Archives |
---|
Threads older than 21 days may be archived by MiszaBot. |
Welcome!
Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Contents
- 1 Fixing pings
- 2 Google maps demolition story
- 3 References
- 4 Talkback
- 5 Accuracy
- 6 Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
- 7 Notability of The Chardon Polka Band
- 8 artist Renee Radell draft
- 9 Sorry
- 10 Poisoning articles
- 11 WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis
- 12 Thanks
- 13 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
- 14 Useful template
- 15 Richard R. Fisher
- 16 Auditory system
- 17 Piggate and Magical Negro
- 18 Chinese Mail-order brides
- 19 Thank-you so much for your kind response
- 20 April 2016
- 21 Frivolous COI claim
- 22 Not sure if American Politics is in your interests but..
- 23 Contact?
- 24 Ark Bark, ark bark
- 25 Honest Explanation as to the "Hitler" Reference, will try to prove if needed
- 26 "Activated" phenolics
- 27 Buzzfeed story
- 28 Planned RfC about outing
- 29 Reflections
- 30 Thanks for COI Resolution
- 31 Youth time
- 32 Onnit edits and Talk page
- 33 Just a thought
- 34 Need Help
- 35 Edit war warning
Fixing pings
Re diff, it is not possible to "fix" a ping. Thinking about what would happen when editors correct typos or make other adjustments to their comments shows the reason for that. A notification will only occur when adding new content with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- right, so if I change the formatting of a ping, delete my signature, and then sign again, it pings. here I will show you. Johnuniq
(broken ping formatting)Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)- were you pinged? Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No! Imagine this is on another talk page and I pinged you in this comment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then I notice a typo which means the ping did not work, so I would write a new comment something like: [new ping goes here] sending notification to fix earlier mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- hm. i need to set up a play account to figure this out. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- were you pinged? Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the diff at AfD EGS (I'm watching it to remind myself to vote later): diff. That won't work! If you comment with a ping, then notice that it was broken, you have two choices. First, add a new comment (do not edit anything, add a new line with a new message and a new signature); the new message would have a short note something like "re-ping to fix mistake". Second, in one edit, delete all of the erroneous comment and save the page, then add a new comment with the fixed text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Google maps demolition story
You should check out Goggle Maps' response to the query "7601 Cousteau Drive, Rowlett, TX, United States" to judge whether the story is relevant. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- People do stupid things all the time. If a wrecking crew demolished a house because they relied on google maps, they are idiots. That is not some big flaw with Google Maps, which has no claim to perfection. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It was of course definitely not bright to rely on Google maps on this occasion. However, I would have thought there are minimal standards for map makers, or are there none in the US? 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- this is an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. If you want to generate some encyclopedic content about the accuracy of google maps over time and space, that would be amazing. This bit of trivia is not encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion. If I come across some research on that, I'll look into that. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
References
how do I cite math? there is no need to be rude. If you care about accuracy of information then you would care about when you have been led to believe false information by the accepted sources. Mathematics proves these sources incorrect based off the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is easy to cite math. You find it published in WP:MEDRS source and then cite that source. You cannot do your own math in WP - you cannot look up how big a human oocyte is and how big an ovary is and how many eggs a woman produces in her life and do your own math. You cannot do that in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Accuracy
Commenting here rather than the messy project talk page. Would you have any problem with a 'seal' that identified a particular version of the article as having gone through some formal process? That would address your objection about the article immediately ceasing to be 'accurate' as soon as a new edit was made. I discussed this with Anthonyhcole a while ago. There is a desperate need for some kind of process that either alerts readers to particularly bad articles, or encourages them in the direction of slightly better ones. Peter Damian (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah just seen this. Now I understand. But that doesn't rule out some kind of project aimed at improving accuracy, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- No it doesn't rule out an effort to improve accuracy. There is just a bunch of things wrong (in my view) with this specific initiative. I would be OK with something like you mention above, in theory. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. What was the user with Atsme? Was it alternative medicine related? I followed some of your links but it was a massive wall of text. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would rather not rehearse the whole thing. I have no desire to tear anybody down. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tear me down? I think it would be better if you just told the truth, Jytdog. I will not say another word to you, but if you don't stop this unfounded character assassination using falsities at Griffin, we will be going back to ArbCom. Atsme📞📧 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just said that I have no desire to tear you or anybody down Atsme. I did not respond to Peter's question - I don't talk about other editors on side pages like this.
