Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:33, 23 March 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits Tone at Foie Gras RFC: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024 edit undoBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,072 edits rv - let's let things beTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{banned user|by=the ]|link=]}}
{{editnotice
| header = Hi, welcome to my talk page!
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%; color: #9900FF; font-family: 'Copperplate Gothic Light'
| text =
*'''If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page.''' That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
*'''Please''' <span class="plainlinks"></span> '''to leave a new message'''.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 11 |counter = 29
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age=30 |collapsible=yes}}
]


== That's all folks ==
'''Welcome!'''
<!-- ] 23:17, 30 November 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859239047}}
So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.


The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.
Hello, Jytdog, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*] and ]
*] (using the ] if you wish)
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --] (]) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.
== /* Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco */ COI ==


I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.
I was fine with where everything was, including the note you left with FriendlyBillingsgate, until I read InedibleHulk's latest accusation on the COI Notice Board. There is absolutely no logic that finds FriendlyBillingsgate's message of COI concern as a personal Attack, but nothing that 'Hulk has said, including this latest. You really have to be kidding. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:please let it go. big side show. ] (]) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.
::ok ] (]) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.
::Hi Jytdog, I placed this on the Marin talk page last night, in regards to asking for source submissions:
:::Are you referring to sources not in the article as it currently appears? (ie: stub), or do you mean before it was stubbed. Do you need me to resubmit the articles I had used in the controversies section? Thissilladia (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::no. and i just answered on the talk page. thanks for following up. i plan on working on this over the weekend. ] (]) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, '''it is not me.''' (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.


I just want to say '''thanks''' to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. ] (]) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
H Jytdog, I just rad the note that said you were handing over guidance of the Andre Marin and the Ontario Ombudsman pages to another editor. You had said in another note that you would stay on and ensure balance and I think you have done a very good job of diffusing the situation. The language of the new editor (on the Marin Talk page)who has taken over from you does not inspire confidence in achieving balance. She has made it quite clear that she has no knowledge of the twitter/controversies surrounding Marin, their weight nor is she interested; she has only made light of these: "Marin is outside my house right now tweeting" etc. Is it possible for you to stay on until they achieve some measure of stability? It now feels like the whole thing is just going to start all over again. ] (]) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


:Dammit man. -] ] 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
== I knew I should have clarified better ==
::That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --] (]) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
(Taking this here because it's starting to veer off topic for the AfD.)
:::Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. ] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project &ndash; and your obvious love of and value to it &ndash; should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --] (]) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Sad to see this. Best wishes,] (]) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::+1 to what Zefr said. ] (]) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- '']'' <small>] ]</small> 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
:::::::And another +1 here.--] (]) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
{{u|Jytdog}} The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of ] that Misplaced Pages employs (see ]). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,], and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. ] (]) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.


::That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by ] policy. The ''most'' that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. ] (]) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thing is, I (A) wasn't sure whether genital mutilation qualified as gendered violence (and was using the other article as a reference - my faulty assumption was that you took it down because you thought it didn't), and (B) had somehow mixed up castration (which is generally voluntary) with circumcision (which usually isn't). In retrospect, both were rather ridiculous errors - I should probably stop with the late-night editing. Again, sorry for the trouble. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Just fyi, they ''do'' have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:It's OK. You've been quite decent about apologizing/explaining - thanks for that. Thinking about the motivations of other editors is never a good idea; things go better when we all focus on content/sources (what is actually written) as much as possible, and only start to think about behavior (not motivation) of other editors - what they write, where they write, how they use "undo (concrete, verifiable behaviors) if behavior is problematic. Try to stay concrete. Good luck. ] (]) 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban ''unless'' a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the ] has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. ] (]) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::Fair enough, and thanks. In any case, I agree with you about the gender parity thing (I even pointed it out myself earlier), though still not that that warrants article deletion. But hey, to each their own, and if it's kept, I'd definitely support some form of protection - until 8chan leaves this place alone, at the very least. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --] (]) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. ] (]) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which ''did'' work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of ] before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. ] (]) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


*Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
== Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination) Question on process ==
* I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. ] (]) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. ] (]) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - ] ] 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. ] (]) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --] (]) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. ] &#124; ] 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
* It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! ] (]) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --] (]) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*''']'''--] (]) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. ] (]) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. ] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// ] (]) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* ] and ] are not always true, and I've been considering creating a ] counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. ] (]) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
**] I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. ] (]) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. ] is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. ] ] 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::<small>Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
*I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. ] (]) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- ] (]) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.] <small>]</small> 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. ]] 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — ]&nbsp;] 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. ] (]) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. ] (]) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. ] (]) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --] (]) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. ] (]) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* :( &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! ] (]) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at ] and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the ] some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately and ), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! ''''']''''' (]) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. ] (]) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my ]; the work you put into improving ] made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the ] bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. ] | (] - ]) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. ]&nbsp;(]) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. ''']''' (]) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I have created and added myself to the category, ]. ] (]) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - ] (]) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. ] (]) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
*I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, ] (]) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
*Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — ] (]) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at ]. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. ]] 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -] (]) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are ] (]) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
*Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. ] (]) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


*Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, I am rather new to wikipedia editing, you seem experienced, so I have a question to you. Would it be possible to limit editing rights on the violence against men article? I absolutly see your point that it attracts a lot of rubbish. But I do think that it is relevant and a good article could be written. So would it be possible that a few people, who show the goodwill to do this properly, create a good article and afterwards it is blocked from further editing? Kind Regards, ] (]) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:There are very levels of ] - broadly: anybody; registered users only; auto-confirmed only: reviewers only ("pending changes"), administrators only. The policy I just linked to there explains them and how they are used. There is a very strong emphasis in the policy to toward keeping articles as unprotected as possible, per our mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There needs to be a demonstrated history of abuse on the article to protect it. I imagine this article would get some level of protection eventually. ] (]) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your anwer, I think this level "Pending changes protection" would look like the right thing. I will suggest that on the comment page of the article.] (]) 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::it can't be imposed until there is a demonstrated problem... you are free to try, of course. ] (]) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: Try is the best one can do ;-), I am really frustrated about all these articles around gender topics. My personal believe is that it would be possible to create, short, concise, and non-controversial articles. However, as long as both male and female related articles are nothing but a collage of hatred one group supposedly shows towards the other, we are going nowhere. But again, who am I to judge, I can only try.] (]) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


* In my opinion it's disastrous to see you go. You are/were a breath of fresh air in Misplaced Pages.] (]) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
== edit war warning ==


* (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with ] above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
:I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; .) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please be particularly aware that ] states:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew -->] (]) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


* I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
==Copyvio==
In these edits you removed content as a copyvio


*Wait, what? Apparently I somehow managed to miss all of this. Sorry to see you go, Jytdog. It will be strange to not see you around the place. --] (]) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It is actually liveleaks.com that copied from use. We had the content first per . ] (] · ] · ]) 19:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:Oh thanks for telling me!! I will-self revert. ] (]) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::There of course might be other reasons to remove it. DeDe4Truth does not really get how thing work. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::that is clear! i don't like to make invalid edits though... am not done working that over and will re-look at that and other content. thanks again! ] (]) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


* I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. ] (] - ]) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
== Logging ==


== Block ==
Don't forget the log the DS sanction notifications. ] (]) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863718}}
:{{u|Guettarda}} (pinging, as i don't know if you are watching) - Thank you! ] says that the alerts are automatically logged, and that is what i assumed happened.... is that wrong? Happy to do whatever is appropriate. Thanks again ] (]) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
{{Arbcomblock}}
You can see the relevant motion ]. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


::You're right, I was out of date. My first reaction to your notification was "surely he was notified before", and I checked the log on the AC page, and found none, but didn't see your notification either. Had I paid attention, I would have noticed that the log ended in 2014 (probably with the implementation of the new DS system). ] (]) 18:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) *I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of {{U|DGG}} and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. ] (]) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. ] ] ] 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. ] (]) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
*] I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
**{{re|Doc James}} Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. ] (]) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*** I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — ]&nbsp;] 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from ], ], ], and ]. {{U|Tryptofish}} has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? ] (]) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I hadn't thought of that, sorry. I thought it was just perma-keeping the block notice. I have no objection to restoring the template. --] (]) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I put it back. --] (]) 01:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
***Thanks, Uncle Fishy. Not only does the thread preserve the well wishes, it also alerts the unsuspecting that there's no point in posting new queries or complaints on this talkpage, and thus saves watchers a lot of time and explanations. It's perhaps not ideal in some people's minds to have the "Block" thread here, but Jytdog wanted to leave in a rather drastic fashion anyway, and there are other more genially titled threads that will be retained as well. ] (]) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
****{{(:}} --] (]) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —]] – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


== ] closed ==
:::Thanks for clarifying. I am only starting to learn about the complexities of arbcom/DS (I always have just stayed as far away from all that as i could) and appreciate your intention to help me do things right. ] (]) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:


