag. You seem to be taking the "celebrity doctor" thing way too personally. As long as there's a solid source which explicitly identifies the person as a celebrity doctor, then fine, but I checked the Baer source and didn't see that term anywhere (feel free to point me to it); your revert was tetchy and basically invoked WP:ITSOBVIOUS. You know better than that. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean this revert i added a ref. If you mean Wakefield I did find your comment there dismissive.  As I noted I am not going to argue to include it there but I did explain why i think it should be.  No Reichstag climbing here! Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

undid your reversion of my edit to Genentech
Your edit comment was not civil or appreciated ... not helpful to say an edit is "weird" at all - your opinion of "weirdness" is plain irrelevant. Quotes are there due to quoting the source ... not scare quotes. This is also not trivia ... in my opinion. Do not re-revert or I'll consider it an act of bad faith -- let someone else take it down, if anyone else is so sensitive. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * hm. pls see the talk page Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Greger
We clashed, and no offence meant in my perhaps harsh edit summary. I was reading the talk in horror, and frankly commend your approach there. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not "perhaps" - very harsh. And wrong. That content was derived from the source and the source is right there.  You can object on other grounds but your edit note is... bad on about every level.  I have reverted again as your justification was invalid.  If you feel the mention of the divorce is UNDUE or something, please raise the issue on the talk page.  It is here or there for me - as I said it made sense out of he ended up in NY.  Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was based on fact, or rather, lack of on your part. Why are you so cranky about this - were innocuous initial edit, and now look how people are upset. Try harder to distinguish between friend and foe. If you want to make claims of divorce based ion thats your business, but dont bulldose to do so. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * claiming it is unsourced was just wrong - now you seem to be saying that you find the source unreliable... is that issue? if so why?   communication can be simple...  :) Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed it can...are we misunderstanding/ My initial edit was that there was a single "early life" para that said bla parents divorced, and the ref was . Am I thick fucking stupid or what, that is now RL. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * this edit made no sense. What you wrote above made no sense. I just removed it.  Done here. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ha ha you hubristic fool. You just restoted my earlier edit but are too conceited to realise. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very aware that I restored your initial edit. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your edit
Jytdog, i hope you will not mind me posting here to say that i agree with your edit where you corrected my edit. I was mistaken to think that this source satisfies the WP:MEDRS requirement of being a secondary source (review article). I will be more careful in the future regarding this. SageRad (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving of article to draft space
I am responding regarding the article Transoral robotic surgery, which was moved to the draft space. I understand your concern. But i would like to know the problems please with the article on the talk page for the article. I would like to assure you that any problems with the article will be solved. I thank you for your contribution. Thank you.MissionX sbks (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note!


 * It seems that nobody from your class went through the tutorials on editing WP at Training/For_students. The articles created by people in your class are full of content that is:
 * unsourced completely (See WP:VERIFY) or that
 * cites references that fail our guideline for sources about health, WP:MEDRS, or that
 * have citations that are incomplete and can't be used to verify the content.
 * In addition,
 * No one is following the manual of style for content about health, WP:MEDMOS, and
 * There is also some content that was copied from other sources and violates other people's copyright (see WP:COPYRIGHT which is really serious).


 * I and others have left notes on the Talk page of your class, Wikipedia talk:Education program/B K Shah Medical Institute, and no one has responded and the behavior has not changed.


 * You can work on the article as much as you want while it is in draft space, and you can be graded on that work. When you are done I (or your class ambassador) can show you how to submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it becomes part of the encyclopedia.  But please don't move it back to mainspace until it has been reviewed by the community.


 * Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jytdog for your response. I take note of all the above problems and assure you that they were just mistakes. I take responsibility on my part for any and assure you such will not be repeated. Wikipedia has been very valuable to me for gaining knowledge and i take this as a valuable lesson in learning to contribute back. And the aritcle will be reviewed before moving to the main space. Thank you.MissionX sbks (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome - please let me know if you want any help - and the folks at Wikiproject medicine are always glad to help too! Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
It seems I misunderstood and was plain wrong. I also spoke harsh. Sorry. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey
I just looked at List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You are exactly no. 500. Because illuminati, or something. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * spooky! Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic
Hi, Jytdog.

I think you're the right person for this query. Could you take a look at this? I think that (at least) these conclusions (bold text) do not fit the references content.

The evidence suggests that spinal manipulation therapy is safe,[12] but the rate of adverse events is unknown[13] as they are under–reported.[14] It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.[13] There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation.[15] It has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[16][17] but this is disputed by many chiropractors who believe it is unproven.[17]

Also, the type of ref number 12 (PMID 23069244) is Editorial / Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

What do you think?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Chiros are in denial about this. They have no systematic reporting of adverse events, so they have absolutely no basis for their assertions of safety,and the evidence of adverse effects is compelling. Are they rare? Nobody knows. And if the chiros have their way, nobody ever will. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Johnson 2012 ref needs to go as it is an editorial. (it is the important kind by the editor of the journal as opposed to a letter to the editor) but it is still an editorial.   The rest seems OK to me. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you, and Jytdog. Then, I think this is more accurate . Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Sears
Greetings. You've been engaged in dubious and contentious editing at the Robert Sears article. I've restored the article to Wikipedia standards, and written something on the Talk page addressing your contributions and the editor you're jousting with. Please check it out and stop the disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wil check out the talk page, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I did. Just some unhelpful chiding after the minor conflict had already passed.  Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Celebrity doctor for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celebrity doctor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Celebrity doctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. How exciting! Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multisystem proteinopathy
I notice that you removed a sentence relating to the coexistence of ALS with some other disorders. I don't know about the individual incidence of these disorders, nor whether "multisystem proteinopathy" is the co-existence of them at statistically significant levels or with a common genetic cause, but if this is the case, then I would think it warrants inclusion with clarification on how rare it is. And if it is a disputed link, then surely that would warrant inclusion to note that it is disputed? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * article content should be discussed on article Talk pages so that everybody who cares about the article can participate and so that it is part of the talk page history for future reference. if you would just copy your note there, i will respond there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: HDBuzz
Yes it is. See their Twitter feed. It seems like a rather idle suggestion (these guys really don't seem to be in it for the money) and Huntingdon's is a worthy cause to publicise, so I'm going to leave it, but I thought I'd just mention it so people are aware of it. Blythwood (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * hm, thanks. abusing WP to get PR is ugly.  wrapping it the guise of "we are the good guys" is just self-deception. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation of sources and sources access
Hi, Jytdog! I've seen your edits and comments re citation of some sources re some equations at solvation shell and its talk page. I therefore ask you whether you can access the full text of the (following) source Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959 edited by W. J. Hamer and E. Glueckauf, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation additional info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient. Also, can you access another source, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society to compare the details of the derivation(s)? Thanks.--82.137.10.105 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are either of those the actual source for the equation or the background from which it was derived? Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes.--82.137.10.105 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what it sounded like. As far as I know the actual equation needs a source. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen the formula which I've inserted mentioned in a book (I have not mentioned in the article) wihout to much detail regarding derivation which is referred to the source(s) by Glueckauf for more details of derivation that I want to add in activity coefficient article.--82.137.10.105 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

He is a paid editor for Aam Aadmi Party. I know him in real life.
 * You will need to contact another editor about this. As Jytdog's main page states, he currently is blocked from discussing COI of any editors. Even though the vast majority of editors aware of the situation consider that block wholly undeserved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jtrevor. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tapered (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy-vio on Stanislav Grof
My apologies; this was added by me, when rewriting the article on Ego death. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bidirectional
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says: Alt-right transcludes navboxes like Template:Conservatism sidebar, which do not include links to that article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * please post that at the article talk page; i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Essay appreciation
Hi! I've seen your drafted essay on your user page and also in mainspace WP:Why MEDRS. I let you know that it is an interesting essay and I like it as reasoning line.--82.137.15.21 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to ask you about its starting point, how has the idea of writing it occured to you? (I have to mention in this context that I've recommend it for reading as a link to some friends who are medical professionals).--82.137.15.21 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * sure. the germ of it is from my experience editing here.  People keep wanting to add content about health sourced to primary sources (research papers) or newspapers, and they really don't understand why that is not OK in light of WP's mission and values, and how things work in WP where content is so dependent on the sources that are allowable.   A lot of times people who bring primary sources are unaware of MEDRS ....but even after they read it, they don't really understand why MEDRS calls for such sources - they view it as some arbitrary requirement being imposed on them.  I understand where they are coming from -- in an era when the very rapid translation of materials science and computer science into technology has have made such huge changes in our lives, it is really hard for people to even imagine that biological science could be so different; they don't understand how hard experimental work is in biology is and how hard it is to develop useful hypotheses and theories that make sense of all the data -  and how difficult and risky it is to generate technology (medicine) from that science.  In other words, how unreliable the conclusions of any biomedical primary source are.  I wanted to help people understand.
 * A very condensed version of it is on my userpage: User:Jytdog.  Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read it. Is there perhaps a fourth bucket/category of people wanting use primary sources? I think it can be said that the most undesirable of the three buckets is that of clinical and marketing agenda-driven.
 * On the hand increasing awareness to the difficulties of scientific reasoning and unclear research areas in biology is very desirable. Of course claims to build effective treatment procedures and technology need to be treated with high cautiousness. Words like claimed, purported could serve well this purpose. If the perspective wanted to be shown in articles is a strictly scientific one with accents on biochemical and biophysical aspects and no claim of possible medical effectiveness, then all conceivable hypotheses even the false or falsifiable ones could be presented because they contribute to increasing awareness to meanders of scientific inference/method in which falsifiability holds a prominent role. A highlighted disentanglement of the scientific aspect from the medical applicative one should be followed as very desirable. How can this be achieved in an optimal way? Perhaps a new disclaimer tag could be created?--82.137.15.21 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MED and WP:PHARM have developed a convention - with respect to purely pharmacological stuff about drugs, we do allow primary sources. So something like "Drug A binds to receptor X with Ki of X, IC50 of Y, Kd of Z" is OK to source to a primary source; however including a claim "and this causes side effect B" is not OK to say based on that primary source. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is good to know this aspect. Indeed, categorical statements about side and therapeutic effects and are not allowable on primary sources.--82.137.15.21 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the situation where the wording "and this can cause side effect B"? (Notice of the use of the word can to indicate a modal logic operator. I'll open below a section about Modal logic in medical statements.) --82.137.14.251 (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Modal logic operators in medical statements
Hi again! How do you think about the use of non-categorical phrasings containing the word can (tag of modal logic phrasing) in wikipedia articles with medical content, such as the example mentioned above?--82.137.14.251 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * not meaningful to reply to a vague question and what I say here may change based on what you are actually looking at, but generally modal verbs are bad ideas - if there is enough data to know X then we say X; if there is not enough data to draw a good conclusion we write things like "there is insufficient data to draw conclusions" or the like.  The middle ground covered by modals is generally useless.... on the toxicity side, everything is toxic at some dose (so "may be" toxic or "can be toxic" are meaningless without dose and route of administration) and likewise people like to take some undepowered positive result and write something "X might be useful for Y" which readers will take as way more positive than it is.  Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to DNA history of Egypt. Copts.
Thank you for the warm welcome. The information included hasn't been published yet due to the researchers' dearth of Coptic data. I can provide links to Yfull, ftDNA projects, forums discussing Coptic autosomal results. I can't cite articles because our data are way ahead of the scientific community. In fact some of the papers on Sudanese Copts quoted in Wiki are just false. The reason why I came to edit this page, precisely because I was asked by Coptic private researchers to enrich this wiki section. It simply doesn't reflect their reality. Please let me know if these are acceptable. If not it'd be pointless for me to edit the page again. Agathon888 (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and for asking an authentic question! You cannot add original research to Wikipedia.  All content must be cited to reliable sources per the policy, WP:VERIFY.  This place would be a complete stinking garbage dump if people could just show up and add any words they wanted...  I hope you can see the sense of that. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But again I can cite actual evidence on Yfull, ftDNA and Coptic genomes genetic calculator results. This is not stinking garbage. Agathon888 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source (say an article published in a good journal) you have a leg to stand on. Unpublished research is "original research" and is not allowed here.  Come on -- surely you can imagine all the people out there with Great Discoveries who would just love to use Wikipedia as a platform to publish..... can't you?  Same thing applies all around.  Wikipedia is not an arbiter of good research - we rely on the published scientific research. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"in 1970" or "in the 1970s"
Hi! The third sentence of Immunodiagnostics is a bit weird: "A second test was developed in 1970 as a test for thyroxine in the 1970s." Do you know if this should be improved (and, if so, how)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I never really got a reply; or did I miss something? Maybe the text is correct, I am not a native reader. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry this fell through the cracks. I redirected that article to Immunoassay where the topic is much better covered; the immunodiagnostics article was entirely unsourced and you are correct; that sentence made no sense. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hey, I'm glad to see that all of that is over with! You have been missed. I trust that now you'll stay out of conflict, and I look forward to seeing you around again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Oh yay and I can edit my page and everything. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Hope you still can find something you think is interesting to edit. Is it an "indefinite-can-ask-for-unban-in-a-year" topic-ban? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking - I asked for clarification above. I am travelling this week but will get back to editing my usual health/medicine related topics when I return. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)¨
 * Glad to hear it. Wikipedia is better with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't wait :-) Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to see that you're back. I'm sorry to hear that you're topic banned from anything COI-related, but hopefully you'll find working in other areas just as fulfilling. Altamel (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that you are back after I clicked on your contributions in the edit history of the Physical attractiveness article. I was checking up on that article after spotting a recent edit to it on my watchlist. Your userpage is also on my watchlist, but I was absent from the site for two days and missed this section. Anyway, welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saw you on a page I'm watching. A hearty welcome back! Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, welcome back! I was truly conflicted by the RfC, so I didn't respond there. But I am delighted that ArbCom lifted your block because losing you would have been a major loss to the project. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but it's good to see you back in action again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Woah, I had recently watch-listed the fringe theories noticeboard and the last edit showed "Jytdog"! :) Welcome back! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks lemongirl! Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't know me, but I too am very glad you are back. When I see your name in the edit log of some article that has been infested by vandals and COIs, I get that "here comes the cavalry" feeling. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is super kind of you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad you are back as well (for the medical pseudoscience-patrolling work, not the COI-patroling stuff, which I hadn't watched much). We may argue about one particular line of a certain page, but you're a major benefit to the project, the block was wrong-headed, and that one OTRS admin's "OUTING means what my selective blindness says it means, not what it actually says" position was indefensible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Didn't know you were away! But Glad to see you are back. Not sure if you can recall our communications before. Anyhow, best wishes - Audit Guy (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * very nice of you! sure i do back on Institute of Financial Accountants.  :) Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconding, thirding, fourthing everything said above, I saw the name by chance and thought 'hooray'. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Using an agency's web site
I wanted to define Epi-aids on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention page, because the term is used in multiple places. Getting the definition from the CDC seemed reasonable. The page already uses the CDC for many references. Are those references also objectionable?