- I have written nothing false at Project Accuracy (!), and in my view very few people will disagree with how I have characterized your editing history when it comes to health topics.
- I try to stay away from you, because you and I have bad blood. I've made mistakes with regard to you, for which I have apologized to you, and you have not accepted; you have never shown any inkling of awareness of the bad things you have done to me, nor ever apologized to me. I only commented at Project Accuracy because with the mailing list notice, it is now very public (and yes I know that you didn't post that, nor were you very happy about it).
- If you want to get all drama-boardish knock yourself out, but you have no leg here. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. What was the user with Atsme? Was it alternative medicine related? I followed some of your links but it was a massive wall of text. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No it doesn't rule out an effort to improve accuracy. There is just a bunch of things wrong (in my view) with this specific initiative. I would be OK with something like you mention above, in theory. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Made some changes per your remarks. Please drop by and comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability of The Chardon Polka Band
When you noticed The Chardon Polka Band was tagged for notability, you noted "seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit". Thanks for contributing. I cleaned up the article and started a discussion of Notability on its talk page. Please contribute to discussion and/or confirm or remove notability tag, as I may or may not be considered impartial. Lefton4ya (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lefton4ya why would you not be impartial? Do you have some connection with the band? Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I am from the same area they are from and and am kinda friends with the band. I am not paid by them or asked to edit by them, but just trying to clean up their wiki page and noticed the notability tag . In trying to be a good denizen of WP but also help the band I like, I added references and cleaned up the article and also removed notability tag, but when it was added back I didn't want to start an edit war and felt someone more impartial should decide. But check out the talk page for discussion points. Lefton4ya (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
artist Renee Radell draft
Hello Jytdog. I am not sure where to post this for your convenience, so please pardon me if I should use my own talk page. I modified the draft Renee Radell article per your suggestions, taking out any flattering comments and citing all statements of fact. Might I ask when such a piece warrants submission? Both you and DGG have said that notability should probably not be a problem. My COI as a relative of Renee would be the reason I should not submit this directly? Thank you kindly for any suggestions about next steps OtterNYC (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry
I didn't mean to start a post war, just new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what was going on. sorry Madelinerobin (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Madelinerobin
- It's OK -see Talk:Autism_spectrum#content_added_today. What you added was pretty good - it just needs some fixing before it goes live. You also accidentally deleted the infobox when you added that. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Poisoning articles
Thanks incredibly much for cleaning up those articles. I am not an expert - I could merely see that the sources in no way supported the references, which you confirmed. It would help to understand the seriousness of the errors in the Chlorine and NO2 poisoning articles. Did this create the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way? Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per the medical disclaimer i hope nobody ever treats a patient based on what they read in the content of WP. There are foolish people out there, even doctors, and the content was very wrong. I work my butt off to make the content I work on very reliable as I want to point people in the right direction. But I will never accept an argument that some editor is in any way liable for the medical malpractice of some doctor because that editor added bad content to Wikipedia and some doctor acted on it. Not ever. That is a toxic argument. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you have answered my question. I am not suggesting anyone would be liable, merely asking whether this created the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way. Clearly so, and we really have to ask whether the WMF should be doing more to protect the public against this kind of thing. Re the medical disclaimer, I believe it has been a contentious issue for some time that this warning is not prominently displayed on every relevant page. There are many questions here. How was this editor allowed back, given his previous history of creating false references? Why does the WMF, and why do many of the community, persist in this myth that anyone can edit Wikipedia without risk, and why does the WMF encourage this? How was it possible that the article was checked for references by a number of other editors? When I ask WMF about this, I get some story about how the WP process of Darwinian selection is better than Britannica, or Nupedia or some other such nonsense. This needs to be taken further. Peter Damian (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Preliminary research suggests that physicians and medical students commonly admit to using Wikipedia as a reference. Ha ha. Peter Damian (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is incredible. So 'Wikicology' copied and pasted some stuff in the Beryllium article to the NO2 poisoning article. But the Berylliosis article was garbage too. So completely ignorant people are copying garbage to make up further garbage??? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The beryllium article was pretty bad, yes. Not as bad, but pretty bad and terrible in spots. Good in spots too.