#{{user|Jytdog}} is indefinitely ] from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|Premia Spine Limited and many others|ts=17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)}}
<font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">]</font><font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> (])</font> 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
==Nuklear==
: Discuss this at: ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
I was wandering how do you know this is Nuklear , and why these synthesis-adding edits are disruptive? ] (]) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
: just left a message on your talk page! :) ] (]) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::Yes it is Nuklear. This user has been attempting to add copyrighted information for a long time. His socks pop up on our copy and paste detection system fairly frequently. Always the same. Synthesize information from some 1970s textbook. Sigh ] (] · ] · ]) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::thanks! he was on a roll today. ] (]) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::He's back today on at least two IPs. ] <small>]</small> 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::can you point me? i caught a bunch this AM. thanks! 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::See {{contribs|80.42.40.215}} {{contribs|80.42.36.238}}. ] <small>]</small> 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} thanks! ] (]) 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


==Carrying on==
== Stop the mean edits!!! --] (]) ==
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863695}}
I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to ] and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --] (]) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:: is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --] (]) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Generally I use ] when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? ] (]) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Preferring ] for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to ] or ], and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --] (]) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. ] (]) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --] (]) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
] qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to ]. ] (]) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of ''The Signpost''. ] (]) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


== Jytdog should consider returning back ==
Jytdog, you are clearly making edits that break ].--] (]) 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 06:36, 5 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1867387001}}
:Please keep the discussion on the ] talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
]]</span>'']]
I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.
*'''Please come back'''<s>Support</s> as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*What is this? You can't ''vote'' someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. ] (]) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
::This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Hoping he'll come back'''. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --] (]) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
**Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --] (]) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****If a super majority feels that arbcom has over reached, IMO we could technically over ride arbcom. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***** <nowiki></nowiki> -- ] &#124; ] 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***{{ping|Doc James}} I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor ''in real life''. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Actually, I don't think that the community ''can'' overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --] (]) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
******Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - ] (]) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
******There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. ] (]) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*******I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - ] (]) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*****{{tq|...Jytdog messed up in this case.}} And in the previous cases. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. ] (]) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ] ] 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*What Swarm says. ]]
* ] . We miss you, come back. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier ''and'' in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -] (]) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
*I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. ] (]) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
*Hmm so he did and ] the ]. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —]] – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -] ] 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{tl|information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
*: Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


== Jytdog's good work noted in the media ==
== Thanks ==
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. ] (]) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:] good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your efforts restoring the copyvio tags. In the future, I'll use it instead of speedy delete when I have any doubt that not all the article is copyvio. ] (]) 01:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) :Thanks for sharing. ] (]) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


:I put this article on ] and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. ] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
== RfC on exception to OUTING policy for editors advertising Misplaced Pages editing services for pay ==


::There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Speaking purely as an editor, not with any hats,, I think that anything relating to outing needs to be publicised at the ] and ]. I see that the policy has already been changed with comparatively little input at an earlier RfC. Because of my hats, I'm not doing this myself. ] (]) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you! Will do that now. Really thanks. ] (]) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

== Username change requested ==
Sorry about the name violation...not intentional at all! I set up the new user name Mustangsdtpa, but how do I delete this user name? --] (]) 19:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:When the request is processed, the name will be changed, so the old name will be gone.

==WP:UNDUE actually applies to your revert, not my contribution==
The idea that the DSM-5 is an authoritative source for information regarding the etiology of dementia is a minority opinion and the sources I cited were in fact mainstream. The NIMH is certainly representative of mainstream opinion and not of a minority, let alone a "very tiny minority", as is necessary to satisfy requirement for something to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Please do not revert it again. It is a sourced contribution. If you don't like it, try improving it instead of erasing it. Misplaced Pages is about contributions, not destruction. ] (]) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:Please discuss on the article Talk page, thanks. ] (]) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

== Threatening new users on GMO articles who try to create balance ==

You are continuing to threaten new users who try to balance the GMO articles. This is a problem which I explained to you before and needs to stop. It has a similar affect as the canvassing you accused me of. Please work constructively to find consensus ON THE TALK PAGE of the article rather than threaten them with allegations of "edit warring", etc. ] (]) 23:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree, that this was in any way out of line. I invite you to bring me to ANI over this. ] (]) 23:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 9 March 2015‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


==Trigger happy with edit war notices?==

I am surprised how quick you are to issue edit war notices , on an edit which directly addressed the question raised by another editor. Edit wars are usually characterised as removals and reversions, not the simple addition of a reference! ] (]) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:the point of the edit war notice, is to prevent edit wars from continuing to the point where editors get into blockable territory, and urge editors to discuss things on the article Talk page. That is all they are. I am glad you did so! and by the way, it is "BRD", not "BRD+EW"; opening a discussion is not license to edit war the content back in ] (]) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Thank you, however there has been discussion, you had not replied, and another editor was engaged, and then BANG an edit war note for adding in greatly revised and shortened material - doesn't it seem just a little precipitous in retrospect? Nevertheless, I appreciate it would be better to gain more consensus before adding in more material, will observe this and I've added an rfc. Best wishes. ] (]) 21:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