I found another reference in a book, and added that to the article. Is this what is needed? You have more experience than I, so I respect your judgment. Please clarify. I will watch this spot, in case you decide to reply.

Thanks. Comfr (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is really best to build Wikipedia articles based on what 'independent reliable sources say. If all we do is follow their website, we are not an encyclopedia but rather just a webhost for the subject of the article, and per policy Wikipedia is {{WP:NOTWEBHOST|not a webhost]].  The article could use a lot of building out as the CDC has done and does great work - so happy you are interested in doing it!!  Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Requested mediation for Teledermatology dispute. Is there an issue with the following articles, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24923283 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785643 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of salesmanship
Surely we can have a civil discussion at Talk:Whole30 without you appearing to accuse me of trying to "sell" the product/program. I understand that you don't like my edits, but it's not necessary or productive to make such accusations against me. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was describing the edits, not you. I was very careful to describe the edits, in fact.  Please do not mistake the two.  Redacted to make that even more clear.  Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I have struck it, that was inappropriate. my next comment is what i meant.  again my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Student template
You should be pretty ashamed of yourself for leaving that template in such a poor state. And now you have the gall to revert what an experienced professional editor (unlike you) says is needed. I don't think much of your actions; but at least the encouragement to cover a text with redundant ref numbers is gone. Tony  (talk)  05:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are unhappy. We have a lot of concrete problems with student editing on medical topics that are laid out there.  Please do see Doc James' comment on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And see my reply. It's a big issue that has been allowed to sleep for a long time. Tony   (talk)  06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah we can talk there. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was probably aggressive, when discussion and collaboration would have been much preferable. Please see James's thinking on a bot at that page. And maybe a compromise wording for the student template on that "every sentence" issue? Tony   (talk)  09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I was too.  We do have very different approaches here. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just to finish for the moment, I guess my take has a lot to do with the high priority I place on "the smooth read"; that underscored the moves to bring wikilinking under control in 2009–10. Reference tagging is an interesting and surprisingly complex technique. I don't discount the need for considered referencing in medical articles. Tony   (talk)  08:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That was *fast*!
Still, you gorra admit, my be-bold-shyeah-right point was not entirely without merit, no? ;-) Sleety Dribble (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * twas POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Record
Jytdog Can we find a way to talk off the record? I'd like to discuss how you (and possibly others) could proceed in finding the knowledge that fills the gaps that you are exploring. MaynardClark (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * there is no need. We just need to find reliable sources that we can use.  that is a fundamental policy of WP - bedrock fundamental - and one of the things that makes this entire project possible.   We have to use reliable sources that anyone can use to verify content. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My point in the Wigmore article is that we read online that the organizational name was changed, but the website doesn't have the BASE for making that observation. They, however, could talk about the use of the building.  Hippocrates Health Institute continues; the sentence that you copied from the architectural website contradicts present observation, that HHI continues in a new location.  Still-living observers and online documentation agree that AWF relocated to the West Coast within a relatively quick period of time after Ann Wigmore's death, but that it persisted in some organizationally continuous form. I'm not trying to author the article, but I am telling you based on my observation that the sentence that you copied is, in fact, contrary to what really happened (for whatever reason that website 'got it wrong'). MaynardClark (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content at the article Talk page, and please base what you say there on reliable sources. very happy to discuss on that basis. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and use of profanity
Dear Jytdog,

I'm concerned over your use of profanity and incivility around my edits. I have reported this language to ANI, and have included information around the validity of my edits for purpose of reference.

I'm happy to discuss content in civil discourse, but not with curse words.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CellbioPhD (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

HHI legacy
Why did you remove the sentence about the HHI legacy? It seemed to bring value to the article. MaynardClark (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Please discuss at the article Talk page, and explain in more detail what you mean there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Jytdog, Thanks for your help with content and promotional phrases for Rochester Regional Health, I see where I may have lacked with making content factual based. My intention was never to create promotional advertising material, just want to add informational content to the pages. Im new to Wikipedia and still learning my way. I live in Rochester and noticed that there wasnt a single article for any of the local hospitals, so i've made it my own prerogative to update the pages - Just a heads up as i will be going through each page to add content over the next couple of weeks. Once again, thank you. I've been reading your articles about COI and copyright, will try my best to fix problems. Tpierce09 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and for striving to edit like a Wikipedian. Yes the second shot at writing the history was much better!  To be clear, I never said you might have a COI; I actually am not allowed to discuss that. (evidence, see edit notes on article here, and not at Talk:Rochester_Regional_Health and not at your talk page.  I did reference WP:PROMO with regard to your edits per se. With regard to COI, I take it you are referring to the stuff on my userpage (which I did not mention!!!!)  :)  (sorry to belabor this but I take my TBAN seriously and there are people who would pounce should I breach it)   Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I was only referring to the content on your userpage about COI, sorry about the confusion. But also, trying to add content and have it up to par with wiki standards. Please bare with me as I make edits to other pages for the network of hospitals in the Rochester area. Also do you know if it is possible to remove the deletion notice off United Memorial Medical Center?Tpierce09 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no problem i am happy to help you and again thank you for learning graciously. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the deletion discussion at United Memorial Medical Center cannot be stopped; it needs to run its course and then it will be closed, and the article will be kept, deleted, or redirected.  Not every topic can have an article.   The community created standards for inclusion - you can find them in WP:NOTABILITY, a Wikipedia policy.  There is a specific application of that policy for organizations like hospitals, here: Notability_(organizations_and_companies) which is a "guideline".   If someone questions whether an article meets the notability criteria, they can open a "deletion discussion", as is happening at that article. This is described in the policy, WP:DELETION.  The process the article is now in, is described here: Articles for deletion.
 * These policies and guidelines that I have mentioned, were created by the community itself over the 15 years it has existed. They reflect widely held community consensus, and they get applied at any given article by a local consensus.  This is all described in WP:CONSENSUS which is probably the foundational principle of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your time and knowledge to help me understand the standards here. Thanks again jytdog, have a good day! Tpierce09 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Friedmann
Seems WP:UNDUE as well. Who uses him as a source? And promotional. See his use in Jewish views on evolution and the archived peer review in Friedemann's article. He seems to have self published his books. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've worked on his article, removed everything but his book from Jewish views... I see that Zaostao has been indeffed after a discussion at ANI about nazi dog whistles on his user page. Doug Weller  talk 14:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting my edit to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Was a slip of the scrolling big thumb on the iPad, not a deliberate vandal edit. Cheers Moriori (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

MiniMed 670G
Hello Jytdog! I have undone some of your edits on this page as it didn't look constructive to me. I request you to raise your concerns on the Talk page. Best, Nairspecht  ( talk ) 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probrooks (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

someone requested a password change on my account
got an email from WM. wasn't me who requested it. weird. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone trying to hack you and impersonate you. You've certainly got quite the fan club! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * hm. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I need you to show me some ID, right now. (Joke, not serious. I figure we could both use a little levity now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's contagious (perhaps because I responded to you here, or maybe it's someone doing this to a lot of users). I've gotten the same kind of email. The email that I got includes the IP address of the person who made the request (definitely nowhere near me), and I've geolocated it to an Xplornet Communications broadband account in Ontario, Canada. Was your "request" from the same location? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * there have now been two; both were from 24.183.170.31. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's Charter Communications in Southbridge, MA. So either someone is using a proxy, or it's becoming a new passtime. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this isn't uncommon, but my impression is that it isn't a concern. I've collected a few of these myself (precise number depending whether you assume requests made on the same day are from the same person) and nothing's ever come from them. Following this reasoning, I think of these as being in the same category as user page vandalism and such, and treat them as sources of self-esteem. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reckoned they were not uncommon; part of my reason for noting it here was to check that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Sunrise. It's reassuring that this is no big deal. I figure there's no way for the requesters to actually gain access, because they don't get the email with the information, so they are just wasting their time. I also think that pointing out how easy it is to track the IP address, as I did just above on the assumption that they are watching, takes a bit of the fun out of it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would also check any old email accounts you had if you can. A lot of times these aren’t personally related, but bots instead mass request passwords at any site requiring log in. At the same time, whoever is running the bot tries to snap up old expired email accounts in the hopes they get an email address that matches with a current account. I’ve seen it happen at other sites, but as long as you aren’t letting your currently registered email expire, it’s more an issue of making sure accounts associated with your old email aren’t used to impersonate you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Galanthus
Please don't delete items from pages that are clearly under active revision, especially by people who have been very active contributers to the genus and its species. I always leave a note on the talk page before reverting. Possibly you did not see it. This is not spam but an important place in the history of the genus. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And please stop adding tags to an article that is under active editing - it just creates edit conflicts and wastes everyone's time. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not clear after each edit if you are continuing - if you want elbow room please use template:under construction. thanks!  you are doing nice work btw Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractor, the profession
(Apologies in advance if I'm not using your talk page correctly. I've never tried doing this before.  I noticed you undid a rudimentary change to the wiki page on "Chiropractor", a topic that I would think so basic that I could not believe had no article on wikipedia when I looked it up.  In fact, it seemed so silly that it didn't exist that it prompted me to login and make my first edit in over four years.  Is there a particular reason for your change?  Chiropractor now redirects to "Chiropractic education."  Are there any other examples of wikipedia articles on a given profession redirecting to articles about the education of that profession instead?  (e.g., doctor, lawyer, engineer)  For an encyclopedia that documents the most trivial of things worldwide, it's seems almost absurd that an article on a major medical profession wouldn't exist.  No?

Disclaimer: I make no profession whether the chiropractic practice is "real" science, "real" medicine, or any of that. I've had personal opinions on both sides of the fence at different times of life. I'm coming at this from the perspective of the completeness of Wikipedia as an online reference. Dan McCarty (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC))
 * It was discussed for a long time at Talk:Chiropractic education and Talk:Chiropractor; there is nothing that would go in that article that isn't discussed at Chiropractic education or Chiropractic.  If you really believe that there is some content that would uniquely go into "Chiropractor" I suggest you open a discussion at  Talk:Chiropractic education or probably better, Talk:Chiropractic. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read through some of the comments, most of which seem like petty differences between online adversaries. At the end of the day Wikipedia doesn't have an article for a profession practiced by hundreds of thousands of medical personnel worldwide.  That doesn't make sense to me as a Wikipedia long-time reader.  But I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Dan McCarty (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of professions for which we do not have stand-alone articles. Acupuncturist, Homeopath, Naturopath, Physiotherapist and so on. Doctor is a disambiguation page. I thing separate articles on a profession might even be a minority case - Physician is one, but clearly this is entirely different as a cursory read of the article will readily show. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot Masseuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia AfD
Good job with the list of refs and critique of them! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Crofelemer
ENGVAR says stay consistent within an article (both spellings of "diarrh(o)ea" are used at the moment, several times each), and if there is no established spelling, use that of the first post-stub revision (which is British). Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then. I will self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Present"
Your manual of style reference makes sense, however, does that then mean that every court page for the United States has to be amended to read the same? All 94 district courts, 13 Appeals Courts, Tax Court, Claims Court, etc...they all seem to maintain the "2016-present" style in regards to years of service and lifespan. Seems like a lot of unnecessary work versus just amending a few pages to fit in with the norm. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * well if that is the style, far by it from me to try to change it. please feel free to re-revert me. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In the discussion at Articles for deletion/Alcosynth, you screamed your opinion to other editors, and used the following words and phrases: "Jesus fucking christ"; "bullshit" (seven times); "who the fuck knows"; and "shitty sources". This isn't Twitter, and I'm not your BFF. Please take a moment to read avoiding incivility. Sorry for adding a newcomers tag, but your behavior warrants it. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are offended. This is indeed not social media nor a tea parlour - I am very clear on that.  We are working to build a high quality encyclopedia. Not a gossip rag. Please review the basic policies and guidelines for content, as well as the mission, described in WP:NOT.  Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at that, and no matter who may be right on the merits, I think that your way of saying things was unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor has been cautioned before about their obscene language, but he/she doesn't appear to be getting it. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In the minutes I was away i was redacting among other things.  Closing. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

question
Hello jytdog ..im a new member of wikipedia ...i just want to know about the topic " love and country" ..its an ethics subject ..can you give me some image of it ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanyanwiki (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * do you maybe mean patriotism or maybe nationalism or maybe chauvanism? Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do they mean "Homework"? -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by no soruce ? What do you look for ?
--192.36.202.254 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ziprasidone.--192.36.202.254 (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ask at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

CRISPR interence
The CRISPR article curremtly has the statement: "The CRISPR interference technique has many potential applications, including altering the germline of humans, animals, and food crops." That statement is incorrect but you seemed to have read it and acted upon it. You can look in the article history for an attempt that was made to get it right and to clarify the nomenclature.--172.56.1.126 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Osho - Move review
are you seeing consensus for that move request? I'm not. I have proposed a review. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

move review is now open if you care to comment. Pandroid (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

genetic testing
If it were me, there would be a separate article genetics testing (medicine), because this page shouldn't almost cry out for a sentence of self-description in the first place. But mine was just a drive by edit, so I won't wade in any further. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Random belated snark. Deciphered from some clay tablet, Sumeria, circa 1000 BCE. "Algebra is a way to determine who owns what after the annual flood. This article focuses on delta floodplains." &mdash; MaxEnt 18:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence on Energy medicine (sic)
Hello Jytdog. As you know better than I, those pushing fringe theories about the efficacy of quack treatments often rely on anecdotal evidence. It seems to me that anecdotal evidence from either side should not be allowed. Those who (quite properly) rely on scientific evidence should have nothing to fear.