- The admin's decision to unblock Wikicology after the socking and COI editing was interesting and debatable, and one very distinct ball of wax. There is an entirely separate ball of wax about whether an individual is competent, subject matter wise, to edit a given topic. There is yet another separate ball of wax as to whether an individual is incompetent in terms of basic scholarly ethics and methods to create content in Wikipedia. Everybody (including me) makes mistakes when reading a source and summarizing it, or even in missing a source. That happens. But Wikicology's editing on those two articles was way outside the pale in terms of basic scholarly ethics/methods as well as subject matter knowledge. Really bad and not explainable via mistakes. Which is why I asked for a TBAN on health for him.
- The much broader issue of the "accuracy" of Wikipedia content is yet another ball of wax. Unless the very nature of this place is fundamentally changed to provide validation of editors (which I don't see the community as ever being open to) the only thing that makes any given bit of content in Wikipedia have high quality (very well sourced, accurately summarizing the sources, and neutral) is the quality of the editor who last looked at it and the quality of their review of it. (the latter is essential, as that individual may have made a mistake on some level). I understand the impulse behind Atsme's project, to set up a board of "accuracy reviewers" (i think "content quality" would be a better thing to aim for than "accuracy", as it takes into account those three things - quality of sourcing, accuracy in summarizing, and neutrality) but there are a lot of problems with it, that i see as very difficult to overcome, as i and others have mentioned there. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. What do you see as the 'lot of problems'? I can see a few myself. Peter Damian (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your comment and your willingness to help cleaning those mess. I appreciate you. I admit that I committed some blunders on the "Nitrogen dioxide poisoning" and chlorine gas poisoning" but I neither authored nor edit Beryllium poisoning. As you rightfully pointed out, we all make mistakes and its always a good idea to learn from them. Surely, I will learn from this mistakes and that will make me a better editor. I decided not to respond to Peter again not because I'm rude but because I want to remain calm as possible as I can which I think its the right thing to do. Just as I pointed out on the ANI thread , and as other editors have pointed out, I'm not under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia or to any editor. I'm not a WMF staff neither I'm I an Oversight or Checkuser. I'm a volunteer like anyone around. If I call myself a farmer for example or a philosopher on my userpage, it doesn't mean its true or false. I mean, it could be true or false and only reliable sources outside Wikipedia can validate my claims. I may choose to call myself a "Vampire" or "Goat" on Wikpedia or other Wikimedia project. I wonder why an editor will call me a liar and several other names on this basis if they found it outside Wikipedia that I'm neither " a Vampire" nor a "Goat". This is clearly against the ethics of collaboration. If Peter or any editor feels some unverified information/claims on my userpage is likely to mislead other people or editors, there are polite ways of requesting a confirmation or changes to the claims. I'm not a rigid person, I will make the changes or provide confirmation. I don't mind sending them a private email with confirmation. If I wish to declare my true identity to WMF, there are processes for doing that. Just as you have pointed out, no one is perfect here on Wikipedia and everyone were once new here as a Wikipedian. I had a really tough time with understanding Wikipedia as an editor from Africa, hence the reasons for the socks in those earliest days (newbie days). I want us to realize that very Wikipedians have two lives, his personal life and his life as a Wikipedian. I won't insult Peter or any editor that strongly criticize me and I want to believe they are doing that in good faith with the aim of improving the encyclopedia and I will learn from their constructive criticisms. Thanks for the good work and I'm proud to know you. Hope I can always ask you for help? I'm so grateful. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Of course I want to fix Wikipedia articles that are messed up. I do not care about the issues with your unblocking related to your socking and violations of COI; I understand all that is in the past now. Please do not talk any more about that here on my Talk page. If you do, I will just delete your whole post. So please don't. I do care very much about the quality of your editing about health. If you do not wish to be topic banned from the topic of health, I suggest you post something at the ANI thread explaining why you should not be. There is no point in you posting that here. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on Omeprazole. I was apparently asleep at the wheel and didn't notice it was the lead I was removing the info from. – Robin Hood (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- In case you missed my comment, please see "23:19, 30 March 2016" above. There is no need to reply, but as there was some other activity on this page around that time, you might not have noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