== March 2015 ==
Hi, I wondered what you were doing . You should definitely not archive a discussion you have taken part in. --] (]) 21:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|John}} (pinging, not sure if you are watching) - if you are telling me to undo that, I will. If you are really asking what I am thinking, I will tell you. The section starts with an action I brought against another editor for his canvassing and personal attacks (1). In his response, the other user makes an argument that my behavior is a problem (2). I responded to that and really set up an RfC/U on myself (since ANI is now the place for that, and the problem editor doesn't know how to use this place) (3). That is three, too-long postings right there. But the table is set. Then Sandy replied to (3) with an off-topic comment in which she attacked a fourth editor, Viriditas, who replied, attacking her back, setting up a subsection to do so. The Sandy-Viriditas interaction is completely off topic.

:On top of that, , but the response to (3) fell ''in the subsection'' set up by Viriditas to reply to Sandy. Again, the whole Sandy-Virtidas thing is off-topic, no one is going to act on that, and messes up an already diffcilt to follow thread. So in a series of steps, I hatted the whole Sandy-Viriditas interaction.

:There you go.

: But do let me know what you would like me to do - my judgement sometimes sucks. ] (]) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

::I would like you to stop commenting on that discussion. You can either be neutral (like a clerk) or you can take part in the discussion. You have clearly taken part in the discussion so if you think any parts of it need hatted or archived you need to ask someone else to do it, not do it yourself. Commenting on the majority of !votes which you disagree with can be off-putting and may be counter-productive. Please stop doing it. --] (]) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I will stop. Shall I strike? ] (]) 20:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

::::Wiki ed walks into a pub, and says, "What's the difference between hatting and archiving? Also bear in mind that John is WP:INVOLVED with QG, imho, meaning that he shouldn't be ivoting to support a ban as he did. IMHO. -] (]) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For ] and knowing when to ] and step back. We all need to do it sometimes, but it's a quality few possess. Your voice is very helpful on ] if you ever feel like returning, but only you know what is best for yourself. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|}

== dyslexia ==

thank you for your comment, you are correct--] (]) 17:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

== Talk:Naturopathy ==
Hi Jytdog<br />
Please be advised that when I commented at ], I have also added 3 indents to your comment to maintain the 'flow' of the discussion with {{u|Young Naturopath 01}}. ({{diff2|651147361|'''Diff here'''}}). I have also noted on the page where added. Regards, ] ] <sup>]</sup> 04:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog,
Thanks for the welcome. I've been a wikipedia member for a while, but have so far made only minor edits, and often forget to log on. Thanks for the resources. It should help me with navigating my way around formatting.
All I've done so far on the naturopathy page is flag the issues. As I'm in the middle of an assignment at the moment I won't have time to do more for a bit, but I hope to add some well referenced updates to the Australian Regulations section to start with, and we'll see how it goes from there. I see you may well have some education in the life sciences so hopefully we can at least speak the same language.] (]) 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:sorry for telling you what you already knew - thanks for being gracious about it! I do hope we can have good, productive, PAG based discussions. :) ] (]) 03:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:Why did you close my disscusion? --] (]) 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::please read the ] and follow them. article Talk pages are for discussing article content and sources. They are not a forum. ], which is what I wrote on the hat and in my edit note, and again here, is part of TPG. ] (]) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the reference review. I'll see if I can dig up a few new ones where needed sometime and I'll make a proposed reference reading list on Nat talk when the gov report comes out on 1 April. I feel more relaxed about this now I've decided to take a break from the editing.] (]) 03:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

== response to Petrarchan at ANI ==

Response to .

:Above () I mentioned you in the following context: "I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV.".
::Diffs supporting that you are a "hater" of me (which I note that you didn't question, so i guess we agree on that), just two difs: (which is really mind-blowing to me in the depth of your conspiratorial thinking about me) and of course your
::Diffs of your opposition to GMOs:
::First. We have content throughout WP on the scientific consensus, that eating currently approved foods from GM plants is as safe as eating food from conventional sources (which does not say, and never has said, that "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt" (as you described it in your "case study" linked above.) You have been fighting against this statement for a long time now, and have characterized that statement as an "ad", and have stated that "You want truth about GMO's (or natural healing, big oil, etc.)? Misplaced Pages is NOT the place to find it". (in the
::in (middle edit) where you summoned groupuscule to a discussion at the ] article, calling groupuscule "The editor who knows about this subject" (for readers, groupuscule created a long document deconstructing (and i mean that in the lit crit sense) the content and sources supporting the scientific consensus statement, which was considered and rejected in .
::probably the best single dif of your POV is , where you make your "GMOs are dangerous" POV clear.
::].
:there you go ] (]) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