Having said that, I have no intention to edit war with you, and therefore will not revert your edit. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * pls do look at WP:PARITY Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory Kablammo (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proof steps and formulae interconversion at solvation shell
Hi! I've inserted another formula on talk:solvation shell and I shall also insert the just checked proof steps for the first formula inserted in August. It remains to find and add there the steps for interconversion of these two formulae. The steps of the interconversion are harder to find without further details from the momentarily unavailable Russian source mentioned there. It seems that there is some wikirule for chain citation WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.Your input on these procedural aspects is wellcomed!--82.137.10.132 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebirthing
Greetings! I removed the category "Alternative Medicine" from the Rebirhing-Breathwork section. Did you put it back? If so, I'd like you to know that the purpose of this breathing technique is to heal suppressed feelings in the body, such as fear, anger, etc. It may be true (I'm not sure right now, and I will investigate this further) if Leonard Orr once claimed that rebirthing-breathwork can help with health issues, but that is missing the prime goal of the technique, which is psychological healing. For example, see the book "Rebirthing: The Science of Enjoying All of Your Life" by Jim Leonard and Phil Laut. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.204.194 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss on the article Talk page. Please raise this there and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

‎Humanitarian work on Donald Gary Young
I agree with your deletion for WP:UNDUE. I was just tidying up the section since I saw it in disarray. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 03:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

International American University
Sock blocked and tagged. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * committed one, that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism
Hello! Thank you for your advice on the page I recently just tried to edit. Was your only problem with the edits the links to the sandbox page? I can go back and fix those to link properly, but I believe they are all from reputable sources, most of them being NIH funded studies. Please let me know what I should do to make the edits viable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyahn95 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Please do read the welcome message I left you carefully.  "NIH funded" is not a relevant criterion.  If you don't understand WP:MEDRS after you read it (please read it!) ask me anything. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Diabetic Reinopathy
A section was moved from research into treatment. This is not justified as the treatment is being used by many patients worldwide for their day to day treatment, not on a research project. Hence it is incorrect to have this solely in research. Yes there is some research still being carried out but with a treatment available to anyone should we still consider it research only? I'd like to move this but I'm concerned you'd just move it back. Happy to move this discussion to the diabetic retinopathy talk page but its more likely you'll see it and respond here.

I understand your need to remove links to the medical device as you consider it spam and I can understand your reasoning (WP:SPAM) but the use of the word "horrible"? Although I've been editing since 2007 I've not been very active on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if this comment can be removed? (I'm not suggesting putting the links back in).

Thank you kindly in advance Northernalex (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please raise this at the article Talk page and I will reply there. Please read WP:MEDRS before you do. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS has been read, discussion moved to talk page Northernalex (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

quick question - on Vitamin D source
Hello,

Thanks again for helping me out yesterday. I was wondering if you think this article (PMID 15989379) would be appropriate to use on WP? I know it's from 2005, a little old, but it seems pretty comprehensive. If I used it as a source, do you think you or others would delete it? I know that the WP:MEDRs guideline says we should try to find sources that are 5 or less years old. But it's been difficult finding something newer than this that is as comprehensive. --Sarahcunningham87 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ensure
hi, for the Ensure page, I can understand the removal of the categories. Good call. Looks like I didn't understand how that worked. Anyway, quick question. What was the reasoning for removing http://nourishclinicalstudy.com Isn't it part of an official website since it's from the brand? Thanks. Weijiasi (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Jytdog, thank you for taking care of this! I've been busy all day and hadn't got the chance to reply to them. I appreciate the help! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * sure! Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks. it is not a happy thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Inspiring
Jytdog, just wanted to say that I found this NPOV_part_2 inspiring. I see from your comments that you are a meticulous and faithful defender of WP, and I greatly appreciate that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcenedella (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! got myself in some hot water there per this - important to very careful, always, in doing that work.    Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog --- well, it's important work and you seem to be correct on the facts in the cases I read. A question for you -- you seem to have an efficient system for editing. Do you use special editing tools or software? I would appreciate any suggestions. I'm focusing on companies, and just looking at Fortune 1000 companies alone, there is a lot of work to do in updating and bringing these articles up to a better level of quality. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Won't comment on the case.  No special methods or sources.  I use the best sources I can find - NYT, WSJ, LA Times.  I go to the library from time to time to find refs too.   I only recently learned how to use the citation templates provided in the edit window - so happy i learned about them.  They auto-fill and autoformat the key fields (you generally have to do some tweaking but it does most of the work) Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war issues
On account of your message: {{quote|

Edit war warning
You are being WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE changing MEDRS. This is an essential guidance and you cannot keep doing what you have been. Don't make me drag you to EWN or worse to ANI. I will if I have to - destabilizing this as you have been is extremely damaging to WP:MED.

Your recent editing history at WP:MEDRS shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)}} You have continuously acted disruptively, now at 4RR, while accusing and warning me for a single revert. I suggest you return WP:MEDRS to its previous state and engage in discussion. WP:KETTLE seems apt considering your insinuations. I on the other hand will not threaten you with reporting you, because I believe it detrimental to the project on a whole. I however ask you to refrain from this aggressive behaviour and ask you to tone it down. That said: you, unlike me, are in clear violation of policy (WP:3RR). Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is very bad CFCF. Really, MEDRS is essential to everything MED does and you are being way too aggressive in changing it unilaterally.   Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I made one bold addition, and if that is your only concern I can say nothing beyond the fact that you are wrong in that we shouldn't be bold. I had constructed the passage very carefully to be broad and very much in line with what we already have. And when it comes to bold additions, MEDRS has in fact evolved organically with bold revisions. That is why I just don't get it: despite agreeing with the additions you want them removed?
 * The other passage you readded was debated in June/July this year and removed because it was ambiguous. Peer-review isn't something we do anyway, and determining bias in a source is very important. There was the example of a claimed systematic review from a very fringe journal: which didn't even employ any systematic methodology at all. This passage opens up for that kind of crap in our articles.
 * I again ask you to restore to the previous version of the article and await someone else's input, because you are at WP:4RR within 24 hours. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I again ask you to restore to the previous version of the guideline and await someone else's input, because you are at WP:4RR within 24 hours. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:PAG and How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance - you seem to have no idea how aggressive you are being on this kind of document within WP. We go slow with changing policies and guidelines; they are an expresssion of consensus - they are not "rules" imposed on the editing community and especially not by one editor. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case we are moving as slowly as possible by sticking to the version that was stable up until a few days ago. The current discussion seems healthy, and I repeat once again — that most additions have been bold and by necessity have to be (just look at the Ecig articles for what happens when everything is contested). I'm not contesting the fact that you disagree over the situation, but can you please next time give a rationale instead of just reverting. Maintaining the status quo is not a rationale, and I'm generally not adverse to discussion as long as a reason is given. Even a sentence long message on the talk page is miles better than a plain revert. Neither one of us is out to break the guideline — and I know we have pretty much the same end goal in focus. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll speak up as "someone else" and say you were engaging in extremely blatant edit warring CFCF after seeing all that pop up on my watchlist (also because I was heading to your talk page for this) as you were the one doing the pushing. Normally when someone tries to make an initial change and gets reverted, they shouldn't even be going near the revert button but instead go straight to the talk page, especially on a guideline page. Those that instead try to edit war the content back in (and you did even though you denied it in those very edit summaries) are usually the ones to get blocked at AN3 for stuff like this. Speaking from experience, it sucks to deal with editors that do what you did because the only way to deal with editors who insist on edit warring new content in is to revert them to try to get them to stop (which often results in pot calling the kettle black behavior which I saw you also did) or else escalate to AN3. I really do suggest laying off the edit warring as that is only making things more difficult for you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize it was problematic to engage in the issue like this, and I regret the stir it caused. However, central to the issue was the two things were done at once, with Jytdog both removing and adding a section. I should not have reinstated my newer addition, and I hope my apology is accepted and that we can get on with the discussions on the talk page, leaving this behind us. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 21:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding sources, specifically on the Amfecloral article
Hey Jytdog. I'm relatively new, so pardon any shortsight here. My edit on the Amfecloral article was based entirely on a source that was already listed, the patent on the compound, and the bracketed number remained directly after what I had pulled from it. The fact that I made some significant changes ( "additions" ) was not from failure to cite some new source, it was from being the first person to take the time to read and rightfully represent what had already been cited. Am I mistaken there? Or was I just wrong in thinking the bracketed [2] at the end was sufficient to indicate where I got my multiple lines from? Edit: I understand it's old material, but I made no bold or reductionist claim based on one disprovable study. It's simple fact that the prodrug splits into equimolar doses of chloral (hydrate) and amphetamine. Chloral hydrate is consumed in 500mg-1g doses, and chloral's molar mass is hardly greater than amphetamine's. Not only would one have a difficult time finding a modern-day source saying the same thing because of the controls on both compounds, it would be a waste of time for researchers to re-establish the inevitable. If my information was "unsourced," I can't imagine what the preceding material, entirely in opposition to the citation, was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertéCognitive (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! Patents are not reliable sources - see WP:SPS. More generally, it is important to actually cite the source, not just mention in it the edit note. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose what I was ultimately asking (and pardon my tone earlier, I was quite tired) is whether, at the end of several lines all pulled from the same document, a single bracketed number is sufficient as citation for the bulk of it. The patent was already cited prior to my edit, but the information that had been presented in conjunction with the citation was entirely incongruent with what the document itself contained, so I edited the article in accordance with that citation and did leave the original bracketed in-text citation linking to the references. In short: I thought I had cited in the article itself, and if I did it wrong, I'd like guidance on which aspect was wrong and what would make it right. On top of that, my sentiment was essentially that although a patent is certainly less-than-ideal, it had already been cited and thoroughly misrepresented before my edit. I felt like undoing my modification for its shortcomings reverted the article to an exacerbated slew of the same fundamental issues, plus some other ones. Took it too personally for a moment, haha. LibertéCognitive (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Upon rechecking it, I had failed to leave a bracket immediately following that paragraph, I apologize and see where you were coming from. xD LibertéCognitive (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I went hunting for refs for that article.  frustratingly scant. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Jytdog. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

NYT GMO story
Have you seen this? Looks bad for biotech companies. Everymorning (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Can't comment, of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I forgot about your topic ban. Everymorning (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Distraction osteogenesis
Regarding Distraction osteogenesis and WP:MEDRS, two things. First I'm not citing any "popular media" and MEDRS seems to say nothing about hospital website not being an acceptable source. In any cases, all the informations I added merely reflect facts (that distraction osteogenesis targets certain types of conditions and that short stature may be a source of psycho. insecurity). I doubt they might be challenged. Thoughts ?--Nonztop (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you are writing about this dif followed by this diff. Secondary sources per MEDRS are literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies.  See WP:MEDDEF.   Hospital websites are not either of those things. I was incorrect about "popular media" - my bad there.  Will look again at that lower paragraph in the 2nd diff. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that extreme caution should be used in the selection of sources in med field however, in this precise case I don't understand why essays guidelines have to be so stringently applied: I added elementary and nuanced statements ( "[...] usually targets these conditions: [...]", "[..] is believed to be increasing [...]") that are likely to be seen as scientific consensus. Another example; the first diff- PMID 25183215, is a primary source, ok, but its introductive and review of the literature part (from which I paraphrased) probably fit the definition of a primary source since they themselves are supported by third-party ref. Anyway, I guess you "won" since I won't touch your recent mods.--Nonztop (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * i am uninterested in "winning".  That article is outdated and very badly sourced.  am in the process of finding recent reviews to update it.  would love to work with you on that.  here are recent reviews I am looking at. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Jytdog: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  -- Dane 2007  talk  19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

An idea
I've been watching the conversation about your WhyMEDRS essay while also stumbling across something I hadn't noticed before. If you look at WP:GUIDES, there are not just essays, but also essays formally written as supplements for policies and guidelines (e.g., WP:PGE). It looks like fuzzy category, but if you wanted to, you could get it recognized as a formal supplement to the MEDRS. Not sure if it's worth pursuing at all, but the concept seemed interesting enough to me that I thought I'd see if it was new to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm! Wasn't aware of that.  It would need a lot more work - trimming especially - to be more than just an essay....If this is a good indication of how much it is used/cited the answer is not too much.... So doesn't seem to have earned much more than essay status either.  Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Regeneron
Accusing me of reverting your edit a single time on this page as edit-warring is poor faith on your part. If anything, you are the party guilty of edit-warring here, having reverted me twice. Your definition of "technology" is strictly WP:OR and contradicts the inclusiveness of biotechnology as technology, especially as defined on that article's page. Unless you can come up with a more reliably sourced justification of your OR reversion, the edit I made should stand. Castncoot (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Regeneron Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Apology
I'm very sorry that I got frustrated with your recent attempt to help. Still trying to stay cool. Hoping you'll re-engage. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Lead 'Graphology'
Hello Jytdog, I read your notifications and warnings and apologise for the delay in response. My edits were aggressive, repetitive and failed to respond to helpful tips and warnings. I can only claim ignorance and did not know how to contact you and the other members who notified me. As you kindly pointed out my intention was to expand the Lead on Graphology in order to provide a more balance point of view. Unfortunately, I seemed to have come across as a raving lunatic on the subject. Please know that I was definitively not my intension or desire to wage an edit war on this or any subject. My apologies to all concerned in this matter and I will endeavor to learn more about editing on Wikipedia. Geeveraune (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! Everybody starts somewhere.  :)  Ping me if you like at any point. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Salicylaldehyde Articles (Erasure)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salicylaldehyde&oldid=747180985