It takes a real son of a gun to get me to admit when I'm wrong about the wording of one of our core policies, especially WP:EP which I guard like a hawk, but somehow you've (mostly) won me over. It's a genuine pleasure and delight to meet another editor who as strongly believes in WP:5P as I do. -- Kendrick7talk 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
- you are very gracious. thanks. i do need to work on my civility, but i believe in it! Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Civility is overrated. Just keep up the good work. :) -- Kendrick7talk 04:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Useful template
Useful template, if you weren't aware:
Hope that's helpful in the future,
— Cirt (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Richard R. Fisher
Nice work on this article. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Auditory system
Hi Jytdog - re your recent edit and comment - I thought the overview was supposed to summarise the page - I at first added to Trapezoid body linking decussate so in my mind removing necessity for detailed info in overview and trimming section. But if I was wrong - so be it.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- this is the diff I reverted, where you changed a more wordy but easier to understand sentence "The trapezoid body is where most of the cochlear nucleus (CN) fibers decussate (cross left to right and vice versa); this cross aids in sound localization" to the more elegant and condensed, but impenetrably jargony: "Decussation in the trapezoid body aids in sound localisation". Elegant scientific writing but bad for our general audience. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The general audience has (assumedly) read the preceding sections first and can also go back to those sections for further clarification. ?--Iztwoz (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- You mean this completely unreadable paragraph? "The superior olivary complex (SOC), in pons, is the first convergence of the left and right cochlear pulses. SOC has 14 described nuclei; their abbreviation are used here (see Superior olivary complex for their full names). MSO determines the angle the sound came from by measuring time differences in left and right info. LSO normalizes sound levels between the ears; it uses the sound intensities to help determine sound angle. LSO innervates the IHC. VNTB innervate OHC. MNTB inhibit LSO via glycine. LNTB are glycine-immune, used for fast signalling. DPO are high-frequency and tonotopical. DLPO are low-frequency and tonotopical. VLPO have the same function as DPO, but act in a different area. PVO, CPO, RPO, VMPO, ALPO and SPON (inhibited by glycine) are various signalling and inhibiting nuclei."? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I realize that another editor dumped a bunch of way, way too dense content and you are trying to clean it up and i appreciate the effort. please just try to write simply as much as you can. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- No I did not mean that - I meant the earlier headed sections like Trapezoid body....and you've just drawn attention to the above that I think I'll take to talk page - imo this whole section really shouldn't have lived. How it is of any use to anyone??
- Yes a well-intentioned newbie neurologist dumped a well-intentioned-but-way=too-technical bunch of stuff into the article - you can see the big addition in the history, and it wasn't great before that. i have been wanting to FIXIT but haven't gotten there. am happy you are working on it! Needs lots of cleanup yes. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- You mean this completely unreadable paragraph? "The superior olivary complex (SOC), in pons, is the first convergence of the left and right cochlear pulses. SOC has 14 described nuclei; their abbreviation are used here (see Superior olivary complex for their full names). MSO determines the angle the sound came from by measuring time differences in left and right info. LSO normalizes sound levels between the ears; it uses the sound intensities to help determine sound angle. LSO innervates the IHC. VNTB innervate OHC. MNTB inhibit LSO via glycine. LNTB are glycine-immune, used for fast signalling. DPO are high-frequency and tonotopical. DLPO are low-frequency and tonotopical. VLPO have the same function as DPO, but act in a different area. PVO, CPO, RPO, VMPO, ALPO and SPON (inhibited by glycine) are various signalling and inhibiting nuclei."? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The general audience has (assumedly) read the preceding sections first and can also go back to those sections for further clarification. ?--Iztwoz (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Piggate and Magical Negro
Actually, when I said "My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?" at AfD, I was thinking of the Piggate article, I was mixing them up (pork and politicians in both, you know). Just thought I'd mention it. Then I thought I'd go prod Piggate, but it has already been AfD'd and kept with something like fifty keep votes. I wonder what message board they came from. But since it's the encyclopedia any canvassed idiot can edit, not much can be done about it. I'm thinking maybe I need a break from all the silliness.