::{{tps}} Yowza - There's some serious tinfoil going down in those diffs! ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm hiding under my tinfoil blanket. -] (]) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

== Request to look at Article on Civitatis International ==

Hi Can you please have a look at the article for ]?, the page has been subject to attacks and vandalism by several users for some months now. I have attempted to restore previous more informative and referenced versions, but the same users are persistently deleting this information and from the talk page and replacing with attacks and defamatory content. Thanks ] (]) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Orbitalwatcher] (]) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:I've watch listed it. looks like it is doomed to be deleted tho... ] (]) 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

== Mail ==

{{You've got mail}} ] (]) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks! I wrote back but it bounced. :( ] (]) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I don't do emails but there was no other way to handle this... ] (]) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
::::understood, i got the message, on both levels, and appreciate it. thanks again. ] (]) 00:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] 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 thread is "]".The discussion is about the topic ].
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] (] &middot; ]) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

== Concerned about Bias Article ==

You continuously revert the edit on Intelligent Design (ID) when I remove the completely bias claim that it is "pseudoscientific". If you wish to claim that people claim it is pseudoscience then say this otherwise you are making a boldface assertion that violates wikipedia's neutrality clause. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:that issue has been discussed endlessly on the article talk page. please check out that page, and its archives. please also read and follow ] and open a new discussion there - after you read what is there. Thanks! ] (]) 02:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

== Revert ==
Hi! never did any med pages before and long time since I did much editing. Tried to read but not sure what is acceptable sources? I assume that when I need a secondary source is not one that would be accepted? and in this case would a mention as from a single study be accepted? --] ] 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for talking! Would you please pose this question on the article Talk page? i'll be happy to reply there, and other interested editors will be able to join as well. thanks. ] (]) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Done --] ] 00:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::::thanks! i responded there - let's see what others say. ] (]) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

== Seriously? ==

Seriously, Jytdog? You are messing up the naturopathy article still?!--] (]) 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{tps}} Oh no, what did he do? -] (]) 15:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::ich weiss nicht, ueber was er spricht. ] (]) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

==Jdilts==
Jdilts, edits under his real name and is under a conflict of interest. It's perfectly acceptable to post his name and evidence of COI in these circumstances. ] (]) 17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree. Especially if the user has not said so him or herself. You can of course restore what you wrote, but I will bring you to ANI and in my view, you will likely be site-banned. Outing is serious business and the policy cannot just be blown off. It is perfectly possible to state a case at COIN without OUTING someone. You can say something like "The user Amoon has been editing the article about Company X in a promotional way. Amoon has not made any statement about their relationship with Company X." You ~might~ add something like "There is a person named Andrew Moon at Company X" - just that, saying no more than that, making no claims connecting Amoon to Andrew Moon. You ~might~ get away with doing that, but I would not even do that. Outing is serious. Really. People are site-banned for it. COI is serious too, and I work hard on it, staying very, very clear of OUTING. Dealing with COI in WP is controversial in many ways; one of the "hottest" areas of disagreements is that people who get interested in COI will start to completely blow off OUTING - you are doing exactly that. ] (]) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He edits under Jdilts. He has outed himself. This is perfectly acceptable under the harassment policy, which specially mentions COI and editing under real names.

"The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Misplaced Pages articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Misplaced Pages: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.

] (]) 17:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There I have reposted it removing the identifying information. I still strongly disagree with you though. ] (]) 17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
::"Jdilts" could be random. It could be operated by a person named Jane Diltmoreland. It could be operated by the person you think it is. It could be operated by someone else (even you), who is trying to embarrass the person you are claiming is operating it. We have no way of knowing. You are the one making the connection; no one else. I very much encourage you to search the archives at ], and if you don't find an answer there, ask the general question at ] (you could use the "Amoon" example I used above) before taking the very risky step of making that claim yet again. ] (]) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

==test==

I am not sure if this is how I communicate with you on your talk page. Are you getting this message? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:yes! ] (]) 15:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

==Resolution of COI?==
Hi Jytdog-I was wondering if we could get the resolution of the COI tag on Lorna Taylor's page? Thanks --] (]) 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

==COI Issue==
Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation? ] (]) 06:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:Hi Balaji E.M, thanks for your note and for disclosing. it would be great if you reply at the ] posting - I will say more there. Thanks again. ] (]) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

==What hope is there? Jytdog ==

He discriminates. What hope is there for me to contribute! I'll create an account with even my own personal real life name. Will it help? It won't help.

They discriminate and that's it. I'm not even going to argue.