Why did you delete my contributions. It can be seen clearly in the patent that salicylaldehyde was used to produce salbutamol. See this also: www.drugfuture.com/chemdata/salinazid.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.196.64 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

DPR
Please see Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, thank you. --Fixuture (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth at medical articles
I can't get this account blocked yet, but it is indeed a sock account. He is making the same type of edits he usually makes, including poor sourcing to medical content. It would be good to keep an eye on him until he is blocked. Right now, he is crippled; by that, I mean that it appears to me that he can only access the An Inconvenient Truth account from a certain location without WP:CheckUser identifying him. As is clear by this discussion and these discussions, he wants me to take him to a WP:SPI so that a WP:CheckUser can prove him innocent. As noted by others, a negative result from the WP:CheckUser tool does not necessarily prove innocence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * HM. OK.  Have you gathered behavioral evidence anywhere?  thx Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I received an email that was pretty convincing. I can send a copy of it to you. It was convincing to me because not only does he edit like the editor in question, there was an edit made to the wiki that shall not be named on the same day that An Inconvenient Truth made a similar edit here. I really don't think it was a coincidence. He was apparently reported, but the WMF does not handle matters like these as well as ArbCom did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. I will keep an eye on their edits and see if they violate any content policies. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will shoot you the email I received. In the meantime, what do you think of the revert I made at the Rape article? Do you think we should keep that content except find better sources to support it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Akaki Tsilosani
Dear Jytdog. I highly respect your contribution to Wikipedia. I kindly ask you to explain how the titles & authors on the books/publications cover pages may be copyright violation??? International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) just copied the list of Doctor A. Tsilosani's list of publications on their website. Titles can't be copy violation at all. They should be same, every time, everywhere (in Wikipedia or in any magazine or journal)! Otherwise should we alter the original titles and rename authors name & headers??? It's impossible. It contradicts international low as well as Wikipedia rules. Please undelete the article about doctor Akaki Tsilosani. Thank you in advance! Zetalion (talk)
 * You did more than that; you even copied the line breaks. Please note that I didn't delete anything; i just tagged it. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Homotaurine
Jaydog thanks for feedback on my addition to Homtaurine. However, I am confused as to why you removed it. It was clearly cited with a scholarly journal article which Wikipedia has noted is an important source (Journal for the Prevention of AD). I did see the reference in the when I made the addition, did you not see it?DHeidtman (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the dif when you added the content is here; when I reverted, my edit notes said "primary source; please read WP:MEDRS and use recent secondary sources. thanks". Did you read WP:MEDRS?  Do you understand what we mean by "recent secondary sources"?   If you don't understand, please ask.   Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Keratoconus
Hi, what is "not really neutral" about my edit? current lead section is very misleading. in KC many of the mentioned surgical options are useless and not necessary. a good fitted contact lens is all needed. corneal graft is the ONLY surgical option that may sometime be required. and crosslinking just has a different purpose. k18s (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss on the article talk page. please post there and i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made another edit. see if wording is better. for this, I prefer to get a faster reply here. but I will start a discussion on talk:keratoconus for removing some of the mentioned treatments from the lead. k18s (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not discuss content here. That belongs on the article talk page where everyone watching the article can see it. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing an exceptional claim against a book publisher
Hello Jytdog, regarding the Rachel Haywire article, after reading my response here, would you please check my edit again, where I removed the line:


 * According to the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, the book's publisher Arktos has strong ties to the neo-nazi movement and white supremacism.[15]

I removed this for several reasons:


 * The publisher Searchlight has since removed the article - you resolved this by linking to the Internet Archive cache of the page.
 * This seems like an 'exceptional claim' by Wikipedia standards, even though it's framed as "According to the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight." Exceptional claims require multiple sources.  Do you agree?
 * Five years ago, the editor-in-chief of Arktos book publishing refuted the claim from the original Searchlight article, calling it unsubstantiated and patently false - this refute was not included as a reference, the publisher was given no defense.

I'm not sure how Wikipedia editors would allow such an evocative claim against a book publisher to be made under an article for one of the publishers authors. Is this not out of line and inappropriate?

Thanks for your time here.

--Occlith (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for the article talk page. If you would post your comment there, I will answer there.  That is so everyone who watches about the article can participate, and so it remains in the talk page history.  Best regards  Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

proposed change to Mitragyna speciosa article
Hi, would you like to go ahead and make your proposed change to the Mitragyna speciosa article lead? Or I can make the edit for us also. I think the only difference from your copy was to change "vomiting" to "nausea" and Doc_James agreed with that. Cheers! Kevin143 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Glutamine
Hi, it's Yvain.masson, You revert my modification on the glutamine page recently. I changed the first sentence because it's not say that is the L-glutamine which is one of the 22 proteinogenic amino acid. According to my research glutamine include two enantiomers and only one is use in human proteins, if you agree with that can you specify it in your sentence ? Sincerely, Yvain Masson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yvain.masson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. here was your edit.  I reverted here and my edit note said "too WP:TECHNICAL"  - did you read WP:TECHNICAL?  Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Price of sofosbuvir in Iran
Dear Jytdog I'm new to editing on wikipedia thus please excuse me if I'm not using the correct method to contact you; or better, tell me how I should do so. I had added a short line to the page on "sofosbuvir" in the section on "price in asia". I had given the price of the only combination of sofosbuvir available in Iran. You undid my edit saying "no specific source". Can you please tell me why, or what I did wrong? There was a link to the fda of Iran which is the official source for pricing and insurance. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merats (talk • contribs) 05:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. here is the dif I reverted. The reference there was to http://www.fda.gov.ir/ which is not specific - it isn't reasonable to ask someone to search that whole website (which is not in English, fwis) to find the price of the drug.  In the future, these kinds of questions are best on the Talk page of the relevant article.  Thanks again!  Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merci. I replaced it with a direct link to the excel file on FDA's web site (which is in English). Hope it's OK now and thanks for your help. And yes, my next question will be on the talk page :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merats (talk • contribs) 07:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Brachytherapy
Hi, when you threw out the link to my paper on the earliest history of brachytherapy because of WP:SPS, did you consider my comments on the talk page (now in archive 1: history) and that I have previously published on the topic, together with other people, in a quite reputable journal, "Nowotwory - Journal of Oncology"? 2003:8B:4871:49A5:E884:3B45:B6D2:FA17 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)F.S Litten

Neuroscience
Are you going to the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego? I'm going to be there Saturday–Wednesday. If you will be there, I could email you and maybe we could plan to meet up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer but I am not going. I appreciate the offer, very much Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Felodipine
Hi, with regards the Felodipine page, I addressed your concerns about citing Patents in the summary of my last edit. Also, I did find an instance where I incorrectly capitalized a common noun and fixed it. Are there any other issues I should address? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factappreciation (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion at the talk page, Talk:Felodipine. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your common sense edit on the Chiropractic article. As you probably already know, there has been a very concerted and obsessive effort by some editors, one in particular recently, to aggressively assert some unsupported right to include the term "pseudoscience" as the first descriptive word in alternative medicine articles. As far as I'm concerned this goes completely against several important and non-negotiable policies. I agree that many (probably most) alternative medicines are pseudoscience according to the correct definition of that word. That, however, is not in itself a valid reason in my view to use the word in opening sentences, especially before fundamental description such as "alternative medicine". The fact that such things are considered pseudoscience belongs elsewhere in the opening paragraph. So thanks for your effort to keep the article more appropriately expressed. Afterwriting (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Stockrow
Hello Jytdog,

I have taken the liberty to put the Finance links back on Abbott Laboratories but without the link to Stockrow. I hope it is OK. Maxime Vernier (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Depression
Dear Jytdog, there will be no more edits on mood and personality. It was in good faith. My apologies.SauropediaXXL (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello, just notifying you that I made a report on you in regards to the edit war. I still believe that we can work this out on the talk page for Peter A. Allard Law.CanadaRed (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can work it out starting from where it was before you reverted the work that was done four months ago, and settled then.. Your demand to completely do over, work that was done four months ago, is not reasonable, and not appropriate.  You need to work through the restoration, not restore en masse.Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

About the URL Amendments
Could you provide a suitable description as to why you undid the revision done by me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biofuel&oldid=prev&diff=749247800)Jn045 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC) and marked it as spam?
 * ah i see what you were doing now. my apologies, i reinstated most of what you did.  Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's okay. I am currently working on the pages with URL Errors. Watching you have a huge following on wiki, could you tell a few people to join me in the task? It would be better if a few more joined hands. Jn045 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad article
The article João de Deus (medium) is in a bad shape. I thought I should mention this fact here. User Maerlander has used the editsummaries Removed the Gazette article to criticism and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_de_Deus_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=749353655&oldid=747267496 I deleted the first sentences of acclaimed sexual assaults. With every famous person, these claims might be there, but someone who has dedicated his life to cure ill people, for free, should not be portayed like this in the first sentence of an article]. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oh my. watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are interested in this kinda stuff, but I left a comment over at Talk:María de los Ángeles Pineda Villa. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Please exercise caution in casting aspersions and making threats toward other editors. Montanabw (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. seaniz (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable existence of non-NEJM sourced articles
You have contributed to multiple articles with extraordinary claims. Per discussion at, if the claims made in these articles is really mainstream accepted knowledge, this is NEJM stuff. Where are those sources? It is advised to refrain from entertaining the sheer existence of this articles. You can see find articles in your edit history. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on William Swinden Barber
Please could you kindly assist with the above problem? You may also like to check the discussion on the subject on the article's talk page, where the same editor has not been very polite. I would very much like to continue my work on WP in peace, and not be distracted by a person whose talk page records quite a history of this sort of behaviour. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

David M. Cote COI
Hey Jytdog, I was hoping you could help me resolve a conflict I’ve been having regarding my paid COI. I’ve been attempting to add greater detail to David Cote’s BLP, but I feel the other involved editor has been extremely wary of my suggestions (which I find understandable in and of itself) or otherwise outright ignoring my attempts to collaborate. I realize this is only my perspective on the events, but I thought that given your previous critical but fair assessment of my actions could give me a greater insight into the situation. I’m not trying to point fingers anywhere, just trying to find a constructive way forward. If you’ve got the time, I’d appreciate it if you could review Talk:David M. Cote. By the nature of my work, I know that i have inherent biases, and I value your opinion on these sorts of matters.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to look, sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't see anything recent... ? Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, somehow I missed your follow-up. The latest conflict was the editor inquestion reinstating some content I had petitioned for removal here, and described in this edit summary as being without consensus. My last talk page posting was another attempt to reach out to try and come to a consensus together, but since my last attempt to find some common ground (via 3O) was ignored, I feel like I'm being antagonized. Compounded with the two of us getting off on the wrong foot here, I realize that I'm too close to the situation to really be objective about any of it, which is why I reached out to you.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Howdy! I initially forgot to tag you in my reply on the talk page, so I just wanted to follow up with you and make sure nothing fell through the cracks. If you're just busy, no worries, please disregard this. Thanks again for your time!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey at this point I'm just assuming you don't have the time. I'm going to extend an invitation to another user to review the situation, but if you find the time to comment feel free to chime in!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Neuroreceptor imaging
The study concluded about D1 receptors that

"PET assessments of D1 receptor binding have emphasized the stri- atum due to the relatively low specific-to-nonspecific binding in extra-striatal tissues. The extant PET data are suggestive of a decrease in D1 receptor availability in the striatum. Postmortem studies, in contrast, have focused on extrastriatal regions. The percentage of D1-expressing neurons together with D1 mRNA expression was reported to be increased by 25% in the CA3 region of the hippocampus (Pantazopoulos et al., 2004) in BD subjects versus controls, but to not differ from controls in the amygdala of MDD subjects (Xiang et al., 2008). The hypothesis that the D1 receptor function is decreased in the striatum of depressed patients receives some support from a rat model of anhedonia. Anhedonic rats show a decreased dopaminergic response in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) to palatable food concurrent with decreased sensitivity of the D1 receptor (Scheggi et al., 2011). Fur- ther, in rhesus monkeys, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) resulted in in- creased dopaminergic neurotransmission in the striatum together with transient increases in D1 receptor binding (Landau et al., 2011)."

Should this not be mentioned in the Biology of Depression Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for talking! please copy your comment there and i will respond there -- best to keep article discussion on its Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Kallmann syndrome.
Hello,

I would like to ask about a couple of the edits you made to the Kallmann syndrome page today. I can understand the removal of the links to the two patient information web sites (both mine) but it is the removal of the Doctors TV episode link and the link to the GnRH deficiency network links that I would like to ask about.

With Kallmann syndrome being such a rare condition it does not get mentioned on TV. This programme, even though it was by what might be classed as a "celebrity TV doctor" it gave a very good account of my condition and showed how a patient was diagnosed and given initial treatment. It was a very useful programme for anybody who might have Kallmann syndrome to watch. The content was factual, I was a little annoyed by the word "nonsense". I thought it was a valid and suitable link. Even though the programme is over 5 years old now it still gets seen on You Tube and is very helpful in alerting people to this rare condition.

The GnRH deficiency network website is an information website run by a Kallmann syndrome researcher based in Switzerland. It gives patient information and medical information from a consortium of Kallmann syndrome specialists, many of whom are authors of the medical papers I have used as links within the article. I thought it was a suitable external link as it can provide extra information not given in the article such as patient information sheets and contact details for Kallmann specialist doctors around Europe. I read through the list of prohibited external links and could not see why this one would not be allowed.

Would I be allowed to revert these two external links. I do not want to do anything before asking your opinion first.

I made a couple of minor edits to the text of "Kallmann syndrome" with hopefully the appropriate references.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! Pllease do review WP:EL to see how we use that section. There is already one patient story there.  OK I will restore the other. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thank you for restoring the one external link. I can see your point about having one patient video on their already (which is me by the way).