However, incidentally, you know the article Barack the Magic Negro that you mentioned (and which is at least a song, not just a fucking "meme")? It led me to the very interesting article Magical Negro. Educational! There's some good stuff here! Bishonen | talk 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- :) yes the magical negro thing itself is about how racist white america is. The Limbaugh thing is so, so twisted on itself. blech. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- About all of that, wow, just wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah :) this is all started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian if you want to drop in there. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wow-squared, and I think I'll pass. (So it didn't start
withwhen Marco Rubio said it in a 2016 debate?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)- nope. i don't even know what the bad meme there is. don't want to! ack, articles outside medicine/science in Wikipedia just ack. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- now i see. no it has loooooong and colorful history. hey while i have you what is a "UPE" over at harassment? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Undisclosed paid editing". I initially didn't know what it was, either, but I saw jbh use it, and eventually figured out that it was what he meant. I'll make it clearer in the final version, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- now i see. no it has loooooong and colorful history. hey while i have you what is a "UPE" over at harassment? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- nope. i don't even know what the bad meme there is. don't want to! ack, articles outside medicine/science in Wikipedia just ack. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wow-squared, and I think I'll pass. (So it didn't start
- Yeah :) this is all started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian if you want to drop in there. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- About all of that, wow, just wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a serious comment. I really should have logged out already, and I'm probably getting giddy. Didn't someone call you a vulgarian recently, or was that someone else? (No insinuation about anyone's fingers, of course!) This talk section sounds like it should have a mash-up: something like Pontius Piggate and the Short-Fingered Magical Negro on the Island of Vulgaria. Sounds like something Bishzilla would host. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- yes this is what i thought was even more funny about this article. must have been on the mind of that person! At least they left out the "short-fingered" part. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Chinese Mail-order brides
China is a source country of Mail-order brides you can find a lot of Websites in the Internet so it is a fact but its very difficult to find a reliable source so please could you insert the Citation needed-Symbol?--141.19.228.15 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Are there lots of sources, or not? Confusing. In any case, it doesn't matter. You cannot add unsourced content to Wikipedia like this. Please read WP:VERIFY and follow it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you so much for your kind response
Mim.cis (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not use the phrase "going forward". It's a terrible cliche. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- ? Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Drmies has a bit of a sense of humor. It's not really a warning, just a response to your own self-revert. By the way, Drmies, I enjoyed your recent pole dance. The leopard print thong was a nice touch, but maybe the dayglo pasties were a bit much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Look Dog, Fish, when an ArbCom member says "please do not use the phrase 'going forward'" y'all better not be using the phrase going forward. Tryptofish, what a coincidence: one of my students today said I should wear a short skirt to class so the party would come to me. Apparently they had been discussing this before I came in. I don't know if I should feel flattered or violated--but I tell you what, I got a nice pair of legs and I'm glad you noticed. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Going forward, please do not call me a dogfish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wasn't it a brand of beer too? That had a reality show, and they made only two episodes? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've handed out so many blocks tonight I can't see straight anymore. At least I'll get a big fat check from the WMF next week. Have a good night y'all--see you at the next ArbCom hearing. And I'm ordering some Pastease Strapless Bikini Bottoms. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Going forward, please do not call me a dogfish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Frivolous COI claim
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NeatGrey (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if American Politics is in your interests but..
..please take a look here. The timings especially are interesting. FP1 takes on client, clients articles subsequently start getting negative information removed and positive info added. Likewise FP1's client's opposition get the reverse treatment... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Contact?