He didn't even READ what I wrote to him. He didn't even have the common decency to address my concerns. Do continue like this. If it makes you feel better, good. Run things like that. He didn't read anything. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: i don't know what article you are working on. but please keep your focus on content and sources, and what policies and guidelines say. and when there are disputes about content, remain calm and use the procedures laid out in ]. Things never have to become emotional here. Take your time. Really listen to other people, too. Seek consensus. Good luck! ] (]) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

::I appreciate your words Jytdog, but I've given up. An article rated C is enough for me. On a level 4 article. That's good enough for you. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::like i said, i don't know what article you are working on, and i don't know what the dispute is. but getting all emotional doesn't help - it gets in the way. good luck to you, really. ] (]) 15:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

::::It's about objectivity and the truth. Neutrality. Thank you for comments. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== I'd appreciate a look at the South Beach Diet article. ==
I believe it accurately reflects a current NPOV perspective: i.e. that it has clinical acceptance by physicians because of its accessibility, and its worth to patients with the metabolic syndrome; but that nutritionists remain skeptical about the first phase's net benefits to the rest of the population. I've looked through many college-level nutrition texts, and the overwhelming majority do not classify it as a "fad diet" now, and I think anyone can see the distinct break between diets such as SB and Atkins, which provide quantifiable benefits, although perhaps not optimum ones, and the sort of loonacy(sic) that many ] promote. I'm sorry to see the other fellow is taking a break; while I think he was wrong here, a skeptical eye never hurts, especially when a commercial POV is being actively fostered. ] (]) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
: i think i un-unwatchlisted it. i will re-watch list it. always happy to consider new content based on sources that comply with MEDRS -- if you have them, please bring them at the article. thanks. (btw, people take "fad diet" much more pejoratively than they should do - it just a term for most of all these diets that a) make proposals that go beyond the common sense things of limiting your caloric intake, eating a balanced diet, and getting enough exercise and b) have a whole money-making machine behind them, with branding etc to get there) ] (]) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::Well, I think "fad" becomes a misnomer at a certain point; Atkins, for instance, has clear roots that go back to Banting, and has clear cosmetic worth, and some clinical...although how much remains an open question. South Beach really does seem mainstream in modern med sources, with three important caveats: the earlier versions empasized ] rather than ]; the diet was designed specifically for people who are borderline diabetics, generally, and what is a worthwhile trade-off for someone with ] might not be for someone who isn't affected with it; and over time, the importance of exercise has been emphasized more.

::It also suffers, like any dieting text must, from the conflict between scientific observation and coaching. There's a fine line between cajolery and misrepresentation. ] (]) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
==That "shout" page==

I pretty much knew as soon as I read the article and a few references that this'd be a long, possibly even resultless slog, it's not my fist rodeo, plus I'm tired, plus I've got an assignment due in 2 days I should be working on. I'm actually starting to wish that this guy hadn't mentioned the article to me the other day, after all, even if I manage to make the article truly reflective of the pros and cons of naturopathy in all its forms, there's nothing to stop the original smear campaigner from just reverting it all back. By the lingo I mean I don't know the acronyms, I know that the sentence contradicts one of the sources, but I don't know how to find out what that's called. Anyway, read the sentence and the two references if you like, and if you can't understand what I'm saying from that, I don't know what else I can do. I'm rekt. I'm going to go and dream that they renewed perception for another season.] (]) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:I am sorry. i know what it is like to come across an article that is a complete wreck and to fight uphill to fix it. i have done that. but you need to move slowly, seriously, carefully, and respectfully - keep it human the whole way. really listen, and really talk, and always try to communicate and be as ready to change as you hope others will be. you build a reputation as you go.... and what you have done so far is dig a hole. what i appreciate, is that you have kept it human. keep that up! good luck. ] (]) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A little better rested. I've posted again in ] if that isn't sufficient I'm not sure what else I can do.] (]) 02:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
: hope you had a good sleep! i will check it. ] (]) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and the recent edits and reverts. What's the highest power I can appeal to on systematic NPOV violations? My sources are being accused of not lining up with the tone of the page. Even a reference to australian qualifications and private health rebates was removed.] (]) 06:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::I advised you to '''take it slow'''. The edit note where you were first reverted says "Let's take this a little slower. At least part of the added content has issues with undue weight. Let's discuss on talk. " And per ], you absolutely '''should''' be willing to discuss your changes, calmly and based on PAG. I told you to take it slow... take your time. You cannot charge in to ''any article'' and demand everything be fixed '''right now just like you want it'''. That doesn't fly anywhere in WP, for any reason. ] (]) 12:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::I've just read your edits and the Talk page discussion. Please do read ]. You are exhibiting many of the behaviors there. Please think about that. Please. Please remember that the absolute foundation of Misplaced Pages is ] - which means really dialoguing with other editors, on the basis of PAG. That takes time. It is literally impossible to turn any article around 180 degrees overnight. It takes time to gain consensus - this is the deeply human heart of WP. You really must acknowledge that and behave accordingly. You are interacting with other humans. If you continue as you are, you are going to either burn out quickly and leave angry, or you are going to get thrown out of here, and you will waste a bunch of other people's time in the process. ] (]) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting on the editing, there's been some pretty poor justifications for rollbacks or refusing edits. One of the reasons I was initially given for rejection of a reference is that it was 10 years old. However, when I remove text from a section devoted to current regulations because it was 40 years old I was undoed. I already added stuff about the current regulatory environment in Australia and not all of it was from the government report which was contended, at any rate it seems both government reports are fine to be used as a basis for things not pertaining to medical evidence, so I assume I can have back the majority of what I wrote before? I'm afraid to ask for dread of what excuse will be cooked up next.] (]) 14:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also you'll notice the sections I added were balanced, because I actually believe in the scientific method and an informed debate, one of the reasons I wouldn't try to support some common naturopathic practices scientifically, I'm there mostly for the herbs and nutrition.] (]) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