The other minor point, and I really do not want to make a big deal of this, is the use of UK / European spellings in medical terminology. I have read what the guidelines say and I am drawn to this sentence.

"While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently."

The majority of the text of the article is mine and I write using the UK / European spellings for the medical terms that have different spellings and I have remained consistent throughout the article. The word "oestrogen" is mentioned at least 4 other times, all the "o" spelling. The majority of the articles referenced in the article use the "oestrogen" spelling, even the American papers. I really do no want to make a big deal of this and I do not want to edit it back before talking to you but I wanted to highlight the fact I am being consistent with my spelling throughout the article.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The International Who's Who 2004 /Europa Publications
So now you can reeds this very carefull, and take your conclussions. Carolus (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The International Who's Who 2004 /Europa Publications
 * 2) The International Who's Who 2004 /Europa Publications
 * 3) The International Who's Who 2004 /Europa Publications
 * 4) The International Who's Who 2004 /Europa Publications
 * See the discussion already taking place at Talk:Paul Janssen. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

hypersensitivity pneumonitis
I saw you reverted my edit. It was one of my first attempts to make an edit on my iPhone and I honestly couldn't even review changes--so I'm not 100% sure how the edit turned out, !"but my concern was that there is nothing in the post to explain how HP is differentiated clinically from asthma (in the Acute setting). I tried to add that information and I'm not sure how it turned out. Could you help me out, in he interim, until I have access to a PC again? (Currently I have my iPhone and iPad). Tmbirkhead (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Hypersensitivity_pneumonitis Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

National Report
I can't see anything in the Washington Post article that specifically mentions National Report stories being shared by the Trump campaign, and at least one of the links mentioned in the WP article relates to what seems to be a different fake news site, "NewsExaminer". Paul Horner appears to write articles in various places (or various hoaxers use the pseudonym, etc), and the Washington Post doesn't single any websites out directly. --McGeddon (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss article content on the article talk page, if you want to repost there. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Also happy to discuss anything - I was going off of WP:NEWSPRIMARY, which says that "interviews and reports of interviews" are defined as primary sources by policy. Until you added the Snopes article, the sources were all direct interviews with Horner. Am just being a little more cagey than usual on this one because we're by definition dealing with a hoaxer, and should tread carefully with claims like "those fake stories you've heard being shared by Trump staff - that was me!", using secondary sources that have taken a look and confirmed it. --McGeddon (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Policy
Please stop deleting sourced content, as you did to Craig J. N. de Paulo. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Harassment warning
Your recent editing history at User talk:Chicbyaccident shows that you are currently engaged in an Harassment. Instead of harassing users with templates and threats, please use the talk page to work toward consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not harass and warn of blocking. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Being involved in harassment can result in your being blocked from editing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I urge you to delete the templates that you have spammed my talk page with, cease deleting sourced material from the article Craig J. N. de Paulo, and if you object on content or edits of that article, then please feel free to address that on the article's talk page, Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Neuromicrobiology
Hello Jytdog. a little while back you moved the entire page on neuromicrobiology to the gut-brain axis page. while I think that there are many parts of neuromicrobiology that are liked to the gut-brain axis page, they are not synonymous. there are numerous ways in which microbes may interact with the central nervous system that have or are currently being researched. In fact, most departments of neuromicrobiology study neuropathology, something that research far beyond interactions with the gut. I do agree that much of the section concerning the microbe-gum-brain axis was repetitive in regards to the current gut-brain axis; however, I still think that it should briefly be refereed to in the neuromicrobiology page which, once again, I believe, is not fully encompassed within the parameters of the gut-brain axis. AInWonderland (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * first, thanks for talking! I would fully support an article about Neuromicrobiology that was actually about that field, and not just about gut-brain axis stuff.  Please feel free to build well-sourced content there about the field. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrme page
Hi Jytdog, I noticed you reverted a revision I made to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page. I raised this issue on the Talk page some weeks ago, and had no discussants. I think instead of just undoing each other's edits without explanation, it would be good if we could discuss our disagreements here - or on the Talk page - and come to some resolution.

As I noted on the Talk page, the edit I made resolved a plagiarism issue (the existing wording for this section was taken word-for-word from the article referenced). It also added some more detail about onset, from prospective studies. This is also from the same review that was originally referenced. You will realise that retrospective studies of onset are limited (by recall bias, etc). Prospective studies offer a complementary source of evidence so are worth including.

Can you tell me what it is about my edit that you were not happy with? We both want to create a balanced page which presents the existing evidence in as neutral a way as possible, and I'm sure if we discuss, we can resole the problem.

--Wilshica (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Wilshica
 * happy to discuss on the article talk page. Please restate there. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have raised this already on the Talk page: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome/Archive_19 Have just reposted it so it appears again on top talk page. Shall we discuss there?--Wilshica (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology‎
Stop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Spam?
Am I missing something? I reverted an edit on Prostate massage by an IP that removed a long-standing link that seems to offer more information on the topic and is factually accurate. You reverted me. I've just done a web search for similar information and there is precious little. So I think the link does extend the information in the article, and is worthwhile. But I am open to correction. Ratel (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * chronicprostatitis.com features a huge ad for garbage dietary supplements and is not a high quality site for information about health. spam. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that, after a quick inspection, you think the supplements featured there are "garbage", but just checking on it now, I see they are quercetin phytopharmaceuticals used to treat a specific condition (prostatitis), not multivitamins etc. Looking at the science, I see quite a lot of evidentiary support (review studies here), so apparently not garbage. So can we agree the featured nutraceuticals are not garbage and the site is not promoting hocus-pocus? Ratel (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * don't know what you are looking at but when I get there, i am greeted by a huge banner featuring from Farr Labs advertising four dietary supplements that promise to "Boost hardness" and "increase libido". Garbage.  If you want to continue to arguing to include this spam in WP please do it in on the article Talk page so others can participate. I actually looked at the most recent ref in your search which says there is insufficient evidence to say if quercetin helps or not (there has been exactly one small RCT, the outcome of which was indeterminate; the most recent review says that RCT was discussed in more detail in the older review that is publicly available as .)  If you are going to cite research, actually read it.  I won't reply further here.  But thanks for talking.  Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll comment there. Ratel (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hyperforin (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Interesting
That was a bit surprising what you did on the talk page of health effects of tea. IMO, that was clearly inappropriate (as was the recurrence of Alexbrn's troublesome pattern of behavior while interacting with other editors). You know better, Jyt. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * i'm not commenting on what you wrote but rather where. You know darn well that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and user talk pages are for discussing concerns about user behavior.  Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right...I think it was clear that the behavior was having a negative effect on the discussion on improving that article. I think we both know you have a tendency to come to Alex's aid whether he's right or wrong (he's wrong more often than he realizes, but I digress) and I'll leave it at that. We'll have to agree to disagree. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your use of the article talk page to discuss editor behavior was inappropriate and if you keep doing that it will become an issue for ANI. This is not ambigious and I suggest you re-read WP:TPG as you seem to have completely forgotten this. It is also not true that I come to Alexbrn's aid and my hatting your inappropriately-placed comments had nothing to do with helping anybody.   I don't know what has gotten into you. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your IP friend
I've blocked your recent IP friend and their range, 2607:fea8:2ca0:251::/64, for a week. It's all one person, and they seem to take a special pleasure in reverting you. Let me know if they continue to harass you after the block expires (if the first four groups of figures are the same, it's the same /64 range), because that kind of range can easily be blocked for longer. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
 * thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * hi - the troll is back at South Beach Diet. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alexbrn. Didn't learn anything from the first block, I guess. I've made it three months. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC).

Sexophobia
Anon OR is back. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * hmm thx . fell off my watchlist Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SSRIs
Jytdog, I recently updated content under the SSRI wikipedia page under the pharmacogenetics section which you removed. Is this based on my citation style? I used a recently published book on the mechanism of SSRI action and included clinical relevant data. I am hoping to find where my error is. Thank you. Mgemmel (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking about this dif. The source is kind of OK. If you look at worldcat, the book is available in only 12 libraries worldwide --- not great.... and edited book chapters are not as rigorous as our preferred sources which are literature reviews published in good journals. See WP:MEDDEF and WP:MEDRS generally.  But if you are going to use it, please at least provide page numbers.
 * But the bigger issue was the content. First, you put this in a clinical section but the content was all research -- there are no PGX/theranostic tests to guide SSRI prescribing. Along those lines there were things that seemed to be fantasy, like "SSRIs medications can influence epigenetic mechanisms, and can be prescribed based on the medications methylation or acetylation activity".   ???   That is not true, and I wonder if it is even in the book.  Things like this, where people want to verify what you wrote, is why you shouldn't use an obscure book.     But in any case what content  here is good, should go in a "Research" section, not the clinical section.    Second, there was a lot of editorializing language, like "interestingly"  (see WP:EDITORIALIZING).  Finally, the content mushes together the biology of depression with putative mechanisms of actions for SSRIs (just fluoxetine or all, I wonder?) and ends up being WP:SYN. If you want to take another shot at this, please post on the article's talk page so that folks who watch the article can review it.   Let me know if that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your feedback! My hope is to provide detailed information related to how the field of pharmacogenetics will aid in SSRI theraputics. I will be sure to amend my work to include your suggestions! Mgemmel (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being willing to listen, User:Mgemmel. but "will aid" is a dangerous idea in medical R&D which is very uncertain and where most things fail.   please don't add WP:CRYSTALBALL content to WP.   Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cord blood
Why did you remove all of the useful information about regenerative medicine and graft-versus-host disease from the cord blood article? In your adverse effects section, you are even requesting medical references for verification, but you removed the relevant citations that I had given. --Ben Best:Talk 12:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it very peculiar that you would retain much of the text that I added about graft-versus-host disease, while deleting the citations that I provided for that text. And more weirdly to then add text requesting medical references for verification. --Ben Best:Talk 12:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources you brought failed WP:MEDRS - mostly they were primary sources. See WP:MEDDEF.   That whole article was a mess and out-dated and I am rewriting it -- that is why there is an "under construction" tag on it.  Will finish today. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions regarding recent reversion made on article "Obesity".
Hello Jytdog! I realise my mistake in referencing a primary source and I thank you for reverting my input. However would the inclusion of other cited sources allow my edit to stand? MANY journals back up my edit, I just choose one. A quick search on google scholar proves so, with some journals exactly stating "lypogenesis causes obesity". Would like to see my edit stay for the good of the article and personal (college) related reasons. Darnburn98 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can cite a secondary source -- (a recent literature review from a good journal or a statement by a major medical/scientific body) -- per WP:MEDDEF please feel free to restore. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits by you
Why are you repeatedly vandalizing the performance-enhancing substances article? You're repeatedly removing sourced content without a very good reason. How on earth am I oversimplifying the content when I'm quoting the content directly? Maybe it's your understanding of it that's oversimplified. The source says very clearly that the two herbs exhibit adaptogenic properties. Why does your personal interpretation of the study hold any merit above and beyond what its authors say directly? It doesn't! It is obvious to me that your personal conflict of interest is interfering with your edits. You should be banned. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did as discussed on the talk page. "vandalism" is strong and inaccurate language. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You realize you just came off two consecutive blocks for the same kind of edits as above, right? Whether or not you agree with Jytdog's edits or they are in line with policy (I don't know or care either way), referring to them as vandalism is way beyond the pale and if you continue you'll soon be blocked again. What is especially concerning is that you admit in the same post that you are not acting in good faith and are just using vandalism as an epithet -- if Jytdog's edits are made because of a professional conflict of interest, then their edits are not vandalism. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will be more careful about using the v word. Thank you for the feedback. --Hyperforin (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pubmed indexing
May it be noted that henceforth any claims to requiring a "Pubmed indexed" article for MEDRS will be considered null and void. This is per irreversible precedent set by Jytdog in this edit. Any further attempts at requiring a Pubmed indexed article by Jytdog will be considered hypocritical and will be derided. Furthermore, this logic may also be applied to historical edits by Jytdog. --Hyperforin (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you really need to read WP:MEDDEF Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I? All I need to know is that Pubmed is not the be-all and end-all. There are many acceptable references that are not on Pubmed. Any attempts to intimidate other users with requests to require a Pubmed indexed article will be rejected and potentially reported. Also, it's not me that's clinging to guidelines which are five years older than the reference I had used. As I see it, it's doubly hypocritical. --Hyperforin (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For journal articles, sure. Statements by major medical/scientific authorities are fine MEDRS sources as well, and EMA is one of them.  Yes it is a bit old; as i noted if they ever revisit we should update.  Topic is a bit FRINGEy so WP:PARITY is relevant.  Would be great if mainstream authorities gave it more recent attention.   Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cameron Herold page deletion
I just noticed the page I created was tagged for speedy deletion and has been deleted. I am a new user and have read all the guidelines and had a veteran user help me. I do not understand why it was deleted. I would like to add this page back. --Jbeam72 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the subject appears to be not WP:NOTABLE per the page record; there have already been three efforts to create it this year (two were speedy deleted) and it was deleted in 2015 and 2013 before that. The most recent reason for the deletion was given in the close of the the most recent deletion decision. If you want to contest that close, please see Deletion_policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque
Hey

you took out my guardian reference? Please replace it. There's zero reason to be removing a quality ref that suported the statement better than it had been supported previous to my adding the ref.104.163.154.161 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Paul Horner
Good point about the recent edits of adding promotional junk. I made a request for semi-protection at Requests for page protection. Sagecandor (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe would it be more appropriate to make the same request over at WP:BLPN ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert
Hey, I reverted your edit on ALS because the content you removed looked fine and had plenty of sources. What was wrong with it? - Iago Qnsi (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * it wasn't a rollback and there is already a note on the talk page. at least two IPs have been edit-warring in badly sourced and promotional content.  I have changed the header. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

LearningRx
I had previously placed an advocate by an affiliated marketeer and another editor explained it's irrelevant and not acceptable. So why are we placing another affiliated source?--Taeyebar 23:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for opening a discussion - happy to discuss the article on its talk page if you will just repost there. thx. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, i agree with most of what you have said, but you need to replace the link to not confuse with Brain Balance. They are two very similar topics with very similar names. It was there for more than a year before you unexplained and removed it without consensus.--Taeyebar 23:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Jytdog, these past few months, I've noticed your great work in the more tricky areas of vandalism on Wikipedia. From personal experience, I know it can get tedious/discouraging very fast. Just wanted to say thanks—your contributions are much appreciated. Cheers, Airplaneman   ✈  00:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for wielding the mop so well! Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Chemokine
Hi Jytdog. Thanks for watching edits of scientific topics such as Chemokine. I'm glad that people like you are around, making sure content is correct and appropriate.