Is there a way I can contact you to discuss my COI privately and in confidence? 59.38.139.24 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ark Bark, ark bark
I see you sent me a warning of edit warring, but left nothing of the sort on the other user's page that is engaged in the same back and forth. Why is that? I am less than impressed and suggest you go bark at someone else. Zedshort (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- continue as you have been, if you like. You are the one introducing poor content, poorly sourced, and edit-warring to try to get it to stick. that is why I gave you the notice. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- You did not answer the question. You did not post the same message on the other user's page. Why is that? Zedshort (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I did answer. You are the one edit warring; you are the one who introduced poor content, poorly sourced, and it is being rejected consistently. Your proposed content has no support; edit warring won't increase the level of support for it, nor will creating drama about the meta-issue of whether or not you were edit warring, or why I gave you notice to edit warring. This drama has nothing to do with creating good content, which is what we are about here. if you want to test whether or not you are edit warring, continue as you have been. You will soon find yourself blocked. Only you will be blocked; no one else. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need some very simple things explained to you. It takes two to make a fight; it takes two to make an edit war. Zedshort (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need some very simple things explained to you. When one person is trying to undo the damage done by another person's crap edits, then the latter belligerent person repeatedly restores the edits, only one person is edit warring. You really should listen to Jytdog, starting with actually reading through and complying with Wikipedia edit policies. If your edits were of sufficient quality and in line with those policies then they wouldn't be reverted by editors significantly more experienced and respected than you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need some very simple things explained to you. It takes two to make a fight; it takes two to make an edit war. Zedshort (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I did answer. You are the one edit warring; you are the one who introduced poor content, poorly sourced, and it is being rejected consistently. Your proposed content has no support; edit warring won't increase the level of support for it, nor will creating drama about the meta-issue of whether or not you were edit warring, or why I gave you notice to edit warring. This drama has nothing to do with creating good content, which is what we are about here. if you want to test whether or not you are edit warring, continue as you have been. You will soon find yourself blocked. Only you will be blocked; no one else. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- You did not answer the question. You did not post the same message on the other user's page. Why is that? Zedshort (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Honest Explanation as to the "Hitler" Reference, will try to prove if needed
The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/
As for the other edit, other sources showed that Smith was self-diagnosed. I did my final edit on Internet Explorer. Ylevental (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do not find the explanation credible and in any case if you have enabled such an extension you are entirely responsible for its activity when you edit Wikipedia. Period. Never do that again. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"Activated" phenolics
Would appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed story
Hey Jytdog,
I wanted to thank you again for looking into the FP1 Strategies business. I don't know how much of the history of that you looked at, but I had to go to five different boards before I found somebody who agreed something fishy was going on.
I added a few more of FP1's more obvious accounts today to the SPI today; I've just been Googling their client list and seeing who's edited those articles. There's two names that came up again and again as I looked into those articles. Amazingly, those exact two editors were mentioned in the news as being suspected accounts for a PR firm in the case listed right under mine on COI/N.