:you are not listening. like i said, it is hard to watch you self-destruct. you are not being patient at all - there is ] here. Take your time, and work it through. I think you have some reasonable points, but you are acting unreasonably and that is destroying your credibility. ] (]) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::It would be very useful if you would list what you consider to be Gudzwabofer's reasonable points so that we could comment on them - it would also be nice if you could get Gud to indent his posts properly. Just sayin. -] (]) 15:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::Yeah I need to work on some less contentious pages for a bit and contend my self with the couple of minor changes I got through for now. The problem is that the page already was personal. When people cherry pick facts to push an agenda it's not science, it's not neutral, and it's not dispassionate. The reason that the skeptic project has it rated as a B is they think they've done a pretty good job of rubbishing a profession that is largely built on millennia of tradition that mainstream western medicine forgot about in the middle ages and is now trying to patent.] (]) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:::'''no it is not personal'''. to the extent you personalize this, you are dramatically fucking up and you '''will''' end up getting thrown out of here. slow down. deal with one thing at a time. if what you want is the selfish emotional satisfaction of expressing outrage, you are doing that very effectively. if what you want is to improve the article, you are fucking up, thoroughly. ] (]) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Look I might be a little bit schizo, but I'm not an idiot. There is a double standard here. My criticisms of some sources still haven't been answered with full academic justification, yet I'm not allowed to remove them, but when I try to add a source of my own, it's quickly removed by someone who doesn't even bother to read the references. I'm not even allowed to remove redundancies when things are mentioned twice, even when one of those things is in the wrong section. I'm well aware that I'm the only natural medicine afficionado working on this page at the moment, and from the tone of the article you all see me as completely misinformed.] (]) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::::: you are not giving anyone time to even fucking think. i am only just now reading the victoria source. '''SLOW THE FUCK DOWN'''. ] (]) 15:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::: ok soz, that last part wasn't directed at you anyway] (]) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::you are not giving '''anyone''' time to think. i have told you to take it slow (look at how many times I wrote that. really -- go look!) and you are completely ignoring that. get off your fucking high horse and remember that you are dealing with other human beings. get down here on the ground and WALK. you have to gain ] and that takes time, effort, and patience. And real dialogue. Dialogue is not making demands and expecting compliance yesterday. ] (]) 15:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::there's also a new oz gov commissioned report coming out on the 1st of April (no joke). I mentioned it in the dearly departed updated reguation section. Yeah I'm kind of in the middle of assignment writing adrenaline. Like I said I'm gonna work on other pages for a bit, maybe some nice innocuous botany stubs] (]) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} I just saw you posted a second source to RSN, in the same section as the first. You abusing RSN now. That board is for asking specific sections about the use of specific sources. One source and the content for which it is used, at a time. Again, you are making a hash of things. Please remove the discussion of the second source for now. One thing at a time! ] (]) 15:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:I am a single person. I am dealing with about five other issues in WP now, plus there is content I want to write that is still waiting for my time, and my wife wants to go get some food. that is true for everybody here. please stop just throwing shit at the wall everywhere you can. if you keep doing it, i am just going to walk away from this whole mess you are making. i mean that. i have limited bandwidth and i will not keep investing my time in a disaster. ] (]) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Just go, there's nothing stopping you, wikipedia and the naturopathy page will still be a mess tomorrow, as they were yesterday. I'm logging off, the heartfelt speel on my page is the last for the night. I think I'll have to try and convince myself to leave the majority of this job up to a hippie with more patience for bs. No hard feelings.] (]) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} you are still missing the point. throwing so many things up in the air at once, and demanding answers to all of them at the same time, will get you no where and will waste a bunch of everyone's time. ] (]) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::Hey, Jdog. Have you seen XKCD number 386? -] (]) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: what is that? ] (]) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::http://xkcd.com/386/ You are welcome. -] (]) 18:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::: :) ] (]) 18:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Have you seen xkcd before? Did you mouseover the image? -] (]) 18:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} i have seen a couple of things there - they have some really on-point ones. yes i did mouseover - sweet little easter egging. :) ] (]) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