I did want to discuss a recent edit I made. On Nov. 22nd at 16:44.I added information on chemokine delivery with a reference   You had previously alerted me (at 1:31 on Nov 22nd) to the need for secondary sources, rather than primary sources. By the way, I hadn't heard this before, and once you taught me this I whole-heartedly agree.

I indicated that I was adding a secondary source when I made the Nov. 22nd 16:44 edit, but this time with a secondary source (a review article).

What I'm not clear about is why did you delete the secondary source that you had asked for, and then accuse me of getting into a editing war? I put the content in that you had requested. Did I misunderstand what you were asking for?

Is it possible that you didn't notice that the edit that I made was not a quick revert, but actually had different content? (a primary source the first time (23:54 on Nov 21); a secondary source the second time (16:44 on Nov 22)).

Or did I misunderstand what a secondary source is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDEF defines a secondary source as: "Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

The reference was:  Pokorski, JK.; von Recum, HA. (May 2013). "Peptide and protein-based inhibitors of HIV-1 co-receptors". Experimental Biology and Medicine (Maywood). 238 (5): 442–9. doi:10.1177/1535370213480696. PMC 3908444. PMID 23856897. This is a review article and so therefore meets that definition.

Anyway I'd be glad to discuss further if you have additional insight. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delv0n2 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! OK looking and taking notes while I do.... you first made this edit which was reverted by someone else for lack of a source, then this, which I reverted per MEDRS as you mention above, then this set of edits which I reverted for the same reason.
 * So yes the third time the reference was PMID 23856897.  You are correct that this is a secondary source.  I just self-reverted as the edit note was not accurate.
 * However, this ref does not appear to support the content " and that sustained delivery of such inhibitors have the capacity of long-term infection control."  I was going to remove the content but leave the ref, but since we are talking I will ask first - where in the ref is that content supported?  This is a paper about research into peptide/protein inhibitors of HIV-1 co-receptors (chemokine receptors).  There is content there about " To make translation of these molecules a clinical reality delivery options must be developed to make administration viable in resource-limited settings, most likely as preexposure prophylactic microbicides. " but a) it doesn't say for certain that this will work and the content implies it will work; b) the ref says nothing about "sustained delivery" nor "long term" control.  (I could as easily read  - "onetime shot" and "short term" control into those few words); and c) in general, this is a passing mention in the article and not what it is focused on.
 * This is the same content that you tried to add orginally in your first diff, with no reference and in the second diff, with just a primary source.
 * It appears that it is very important to you for some reason to get this content into WP and you are kind of just reaching for ~something~ to support it. That is backwards from how we usually work.  We generally look for the best and most recent references on things, and simply summarize them in WP.
 * So... unclear to me what is going on here.... Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ageing Management
Hey, just wondering what advise you'd give to me regarding my edit that was undone. How might I better place the information or what edits would you make to it in order to make it more relevant?

"Research in University of Washington has shown that the Acorn Worm, one of our closest invertebrate relatives, is capable of regenerating body parts. This is hoped to raise the possibility of humans being able to do the same. According to a recent article in the journal; Developmental Dynamics Acorn worms can regrow every major body part, "including the head, nervous system and internal organs". Since humans and these worms have many genes in common, it may simply be a question of how to activate the genes (existing in both species) to work in humans. Potentially, this could be a means to immortality as failing organs/ systems could simply be re-grown. [155] Luttrell, Shawn M.; Gotting, Kirsten; Ross, Eric; Alvarado, Alejandro Sánchez; Swalla, Billie J. (2016-12-01). "Head regeneration in hemichordates is not a strict recapitulation of development". Developmental Dynamics. 245 (12): 1159–1175. doi:10.1002/dvdy.24457. ISSN 1097-0177."

Thanks, Erenevi1097 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your userpage you working in WP as part of some class assignment for some kind of "Critical Skills" class.... I don't see that there is any class project page in Wikipedia via the education program.  There should be; please ask your teacher to contact those folks.


 * In my edit note I wrote: "promotional content about recent primary source - see WP:MEDREV." Did you read WP:MEDREV and the rest of WP:MEDRS?  Please do answer. Thanks.


 * Since you are taking a "Critical skills" class I will also suggest you read WP:Why MEDRS? and think about it, then look at your own three edits on Diabetes, aging, and biomass critically. If you do, let me know what you come up with.  Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Another place that might be helpful to take a look at is WP:Student assignments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Biology of depression
This page has way too much OR, is in some sections, such as the VTA, totally lacking citation and has tons of primary sources. It needs to be cleaned up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Petergstrom I agree If you would clean it up and refresh the content based on MEDRS sources that would be fantastic. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Summaries
You could try being less of a jackass in your edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, thanks.  trying but need to try harder. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * None of us is perfect. In the spirit of WP:BRD, you really are supposed to leave that contentious source out.  There are some better sources that will show wax comes in a range but most is less than 99%, as it isn't the largest commercial product due to waste in production, something I'm familiar with.  I would rather find the source than fight it out at AN3, but it's late here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Cinnamon
Hi Jytdog. We have had a minor clash recently on the Cinnamon article and I am here in an effort to explain my course so we could possibly avoid further issues. I think I understand where you are coming from and I am not trying to impose unreliable information on the page really.

I find it important that the nature, and to some extend effects and usability, of bioactive compounds in cinnamon are at least touched in the article. It is widely known (also in academia) that cinnamon has some remarkable anti-microbial, anti-fungal and anti-inflammatory properties (other useful bioactive properties too). We need to include a few sentences about that in the article. I know that that doesn't mean cinnamon is safe to ingest in all amounts and I know that is doesn't mean that cinnamon is effective in treating medical conditions. Facts that are already sourced and explained in the article as is. But the bioactive effects are notable and should not be left out. Some of them have potential use not only for human health, but also for preservation, bio-coating of materials and as pesticides even. It has a broad range. What I am trying to do, is to include this information, without jeopardizing the toxicity and lack of medical effects of cinnamon. I am also trying to keep the information general, as details should be included in the specialized articles on specific species, as they differ somewhat in their chemical make-up.

I hope you can see where I am heading? Perhaps you would even like to join me and add some of this stuff yourself?

RhinoMind (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure that makes sense and I can try to help. Just keep in mind that there is no such thing as a compound that has drug-like effects and has no side effects.  And we need to use high quality sources per WP:MEDRS for health claims.  Thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric universe
I have come across 2 editors that seem to be rather protective of this article.

The 1st editor Josophie, judging from their edits vs the edit summary, tends to delete skeptical material. And now a 2nd editor Howeverland with only a short list of contributions, that I can see, popped up. With similar edit summary wording.

I saw your notices to both, and am concerned Howeverland is a sock puppet for Josophie.

Could you review my deleted edit that I had placed in the lede, I felt it appropriate and well worded as WP says "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Shall I persue on the talk page thread to negotiate un-revert of my edits? any advice/tips?

At what point/considerations should I think about Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? I don't want to jump-the-shark here.  WurmWoode  T   00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We can discuss the article at its talk page. I don't discuss other editors; if you have concerns about sockpuppetting that you believe are sustainable please file a case about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Biology of depression
One source source states: : "whereas the aggregate effect size calculated from studies that included only medicated individuals indicated that amygdala volume was significantly increased in depressed relative to healthy persons, studies with only unmedicated depressed individuals showed a reliable decrease in amygdala volume in depression."

That was roughly what I wrote

Another states"More specifically, dorsal prefrontal regions are commonly described as under-active with increases in activity of subgenual cingulate and subcortical regions."

I wrote that the prefrontal regions were hypoactive

Another source said "Our emotion meta-analysis showed clusters of altered and increased activation in left thalamus/parahippocampus and left amydgala/globus pallidus, while right anterior cingulate/putamen, right amygdala showed a relative decreased activation."

This is what I wrotePetergstrom (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss this art the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rat Shenanigans
Is it ok to add this study on the NAc in depression that uses mostly rat depression models? There used to be a section on it but it was all primary sources and rat studies so I removed it but this is a review.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shigeyuki_Chaki/publication/51427908_Neurochemistry_of_the_Nucleus_Accumbens_and_its_Relevance_to_Depression_and_Antidepressant_Action_in_Rodents/links/564fd4b208ae1ef9296ecd80.pdf

Petergstrom (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * funny header! Thanks for asking.  In my view that is a 10 year old review (in a field with lots of ongoing research) talking about rodent studies and in minimally relevant to human depression.  But you should ask at the article. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about "Vaccine" updates
I had made a change on a page, adding truthful and documented facts to a page here on Wiki. It was then "rightfully reverted" and I was told to talk here about it. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate location for this discussion. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.

The changes I made should stand, as they are entirely truthful, and documented by the CDC, along with proof from the CDC in the form of a link. Therefore my edits should stand and be left alone. Instead, they are being removed. This is the second time it was removed, so I am wondering what the purpose is of removing truthful and accurate information. I figured rather than putting it up again, I would attempt to find out the reasoning to delete truthful information. At this point, it just seems that some want this hidden, and no one should hide facts from those wanting to research any medical choice, such as vaccines.

I reworded this:

"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present."

to say this:

"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present, such as human fetal DNA from aborted babies, fetal bovine serum, human serum albumin, porcine DNA, bovine serum albumin, and other animal DNA "

The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed above, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

69.78.235.130 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the same thing you wrote at User talk:Edgar181 under the IP User:199.74.155.50, and I replied there. Took me a while to find it as you are IP-hopping. You should post this to the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have the ability to control my IP address. Whether I am on my work machine at home, or on it on VPN at home, or at work, or on the VPN at work, it varies, and I can't control that IP change.  I misunderstood your statement then.  I was under the impression you were saying to put this on your talk page.  I misunderstood though, as now you are saying to put this under the article talk page instead.  Sorry for the confusion.  But my original confusion still stands, as all I stated was fact.  So deleting facts seem counter-intuitive for Wikipedia....  But I will bring it to the article talk page and see if someone wants to discuss how facts are not to be stated on this Vaccine page...47.185.111.92 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to impute any fault when I said "IP hopping" - just means that what you are doing cannot be traced via your contribs. You should consider creating an account, btw - then the issues go away.   Please bear in mind that WP content depends on sources, and for content about health like this, the source needs to comply with WP:MEDRS Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Great to know about the IP hopping, I don't mean to be doing it, and I completely realize that makes it all hard to trace.... I was thinking about making an account, but if everytime I update some facts, they get removed, it makes me hesitant to even try harder to help more.....  Hope that makes sense....  And I guess a dumb question, but wouldn't the CDC's own information be compliant with WP:MEDRS? I guess I assumed that since the CDC is a source cited on the Vaccine page already, that that would be a place you would want information from. I just took a short, incomplete sentence, and expanded it to give facts. I assumed that would be a quick and easy approval and would stay as fact. I was shocked it was removed so quickly.... 47.185.111.92 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that the point of your edit is to mention abortion. The CDC doesn't say anything about that. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

My 3RR warning
A lesson in diplomacy and dodging dogshit, with humor! Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your fourth diff there was very smart - resolving the issue by stepping back. Good on you for that.  But you are too heavy handed in removing content sometimes.  I appreciate your work cleaning out unsourced/badly sourced gunk very, very much, but please be mindful that you are too heavy handed sometimes. You have heard that from me, Doc James and some others.  Please be mindful of that feedback.  Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Chiro education
Apologies if you thought I was beginning a personal attack, I had quite honestly thought you already went there with your comment to QG. I guess the manner in which it was written was misconstrued in my mind. Would appreciate a response to my questions posed on the talk page at your convenience. Thanks :) Semmendinger (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * that is a very kind of you. i replied there. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External country gateway links
Jytdog, I do not see the relevant explanation in WP:ELNO regarding "one" external link per country. Can you paste it here. Wrigleygum (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss on the article talk page - please ask there. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jytdog, you did a nice job cleaning up the paragraph on Carbamazepine today. I only had time to move the one sentence, but I like your changes to the paragraph. I appreciate your edits and feedback so far on my wikipedia editing. JenOttawa (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit War
I met with the staff on irc, they agreed my edit was valid. Please contact them regarding this matter. Twillisjr (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, and who ever you interacted with was wrong. Did you get their username?  Please provide that here.
 * Also did you read WP:MEDREV as I suggested here? Please do reply about that there.  Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Nice catch
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio
This edit is a copyvio of this pubmed abstract. I'm not sure where to report this in order to redact the edit, but I know you've reported copyvios in the past, so can you take care of this? I'd appreciate it. Best regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I put the template:copyvio-revdel on it and used the template:uw-copyvio-new on the IP editor's talk page. Thanks for catching it! Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for getting into your conversation. Do we have to put this template whenever a copyright infringement is eliminated? I have withdrawn some copyvios during last months, the last one few days ago, but I did not know this procedure. What should I do?
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I ~ think~ we should always revdel but I only do it when it is relatively straightforward/recent or very big. if i find an old one that is all tangled in the edit history I don't do it. But maybe someone who is wise and watches this page will give the right answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your answer. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of this! I'll make a note of that template for future reference.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

CTCT new sources
I've added some additional sources to "that topic" for your review and split the section into a new topic for newer sources to avoid confusion. Hope I didn't wreck it. If I did, pls adjust as needed. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you are doing or thinking on that page but you probably need to try and explain it. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Edit-Warring Notice
If you think so, bring this to ANI. Each event is separate and I see you have a loud history yourself. And provide better reasons, instead of "let it be".

Your recent editing history at Singapore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
You removed a list of notable faculty for being unsourced. What part do you think needs a source? The fact that they are faculty? The only faculty listed are those with wikipedia articles, and their profiles show that they are faculty at Hutch. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A wikilink is not a reference - in fact you cannot use another WP article as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. Please provide citations. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Content deletions?
Me and you recently had a minor skirmish in article Gammaretrovirus over deleted material. Some of the material was unsourced, and some was sourced only by a source you deemed not reliable, so you deleted both source and supported text. We're over that. However, I screened your contributions over the past year or so, and noticed a pattern of deleting article text. Even 'additions' to articles were things like Request for Deletion notices. In fact, I found very few actual contributions by you. It's a disturbing pattern. A large portion of the encyclopedia is unsourced text. It's a global malady, one we live with every day. It's hard to build, easy to destroy.

Deleting another editor's work is likely to cause resentment, may get reverted, and could ultimately result in an edit war. The template:unreferenced sortta sums it up: Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Before summary removal (other than for copyvio, BLP, etc), it is better to 1)tag it as unsourced or dubious, etc (i.e. 'challenge'); or 2)notify the offending editor to source it; 3)enter your concerns on the talk page to get consensus for removal; 4)source it yourself, if you can (very helpful, actually), 5)wait and do nothing, especially if the material is relatively new (wait for editor to source it); 6) if the material is unsourced because it is dubious or actually false, maybe you can fix it, whether you are able to source it or not. Some whole articles are entirely unsourced. I once deleted one, and immediately got reversed by an administrator with a warning for WP:BLANK. Other times, I blanked a section, and apparently got immediately reversed by someone's (administrator?) bot for WP:NOBLANKING, even though the section was wholly unsourced. We can't and probably shouldn't arbitrarily delete text, even fragments WP:PRESERVE.

If you know anything about gammaretrovirus, simian immunodeficiency virus, or lentivirus, a contribution would be greatly appreciated. These are pretty much skeletons.

Sbalfour (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "In fact, I found very few actual contributions by you." You are kidding, right? Roxy the dog. bark 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expressing your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI South Beach diet discussion
Hang on, man. I don't think anyone was trying to dismiss your original claims. I know I wasn't. Unfortunately, I myself don't know if I have access to the source involved, so I might not be able to verify whether it substantiates the particular phrasing as written. If it does, then there is definitely a case for removing material cited to a high quality source without sufficient cause. But it would help if we in fact knew the phrasing was clearly supported by the source. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you took that like i was unhappy with your response. you were correct! I will clarify that and the issue at ANi. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you
Agree with you about your analysis here.

User has now twice used Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to violate WP:FORUMSHOP and cast aspersions in unrelated cases at and.

Not sure as to your prior background with the user but these appear to be the wrong places and times to attempt to personally attack me and cast aspersions in unrelated reports.

I'm really not sure what's the best action to take with regard to this. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DS are in place to create a straight line to AE when people consistently violate community standards for behavior on a topic with DS. If you file a case at AE make sure your own nose is clean enough as your behavior will be looked at.  If you file a case it would be wise to first spend some time looking through the archives to see what is expected, what works, and what doesn't work.  Which is also useful for clearing your own head and letting your own emotions cool down if they are stirred up. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This explains some of what's going on here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just in case
Since I am very sick and might not get the chance to tell you this in the future, I just want you to know that I greatly appreciate you supporting me the way that you have. I know that you are more so supporting the guidelines and policies that I support, and I respect that even more. I know that I probably sometimes get on your nerves because even though I am strict with sourcing, according to some editors' standards, I'm not as strict as you are. But just know that you are one of the editors I hold in the highest regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am so so sorry flyer for what you are going through and so grateful for your vigilance. thank you for this kind note. there are no words. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Slowly
I've been slowly going through months of archived discussions at WT:RS, and I've finally finished reading Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 53 on "Churnalism". I don't know if it's gotten any further, but I had a few ideas about how to approach the issue, without directly changing the guideline:


 * Consider updating WP:USEPRIMARY to give a lightly edited press release as an example at LINKSINACHAIN. ("Cosmetic changes" might be a useful way of describing it.)  That might get people off the "an independent editor approved it, so it's secondary" problem.
 * Create Identifying press releases to help people figure out how to identify press releases that are masquerading as news stories (most importantly, by finding a copy of the original press release online). I've seen problems in both directions with this (both unfairly assuming that material comes from a press release and also assuming that nothing does).
 * Help people figure out when such re-printed press releases are acceptable (e.g., verifying the dates of the opera's annual gala) and when they're not (e.g., proving that 'the world at large' cared about this product/company/person).

Do any of these appeal to you? I have particular hopes for the middle one: if nothing else, it might save us the trouble of re-re-re-typing the same explanations. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I will consider doing the 2nd.  Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Haven't memorized MEDRS yet
...but I am pretty sure you have (a good thing). How about this: Barbara (WVS) (talk)
 * That is a link to a table of contents. which article in particular? Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hyoscine
Hi Jytdog. I have reworked my previous edit in Hyoscine page. Now I have added references (extracted from the catalan version of the page: burundanga) to support my statement. Unfortunately I cannot place a reference on my previous statement that Hospital Clinic of Barcelona has never found a trace of burundanga = scopolamine = hyoscine because this is personal communication of a friend in charge of the analytical lab, as I wrote in my first edit. I hope the new way to explain that most of the associations of scopolamine to crime are hoaxes or urban legends is sufficient for Wikipedia standards. If it is not, then I would ask to consider deleting the last paragraph of section 9.4 as it is only based on a newspaper biased information that does not consider the information delivered by the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (the article says, literally <<“The problem lies in certifying it; you reach the conclusion based more on the victim’s stories than on what you can scientifically prove, which unfortunately is little,” says Dr Manel Santiñà.>>). In fact, the same article collects contradictory information about its absorption through skin, and the cited reference in Madrid hospitals refers to drugs in general being used in robbery or rape, not specifically scopolamine.Xaranda (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Would you please put that on the relevant article's Talk page so everybody who watches that page can consider it?  I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniels in non-deliberate disarray this December
Hiya jyt, happy holidays and all that. I think you mixed up Daniel Case with the intended name here. Cheers - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

 * Thanks. not unexpected, but i wanted to try that. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Flagged as Advertisement: Jordan Fung
Please quote parts that may contain "advertisements" in the page Jordan Fung, and help improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleytao (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is terrible. Read any other biography in WP.  Fixing it will take hours.  Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

ECT
I actually figured it out by accident. I came across ECT, and it looked pretty legit. I started writing up a Wiki article about it, but as I looked further into it, things didn't match up. Their "about" page advertised that they were some huge company, but I found out they've got less than 50 employees, and just a few million in revenue. The CEO is some obscure guy, who runs a similar network just like it, called NewsFactor. ECT is allegedly out of California (office is a bank), while NewsFactor is allegedly out of Florida. After digging into it quite a bit, realized they shouldn't be on the Wikiz. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 07:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * nice catch, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fad diets pseudoscience?
I note the first sentence of the above article includes a link to pseudoscience, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of indication on the talk page as to whether the existing ArbCom rulings apply to this subject or not. Maybe it might make sense to go to ARCA for clarification as to whether the topic qualifies? John Carter (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * interesting question. fad diets are generally marketed with bad science, but there is a range of bad science, from exaggerated claims (super common) to outright pseudoscience,  Like we just had some fuss at the Michael Greger article... he urges people to go vegan (but definitely leaves room for just a plant-based diet!) and there is no doubt that a plant-based diet is 100% mainstream eating advice... but in the course of doing that he commonly exaggerates the dangers of meat.  On the other hand you have stuff like Dr. Oz and his freaking coffee beans which is pure woo pseudoscience and notions like "energy" in the raw food movement (a belief that "energy" from the sun stored in plants is lost by cooking and you should eat things raw and fresh (it is a form of muddle-headed vitalism) (overcooking things does reduce nutritional value, and nutrients are lost the longer things sit around, not to mention rot... but that is not what the raw food movement is about))
 * so there are some subtleties to it.
 * but would it be useful to make an intentional effort to ask the community bring "fad diets" explicitly under PSCI DS? Hm.  i think maybe.  Interested in what folks who watch this page think... Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's overlap between fad diets and pseudoscience (and indeed altmed), but it's not 1:1. I agree it would be good to have fad diets (broadly construed) explicitly under DS. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yes the altmed DS might be better... it is half dozen of one and six of the other. probably cam is better and arguably fad diets are already under those DS. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If they all qualify as one or the other, more or less by definition(?), then I don't think the Arbs would necessarily have any objections to implementing DS, maybe as a separate topic given the overlap one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * disruptions at these articles tend to sporadic and local, busting out to greater or lesser extents then dying down.  They are however regular and people do act badly ... people are passionate about food and about health (one of the best books talks about "diet cults").
 * Sometimes the spikes are driven by off-wiki stuff, like the recent small uptick (which came shortly after a sustained huge bump) at the Greger article, which was driven by this reddit thread. Sometimes it is one person who comes around sporadically, which is what happens at South Beach Diet.  It is not Arbcom level stuff generally; at least it hasn't been yet.  I got frustrated enough with one person's behavior to file the recent ANI case (which the community met with a shrug, mostly)  maybe having DS would take care of that kind of issue more simply.  I was thinking about trying to get some kind of DS implemented at the great big bump we went through at Greger (which SageRad came in at the tail end of, and exacerbated some)
 * So there are two steps to this, right? First is definitional: stating that topic or article X falls under available DS on topic Y.  Second is implementing: placing some restriction on the editing of a specific article (e.g 1RR for everybody) or person (e.g TBAN from topic Y or article X),  by any admin who takes the initiative or through a filing at AE.
 * you are suggesting, i think, that somebody goes to WP:A/R/C&A and gets step 1 done - namely asking for a clarification of whether CAM (or PSCI perhaps) DS should be available to fad diet topics, just to make the availability of DS unambiguous to keep people on best behavior via DS alerts. Right?    Here are links to the CAM DS and to the PSCI DS (see #14)... hm.   So you and Alexbrn seem to be leaning yes.   Let's see if anybody else weighs in on "good idea to get this done or not".  Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been some previous discussion about the boundary between diets that are and diets that are not pseudoscience, that grew out of discussions about categories for Vani Hari. The discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 16 led clumsily to the creation of Category:Diet food advocates (and that reminds me: Category talk:Diet food advocates). I then spun off Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. So there are fad diets that are pseudoscience, and fad diets that are simply fads (or something like that). I would imagine that the DS would apply specifically to the subset where secondary sources say that they are pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is helpful! CAM DS should cover them all tho yes? Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a tough question. It's always prudent to err on the side of assuming that DS do apply. However, was the guy who started Kellogg's Corn Flakes pseudoscientific, or just idiosyncratic, at least by the standards of his era? Or Graham Crackers? I'd say that you would have to be very clear that the diet is a fad diet rather than just a diet, in order to apply these DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Prod
Hi, please note I am just going through and checking every prod ( over 800) incase it may appear I was stalking, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are good, thanks. sorry i misread your prod on the science festival. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Article edits
My name is Alison Berges and I am General Counsel for PetMed Express, Inc., d/b/a 1-800-PetMeds. In September, 2016 the article PetMed_Express was deleted by Wikipedia editor Randykitty for allegedly not meeting “notability requirements.” When we contested the removal of the article with the Wikipedia editor, the page was reinstated. Recently we discovered that you made wholesale changes to the Wikipedia article for no discernible or legitimate reason given the article was factually correct in all regards and conformed entirely to Wikipedia standards. Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. While we understand the Wikipedia article is not something we “own” we nonetheless question the motives behind the wholesale changes to our page and are hereby formally asking that our page be reverted to its original state prior to the deletion noted above.