Since you closed the Jolly case, I figured I'd ask you directly. Are these worth adding to the SPI? Or am I getting overly paranoid? Thanks, EllenMcGill (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Examples using this tool [2]: They have edited articles within less than an hour of each other dozens of times. E.g., Terri Lynn Land has about 500 total edits to her article; 50 of those are from CF and CS. The RNC is an FP1 client. Joni Ernst has about 900 total edits; 150 of those are from CF and CS. She's an FP1 client. Sometimes they even show up at the same discussion where only 4-5 people comment [3] or here [4] where they argue with editor GrammarXX together, or here [5] where they cordially agree to remove some material. CF has been warned over and over about edit warring and Republican POV-pushing on their talk page, which is another trait all these sockpuppets seem to have in common.[6]. It looks like CF has edited about 500 pages ever, fully a third of which they share with CS. In one case CF even showed up specifically to defend CS as part of an administration case of some kind.[7]
- As I said, though, I'm getting kind of paranoid and I realize I'm just playing junior detective here. Do you think this is worth looking into, or should I just leave it? -- EllenMcGill (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's enough to add them to SPI I would say, at least per MEAT. May be nothing but this is what CU is for. You can just go ahead and present that evidence there, making clear about a) the client list and b) the editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I added that, and a few more good examples from the history of each. Thanks for not thinking I'm crazy! We'll see what shakes out. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- As I commented on the SPI case, I do sincerely hope a check user is done quickly to clear me in this case. On a side note, though, it's pretty disheartening to volunteer hundreds of hours into Wikipedia, a project I care deeply about, only to have my fellow editors apparently believe a really absurd charge hurled at me by paid campaign consultants who have admitted to trying to scrub a Wikipedia page of a client (David Jolly). Reliable messengers, I'm sure! After I'm cleared in the SPI case, I look forward to your heartfelt apologies. I'm hoping someone can make me an original barnstar for having made it into BuzzFeed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments at SPI, which were very minimal on the drama side. Your note here is more about drama. There is no need for drama, or apologies. In my view there is minimal evidence for a CU, and the subsequent discussion will lay everything out. This is not a big deal, especially if you have not been doing anything wrong. There is no doubt that there is conflict-of-interest editing on political topics, and in this case, the community is trying to identify who is working with FP1. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- As I commented on the SPI case, I do sincerely hope a check user is done quickly to clear me in this case. On a side note, though, it's pretty disheartening to volunteer hundreds of hours into Wikipedia, a project I care deeply about, only to have my fellow editors apparently believe a really absurd charge hurled at me by paid campaign consultants who have admitted to trying to scrub a Wikipedia page of a client (David Jolly). Reliable messengers, I'm sure! After I'm cleared in the SPI case, I look forward to your heartfelt apologies. I'm hoping someone can make me an original barnstar for having made it into BuzzFeed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Forgive the drama, but it's been a pretty odd week. It's quite strange to discover you've been mentioned in a BuzzFeed article, and that a member of Congress (and perhaps the Church of Scientology?!) are convinced you've been doing sinister things. I guess I'm just surprised none of my long-time fellow Wikipedia editors took the time to stand up for me in the wake of this odd controversy. Perhaps a pitch for Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. In any event, hopefully the SPI will clear up soon and all the strangeness will be in the rearview mirror. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Planned RfC about outing
Please let me know whether or not you would like me to wait for you before starting the RfC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Reflections
I was reflecting and I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with you. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and you has reacted with hostility.[8] I guess I would have reacted just like you. I apologize.
I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.
I let this message on WikiProject Medicine [9]
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, that is very gracious of you, to write here. Thank you. I am sorry I was harsh with you. I will have a look at what you wrote over there. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for COI Resolution
Hi Jytdog (talk), Thanks for the way you dealt with the COI issue on Raheja Developers page, and it was the best thing that happened to the page & me. Regards, Leoaugust (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Youth time
This is a notification that I started a discussion considering your excessive use of authority considering Youth time article
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. F aristocrat (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Onnit edits and Talk page
Jytdog: Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your COI position and advice for my future handling of COI issues. You are a busy and patient contributor, with patience made especially clear by your generous explanation to the Onnit contributor and more-than-fair interaction with the frustrating BB. Your involvement with Activated phenolics helped to bring that matter to a quick closure, with thanks. Regarding Onnit, I believe my method was more direct to base a solution with reliance on WP guidelines, but, now with your advice, I will try to balance better COI matters on the Talk pages and promotional article content. Good to have your feedback and see you around articles of mutual interest! --Zefr (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a thought
I wonder here, if you're not just denying rope. With these hard economic times, we all need as much as we can get. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh the rope is there in the diffs. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh, I foresee myself spending 30 minutes to find this somewhere in my near future. TimothyJosephWood 01:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Need Help
Hi. A strange page, Big Mean Ethan Dean, was created. It is not encyclopedic. As a more experianced user, can you help me? The creator just messed up my speedy deletion. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Watching it. You did the right thing. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Further, the creator attacked me on the talk page of that false article. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urinary tract infection. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cirflow (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)