I am trying to close out a {{tl|request edit}} for ''National Report'' - I'm not quite sure why cited content has been removed, but I have removed the sentence about when the first article was posted. Can we come to an agreement. I'm more than a little confused by what seems to be an edit war.--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 00:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
: I opened a discussion on the Talk page already. ] (]) 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
:: You tagged me as edit waring, but you're the instigator. Fine. Can you just delete the history section if you won't even allow me to post properly cited material? Did you even look at my last change before you reverted it? It netted you essentially where you were at. Let's stop this craziness.--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
::::you are not an article Talk page user i guess. anyway it looks fine now. ] (]) 01:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Nope, I haven't posted a thing to ] :). I was just trying to work with one conversation.--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 02:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

== Undoing my edit ==

Why did you undo my editing of line 74 under "Polygraph"? This is factual information relevant to the topic. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I would be happy to discuss at the article Talk page. please bring it up there. thanks. ] (]) 19:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

== Tone at Foie Gras RFC ==

I just wanted to say that I think you should watch your tone at the RFC on Foie Gras, a mistake was made in procedure, albeit minor, and you damn near bit Dr Chrissy's head off, inserting your points, in bold, into their post. Not on. ] (]) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks. ] (]) 12:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024

Hi, welcome to my talk page!
  • If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page. That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
  • Please click here to leave a new message.


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

That's all folks

So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.

The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.

In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.

I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.

In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.

It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.

So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.

I just want to say thanks to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dammit man. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project – and your obvious love of and value to it – should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sad to see this. Best wishes,Smeat75 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 to what Zefr said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- bonadea contributions talk 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
And another +1 here.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. scope_creep 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of mob rule that Misplaced Pages employs (see ostracism). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,WP:There is no deadline, and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.
That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. The most that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just fyi, they do have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban unless a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the WP:ROPE has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which did work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of WP:ROPE before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - R9tgokunks 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
  • It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. Jonathunder (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:Misplaced Pages does not need you are not always true, and I've been considering creating a WP:You are irreplaceable counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. Misplaced Pages:Why MEDRS? is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.💵Money💵emoji💵 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. GirthSummit (blether) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — kashmīrī  00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. Eschoryii (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --TheSandDoctor 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • :( – Joe (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at WT:HA and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the banning policy some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately here and here), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. Valeince (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey2010 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my little side project; the work you put into improving this previously unsourced little gem made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the civility bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. II | (t - c) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have created and added myself to the category, Category:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back. Benjamin (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at special:diff/872116397#Statement_by_bluerasberry. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--DBigXrayᗙ 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are TeeVeeed (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. Reyk YO! 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with jps above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; lyrics.) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyacupuncture COI?) 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--FeralOink (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).


Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

You can see the relevant motion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of DGG and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. Ritchie333 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Alex Shih I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — kashmīrī  13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from Kudpung, Ritchie333, Randykitty, and Alex Shih. Tryptofish has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —PaleoNeonate06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

  1. Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

Carrying on

I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to WP:COI and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --Zefr (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Generally I use formaldehyde when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? Natureium (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Preferring amber for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to WP:MEDHOW or WP:PSG, and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --Zefr (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. Natureium (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog/How qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to where we put those. Jonathunder (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog should consider returning back

The knight is sorely missed DBigXrayᗙ

I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.

  • Please come backSupport as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What is this? You can't vote someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hoping he'll come back. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Doc James: I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor in real life. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Actually, I don't think that the community can overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
            • There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • ...Jytdog messed up in this case. And in the two and seven previous cases. ~ Amory (utc) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What Swarm says. WBG
  • If— . We miss you, come back. Widefox; talk 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier and in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm so he did and accepted the decision. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —PaleoNeonate09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. – SJ + 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jytdog's good work noted in the media

I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. JamesG5 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

JamesG5 good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I put this article on Misplaced Pages:Press coverage 2019 and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. Mramoeba (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Category: