(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1,217:
Line 1,217:
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia: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]].
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia: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!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:Cyintherye|Cyintherye]] ([[User talk:Cyintherye|talk]]) 23:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:Cyintherye|Cyintherye]] ([[User talk: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 trial]]s (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!
[[User:Interrobangette|Interrobangette]] ([[User talk:Interrobangette|talk]]) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Welcome!
Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
yeah we can talk there. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I was too. We do have very different approaches here. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
twas POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
no problem i am happy to help you and again thank you for learning graciously. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wellertalk 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wellertalk 14:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
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)[reply]
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 ([1]) to an Xplornet Communications broadband account in Ontario, Canada. Was your "request" from the same location? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there have now been two; both were from 24.183.170.31. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'll reply there Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK then. I will self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
October 2016
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In the minutes I was away i was redacting among other things. Closing. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
Please ask at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — MaxEnt 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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." — MaxEnt 18:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 theoryKablammo (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with your deletion for WP:UNDUE. I was just tidying up the section since I saw it in disarray. AlexEng(TALK) 03:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must be exhausted after this, so take a moment to rest and know there are people out here who appreciate it. In the words of the great sports commentator: "You done good". Gronk Oz (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. it is not a happy thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edit war issues
On account of your message:
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you should read WP:PAG and Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I went hunting for refs for that article. frustratingly scant. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Jytdog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" 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.
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.
Administrator note 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)
Thanks for your note. Can't comment, of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I forgot about your topic ban. Everymorning(talk) 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello Jytdog: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! – -- Dane2007talk 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your note! Everybody starts somewhere. :) Ping me if you like at any point. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
HM. OK. Have you gathered behavioral evidence anywhere? thx Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) 25 June 2024
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happy to discuss on the article talk page. please post there and i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for the offer but I am not going. I appreciate the offer, very much Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I opened a discussion at the talk page, Talk:Felodipine. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unacceptable existence of non-NEJM sourced articles
You have contributed to multiple articles with extraordinary claims. Per discussion at [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happy to look, sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything recent... ? Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey @Jytdog: 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)[reply]
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)."
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)[reply]
User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello Jytdog.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" 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.
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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happy to discuss article content on the article talk page, if you want to repost there. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your recent editing history at User talk:Chicbyaccident shows that you are currently engaged in an Wikipedia: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.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, Jytdog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 PMC3275320.) 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)[reply]
We now have 808 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. Mid July to 01 Oct 2016
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.
Second set of eyes
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.
Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
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)
.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk 20:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
hmm thx . fell off my watchlist Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did as discussed on the talk page. "vandalism" is strong and inaccurate language. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperforin: 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)[reply]
Noted. I will be more careful about using the v word. Thank you for the feedback. --Hyperforin (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or maybe would it be more appropriate to make the same request over at WP:BLPN ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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? -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for wielding the mop so well! Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Summaries
You could try being less of a jackass in your edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks. trying but need to try harder. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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¢ 04:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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."
Happy to discuss this art the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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[1]"
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.
69.78.235.130 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:MEDRSJytdog (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
that is a very kind of you. i replied there. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happy to discuss on the article talk page - please ask there. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your work! Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca(Talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this! I'll make a note of that template for future reference. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello Jytdog,
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.
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 listMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
.[reply]
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"In fact, I found very few actual contributions by you." You are kidding, right? Roxy the dog.bark 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expressing your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm really not sure what's the best action to take with regard to this. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This explains some of what's going on here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Silicon Alley". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Interesting! I will consider doing the 2nd. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't memorized MEDRS yet
...but I am pretty sure you have (a good thing). How about this: [8]Barbara (WVS) (talk)
That is a link to a table of contents. which article in particular? Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [9]. Cheers - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Silicon Alley, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
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)[reply]
The whole thing is terrible. Read any other biography in WP. Fixing it will take hours. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
nice catch, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks that is helpful! CAM DS should cover them all tho yes? Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We are good, thanks. sorry i misread your prod on the science festival. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 independentreliable 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, that would be great! Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can't address any COI issues but can look at promotional editing. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)[reply]
Generally, please have a look at this, then let's talk more, if that is OK. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why deleting pages?
@Jytdog:, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 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·t· c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
references are not optional. If you want to correct what you see as an error, you need to cite a reliable source. See WP:BURDENJytdog (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — kashmiriTALK 02:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you polite enough to respond to the above, or you are only able to post templates on my Talk page? — kashmiriTALK 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss the content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. TimothyJosephWood 17:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that comment about improving article content. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
yes. but i know. you must need time. I will worked this articles. Edwtie (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please add the citations when you add the content. See WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nobody have added this sources into articles, but I will create sandbox of Cochlear implant. Edwtie (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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.