AB GenC (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that you pinged me, I am adding my opinion here. I think Jytdog did a lot of work to improve the article. If you have problems with any specific edits, you can discuss that on the article's talk page and suggest improvements based on independent reliable sources. Please also read WP:COI (and probably also WP:PAID). It probably is best if you do not edit the article directly. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NLT. See here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Randykitty and Alexbrn.
 * Hi Alison. First, please do read the link provided by Alexbrn.  Second, I am not going to fully accept that you are who say you are, since we have no way of knowing.   Third,  based on everything you did when you wrote here, and what you wrote, it is pretty clear that you don't understand much about WP at all, so your representation that it "conformed entirely to Wikipedia standards" isn't very compelling.  All that said, we discuss articles at the relevant article's talk page.  If you have any questions about any edit I  made, please post them there, and I would be happy to answer them there, which is the same thing I would say to anybody.  And please do ask; this doesn't have to be adversarial.  regards Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your user page: NPOV part I
I just wanted you to know that this seems to me to be a remarkably clear explanation not only of WP policies and their application to editing, but of some seldom-understood aspects of the practice of science. I have some insight into some of those kinds of things, but I learned from reading your explanations, and wanted to say thanks for that. Have you ever thought of turning it into a WP essay? I think it would be of benefit if these insights could be shared as widely as possible with the WP community. Evensteven (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you found it helpful, and thanks for letting me know. The WP:Why MEDRS? essay grew (monstrously) out of this. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! Glad to see it's already been put to practical use. I had had thoughts of a context that was more generally scientific. I know nothing about medecine, but I make forays as I am able into things such as astronomy and history of science - even into physics a couple of times! And, of course, in Christianity, where there are all sorts of opinions about science that are pure rot. Makes me wish for a "monster" to guard our door, too! ;-) Evensteven (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm yes i see what you are saying. a generalized version could be useful.  i will play with that! Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, that would be great! Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Megathon7 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Library museums pages
Some juicy COI editing here. I lack the time (and frankly, also the energy) to look deeper into this. Perhaps you feel like looking into it. --Randykitty (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't address any COI issues but can look at promotional editing. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case it's both, I guess. Sorry, I now remember seeing the earlier brouhaha about COI and you being blocked, but forgot about the topic ban. Too bad. Drop me a note if you're going to appeal this after the 6-month waiting period (I don't think it's canvassing if I ask you for this :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on descriptive statements about primary sources
Hi Jytdog. Regarding your edit on Ageing, I would be interested in additional clarification of this policy from WP:OR: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I had intended to remain within these limits, describing rather than interpreting the viewpoints I included. Could you tell me how I crossed the line? Thanks. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, please have a look at this, then let's talk more, if that is OK. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your reply. This is a really clear and articulate description of the policy and its justification. Reading it again, I see why my addition wasn't really encyclopedic style. Thanks again. ~ Peter1c (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why deleting pages?
, no need to clutter up the OA page with what can be a discussion between us. When you mention the pages getting "fucked up" and then you seem to have deleted/redirected several of my recent new pages, it might be that you think that it is my activity contributing to the fucking. So, why don't you want to have the ability to add details for ASU, SKI 360, gitadyl or any of the other additions to their own page?Sthubbar (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Things should become more clear tomorrow. Two of the supplement were ~maybe~ marginally notable, and gitadyl was not - zero MEDRS sources for it. Pls be patient. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism: continuously removing content from article
Hello, I'm Ftc-jordan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Smartglasses have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be careful about what you call "vandalism", especially when your account is a WP:SPA promoting one person in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added a new citation which is the product featured by the official Government of Hong Kong: https://www.eitp.gov.hk/en/showcase/pedosa-glass-won-several-awards
 * Please discuss on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your change of Sabaic
You changed Sabaic into South Arabic (There is no such thing as south Arabic), on the el page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

The Arabic language only uses the word Ilah while in Sabaic it uses 'l ( Beeston, A. F. L. Sabaic Dictionary: English, French, Arabic. Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions Peeters, 1982. Print.). That is why I changed it, and you reverted it back may I know why? Yoseph Hakohen (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * references are not optional. If you want to correct what you see as an error, you need to cite a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Do it yourself biology
I disagree with your edits to Do it yourself biology as spam. However I do agree that my citation source was poor quality. Please see my revised citation from O'Reilly Radar and let me know if you still consider this to be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcrwizard (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Would this be a better reference? https://backchannel.com/diybio-comes-of-age-4a5b15d1131f Pcrwizard (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a little better but still pretty poor. i did a search here and found nothing better. Maybe try proposing the content and that source on the article Talk page, and see what folks there think...Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
Can you tell me a bit about why a revision by me was undone by you in the Schizophrenia article? It was a minor revision, adding in a citation from the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin to further support the statement that "Some people do recover completely and others function well in society." You marked the edit as spam and undid the revision—perhaps because I'm the author of the article I'd added—but I'm really not sure. Was this your rationale? Is it really spam, considering that Schizophrenia Bulletin is the top schizophrenia journal? Please consider changing the edit back, if there really is nothing wrong with it, or explaining a bit more about your rationale, so I can learn from the experience? Thanks so much and good wishes for the new year!! Daniel Helman (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally for content about health, we use citations that are literature reviews or statements from major medical or scientific bodies -- this is described in the guideline, WP:MEDRS.  This is the standard for sourcing health content for a lot of reasons, which are described in the essay (that I originally drafted), WP:Why MEDRS?. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Ionis Pharmaceuticals
Hi

I very much appreciate your attention to Ionis Pharmaceuticals. In my view the Ionis Pharmaceuticals article should focus on the commercial entity and not tell the stories of individual products; these would be better placed under respective drug articles and wikilinked to if needed.

Instead, you seem to have copied content from drug articles into this one (also failing to properly attribute it).

Also, you have reverted my edits and restored a factually incorrect version (with misleading description of product pipeline). Any reason for not using e.g. sandbox?

As I am also interested in bringing up this article to a better standard, I suggest we work out a good version on article's talk page. — kashmiri  TALK  02:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you polite enough to respond to the above, or you are only able to post templates on my Talk page? — kashmiri  TALK  04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can discuss the content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Chill out
I'll be the first to hat disruptive comments, but you're pushing the boundaries of TPO, and otherwise generally acting BITEY for no real reason. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in that comment about improving article content. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cochlear implant
Your recent editing history at WP:MEDRS shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I don't agree with you. We know about cochlear implants. Many facts are already checked with research. It will explain how did worked with processsor. but you haven't expenineced with deaf world. We do worked with many articles. you don't read this warning. Edwtie (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deaf community
I have THREE important qusation!


 * 1. Are you expeciened with Deaf community?
 * 2. Do you know about this issues of this commuity?
 * 3. Cochlear implant is NOT easy for this groups of deaf cultures. That's why that I will do for deaf communities and community of cochlear users. it must be BALANCE between two communities. Do you know this isuses?

Edwtie (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand how WP works. No editor has personal authority here.  I have no idea if you are deaf, have a PhD, or are some 14 year old kid in Bulgaria sending fake news into the world, and I have no way of knowing, and it doesn't matter.  The way this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" works, is that we build content based on what reliable sources say, and we cite those sources.  We discuss content and sources based on WP's policies and guidelines.  For health matters, reliable sources are described in WP:MEDRS and for everything else, WP:RS is the relevant guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already edit dutch articles and some english articles since 2004 wikipedia user. I know this many but cochlear implant is NPOV article. We are trying keep to neutrality article! I am ICT enigneer and I am deaf and CI user. Please wait before I will edit this article because CI is not always suitable for ALL deaf poeple. That's why. Edwtie (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If MEDRS sources say that, then that is fine to add. Content must be based on reliable sources.   What "NPOV" means in WP, is that WP:WEIGHT in articles reflects the WEIGHT given in reliable sources.  Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes. but i know. you must need time. I will worked this articles. Edwtie (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Please add the citations when you add the content. See WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes I will do. I need more time to found articles. because I know about this COchleair. Do you tell to another wikipedia users? I have found infographica but the user have stolen this article from Wikipedia. I agree it. but I have older articles in 2012 from wikipedia. History has been vandalismed by another users I will revent this History subarticle. Edwtie (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * your english here is too garbled for me to understand. In the future please go slow and edit in small bits and make sure everything is supported by reliable sources per WP:MEDRS or WP:RS, as is relevant.  I suggest you propose edits on the Talk page, instead of making them directly, and again, go slow and listen to other editors.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody have added this sources into articles, but I will create sandbox of Cochlear implant. Edwtie (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are good things and bad things about that. It will reduce drama at the article which is good, but please somehow mark what you change so that it is easy for others to review.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes I have read a article of cochleair implant from 2012. it's best version of cochlear implant. I have added some words to make clear. Because cochlear implant is not suitable for any deaf people. I will divided a group deaf into prelingual deaf and postlingual deaf. It make more clear why do prelingual deaf adults used not with a cochlear implant. it must more clear article and neutrality. And development of cochlear implant will be later soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwtie (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation
Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Meridian (Chinese Medicine)
Hi Jytdog!

I'm hoping you might be able to explain your decision to edit 2600:1004:b12c:83b8:9ccd:fdc9:2d04:641f's content under a claim of "neutrality." I'm just wondering if you could identify specifically what WASN'T neutral about the previous editor's text, which was as follows: "Acupuncture points and meridians belong to a system of medicine that has been in use and evolving for thousands of years. The science of Chinese medicine has a different basis than the concepts which underpin Western science. Much of the Western research exploring acupuncture points and potential benefits from a Western scientific framework are newly emerging. Larger and more diverse randomized control trials (RCT) are needed to prove the medicine within this framework, yet it is a deeply studied and advanced medical form within its own scientific framework."

All of these statements are in line with neutrality, and none make any claims whatsoever of the efficacy of the modality, which is, I think, what you're really concerned with. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your stance on these statements, as there is truly nothing there that indicates any levels of success of the treatments. The statements only indicate that Chinese medicine does not share the same framework as Western science, and I truly hope you understand that the Western scientific (and particularly medical) framework is only one of many. If you strongly want to maintain your obvious biases in the editing of this article, perhaps you could consider rewording the phrasing by simply replacing "medicine" with "therapy"; that way, you can maintain the supposed authority of Western medicine while still informing Wikipedia's readers that acupuncture has a long history that is often understood as incompatible with Western medicine. Examining whether acupuncture is effective or not is not the goal of this article; Wikipedia articles are intended to inform audiences of the context of a given subject.

Thanks!

Interrobangette (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion about articles should take place at the article Talk page, so that other interested editors can participate and so that it is included in the record of that article. If you would just copy your comment there, I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Multisystemic therapy
Hi, with regards the Multisystemic therapy page, I was hoping you could elaborate on how the refs in the article fail WP:MEDRS. Thank you. Samjjjones (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, here was the diff where you added content. Before we start, have you read the WP:MEDDEF section and do you understand what a secondary source is, as defined there? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Near-death experience "discussion"
I wouldn't lose any more sleep over the current thread if I were you, some editors just don't get Wikipedia. It will all explode when Smkolins tries to update the article, no hurry. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — kashmiri  TALK  18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing maintenance templates
Hi there! Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for a guide on the addition and removal of maintenance templates. Because you are currently involved in a dispute, you shouldn't tamper with notices relating to that dispute. Don't get distracted: I'm not your enemy here. Ibadibam (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no valid dispute. If you have a stance on the issue state it on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have closed this with no action. Thanks. --Neutralitytalk 02:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ibadibam (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * thanks! if you want to me walk you through it i would be happy to.  no great magic really. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I'm in UTC -6, so it is pretty late for me. If you drop some links here I'll take a look at them tomorrow and get back to you. I'm relatively good with peer reviewed journals (Science, Nature PhilTrans, NEJOM), so perhaps that gives me a head start. Thanks for your time.--Adam in MO Talk 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh OK! So MEDRS says use literature reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies.  You know that pubmed has a filter so that it will give you only reviews, right?  The hardest part is getting access to papers.    So that first one is simple to find and harder to get.  For things with public health relevance, major medical/scientific authorities like WHO, CDC, NIH, NHS Choices all often have stuff on their websites.  Takes a bit more trawlig to find but almost always free.  Then it is just a matter of reading everything you find and soaking it in to generate truly NPOV content.   If you need help with pubmed let me know but my sense is that you already know about it.  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Related how ?
Hi, You reverted my edit and asked how it was related: 

Simply really, it's a more ecological alternative to fish meal (fish meal is made from other fish, to feed fish (FIFO)) so it makes a big impact on the sea's eacosystem. Maggots however can be grown on meat (that has passed sell-by date) and offal, so has no impact whatsoever. KVDP (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Maggot article about their use in acquaculture... Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Content - Diphenhydramine
Jytdog, I completely understand your message and the reasons for it: I accept full responsibility for the edit, which I think we both agree should never have been made. I am not sure if you have checked, but, as soon as I realized that the edit had actually gone through - about 3-4 hours afterwards - I immediately reverted the page back to its original state prior to my interference. If this was also unacceptable or, worse, inflamed the issue, I can only apologize once again, and reassure you that much more care will be taken in the future. I have been contributing (mostly minor) edits to Wikipedia for a number of years now, and they have been by and large well-received. This was a genuinely unusual error for me, but that does not detract from the fact that it was a result of my own carelessness. Once again, I can only apologize, and hope that this brings the issue to a close. Best Regards, Ash (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks! btw i looked and have not yet found a MEDRS ref that Diphenhydramine can cause restless leg... will look some more. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * i looked more and didn't find any. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
Why? the edits I made were an attempt to at least try and improve a badly sources article with additional material. I really fail to see why Discretionary Sanctions were needed, I have not attempted to re-insert the material, nor argued for it's inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are discretionary sanctions on the topic of pseudoscience in WP; the topic of Places of power falls with that topic. I notified you of that. That's all.   No one has implemented any DS on that topic, but the presence of DS makes AE available, and other expedited ways of dealing with problems.   Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I just wanted to try and rescue a page whose very nature is what I tend to use Wikipedia for (as a resource to look up the silly and facile). I would rather we had more pages like this (A one stop for the bizarre) then 100 pages on stuff I already have books on. But sadly it seems I am rather on my own in this. I know I have seen this term (Places of power) 100's of times, but all in the kind of source you would dismiss.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * we have lots of articles about notable pseudoscience topics but they are treated as such. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits to AV-101
I would like to discuss the revisions you made to my edits to AV-101. My edits were made in a response to a request on 12/5/16 to update, i.e. "Needs updating. Notice the study says it has yet to begin (in 2015) but we're almost in 2017". I was not trying to advertise a clinical trial, rather to be factual that the trial HAD started, and the identifier was provided as the reverence to that fact. In the last edit i made, which you deleted, I also think that it is highly relevant to provide two important conclusions from the Zanos peer reviewed publication in JPET. Would you think this is a better wording:

"Recent preclinical studies have confirmed that 4-chlorokynurenine has rapid ketamine-like antidepressant activity in multiple models of depression. . Other than the NMDAR, neither AV-101 or 7-Cl-KYNA, its active metabolite, had pharmacologically significant binding to any of the 50 G-protein coupled receptors, ion channels and transporters tested. "

Note that this clearly indicates "preclinical" and animal models. It does not state that it has human antidepressant activity.

I look forward to you comment.

--GC2013 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! If you'll copy your comment to the article talk page, i'll reply there.  discussion about content should be centralized so everybody who watches the article can participate and so it is in the record for the article. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What?
The article for that was over a decade old...I was finding new sources, whats with the filling a report?Petergstrom (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Updating articles is good. Your behavior at that article has been unacceptable.  Seven different experienced MED editors are disagreeing with you, and your trying to bulldoze past that is the wrong approach - it hurts you, and that hurts everybody. You have been doing some good work so I am sorry it came to this. I guess you need a block to get you to see that you need to stop ignoring other people who know what they are doing. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)