Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 15 April 2015

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearmind (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2015‎

COI Issue

Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation? Balaji E.M (talk) 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 WP:COIN posting - I will say more there. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, Yes I work for The company that has deployed a new Remote surveillance system for all the PG&E Critical sites. The intention was to verify that some of the allocated budget to improve security and publicly communicated has been spent and deployed with GREAT results... We are working directly with PG&E Corporate security and have been part of conference discussions with Homeland Security and FBI representatives. This is all in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/Metcalf_sniper_attack and the aftermath, solution? I tried different wording options, sorry that I am new to contributing to Misplaced Pages. We would just like to update the public with the new systems that have been deployed and have resulted in Security Improvements... Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAyala (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Awuah

Hi Jytdog,

The article below was deleted a couple of weeks ago on the basis of copyvio. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patrick_Awuah,_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1

The article is being rewritten to eliminate the copyvios as much as possible. Kindly compare the current rewritten state against the copyvio terms to see if there's been any improvement. The goal is to improve and maintain the article, and not to violate any rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:CopyvioAndSoWhat/sandbox?venotify=created

Will it be possible to have an article with not one word or character match with a referenced article?

Hope to hearing from you soon.

thanks -- CopyvioAndSoWhat (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Possible ANI

I have decided I have had enough of edits that are uncivil, inflammatory, goading, taunting, inaccurate, disruptive, demeaning, prophanity, misleading and just plain wrong. Cease and disist or I will raise an ANI.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

there already is one. i really don't know what has you so riled. just keep things simple, focused on content. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Patents as primary sources

I collaborated with Wikiisawsome by posting to his talk page and he did not respond. And now I'm collaborating with you.

I do not understand why you are reverting my edit and locking the page. I am not citing a patent for any content or claim in the patent. I am adhering EXACTLY to the Misplaced Pages guidelines on patents found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:PATENTS#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F

The relevant part of that Misplaced Pages page states:

"Thus both issued patents and patent applications have extremely limited use as sources on Misplaced Pages:

• They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...")."

I am making simple, descriptive statements about the existence of the CRISPR patents. I do not cite any content or claims from the patents. I only cite metadata included in the patent headings. That metadata includes the date the patent was filed, the names of the inventors, and the dates that prior provisional patent applications were filed. That information is germain to the CRISPR invention and the patents are legitimate primary sources for that information.

All I have done is rely upon the patents for four simple facts: the date of filing, the inventors, the assignees and the date of the earliest provisional patent application. Published patents and patent applications are, indisputably, the most primary source possible for that kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.14.17 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page. would you please put your response there? it is much better for everybody to have a centralized discussion. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

huh?

Never seen such action/judgement. If you disagree or want to comment, you can do so directly. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely out of line. do not restore it. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on this, but I already have an ANI case part way put together I was originally going to submit to AN3. If you see this before submitting anything, I'll likely have mine up at ANI in not too long (not a great way to spend one of my few days available for Misplaced Pages this week). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)More simple: do not edit someone else's comments. If you disagree, then talk. (t-a-l-k). Don't template-address editors. Don't say "warning" as an opinion. And for you: do not edit my userspace again. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Joseph Rosetti

You need to read an article before you say he was never a CEO of anything. Fourth line says "He served as President and CEO of Saint Luke Institute". The category is correct. Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i missed that, thanks. will self revert. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice there is an ANI regarding your behaviour toward me

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Your behaviour towards me. The thread is Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment.The discussion is about the topic Protracted uncivility and harassment. Thank you.

• I've closed said discussion as both the community feedback and your response have been pretty straightforward (despite the intrinsic drama). Given the fact that you've acknowledged the issue here, apologized, and accepted a "warning" I won't patronize you by writing out a warning regarding civility. However I will remind you about our helpful catchphrase, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I know it can be very hard when you get frustrated, but the key point is that very few things on this site are worth allowing yourself to get to that level of frustration. As long as you remain focused on content, you won't go wrong, and if you're really having an issue with another editor, you need to trust the proper channels to help you resolve those situations. Regardless, I completely trust that you'll remain true to your sentiments at ANI and do not wish to open yourself up to any more scrutiny with future incidents that garner complaints. Happy editing and regards, Swarm 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I let myself go there for a while, and that lack of restraint is all on me. I accept the warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Swarm 02:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Please stop edit warring on the RfC. In fact, I think in your own interests you should consider removing it from your watchlist, as you said you would a couple of days ago. You've posted to it around 70 times since 22 March. Sarah (SV) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to but then drchrissy pinged me despite promising not to... and i had been considering anyway that I had let it all get under my skin too much. i am in a good place now and will continue editing that article in a civil manner. Thanks for fixing the big text insertion, but your move of the subsection broke a threaded discussion, so i moved it back. And I've posted a lot, in a lot of places, the past month. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing

Is really fucking healthy. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks. and for the edit note with it. stupid me. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As in real life there's a time and a place. These also are powerful words that lose some of that power when overused. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

agreed, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

SlimVirgin, per your message at WT:COI, I'll just put the same question here with some variation.

In my view, I am being hounded, and you are supporting it, and definitely are not trying to stop it. You have been the subject of hounding and Arbcom found you to be "an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily." What happened to that person? You are doing the opposite of being "too ready to accuse" others of hounding. Why are you supporting the hounding of me, and opening the door wide for others to be hounded with your proposal to lower the bar to taking action on "apparent COI"? I appreciate you be willing to answer. And let me add here, that I am not comparing what I have gone through, to what you went through. I don't know the whole story, but it appears that you went through hell, and I am sorry that you did.

I acknowledge that what you wrote was " If you'd like to ask me something about your situation," and you may not consider my questions to be about my situation. I think they are, as you appear to be me to be part of the current round... and I really don't get that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog, just a note to let you know that I'll respond later or tomorrow, but I have to go offline for a bit now. Sarah (SV) 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, sorry, I started to write a response, but there are so many separate issues, I wasn't sure what to focus on. I think it's probably best if I just leave it. Just wanted to let you know in case you thought I had forgotten. Sarah (SV) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for making the attempt. i am open to hearing from you on these things, here or via email, if and when you like. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

Appreciate your insight on the Raben Group. Have no relation at all to them. The page now is strictly marketing drivel and my edits were all legit. Appreciate any assistance you can offer as an employee of theirs made it a marketing tool for them. Richie1921 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm watching the article and will be responding there. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New paper on GMO scientific consensus

Hi, since you edit GMO-related articles so much I wanted to know what you thought of this article which states that "Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature." Everymorning talk 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, the PR campaign continues! with Vandana Shiva as a co-author, nonetheless, and authors from ENNSR, with Seralini as reference 1. Hm! Thanks for pointing that out - will read.Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i read it now. it says nothing new... it repeats what ENSSR said already in 2013 and this mysteriously unauthored document says - there is a PR campaign going on by this FRINGE group. It is pretty smart. The source you brought is a "discussion" paper - see here for what that means in the journal; it is an editorial. And per MEDRS that is not a reliable source. It will likely get added to the Controversies article next to the earlier ENSSER statement. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

i've created a discussion about this Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#new_paper. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

single dealer

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

thanks, will try. many balls in the air right now. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog, I appreciate it. I would just like those pages back to being sound pieces of info and once that is done I will propose some additions that I think will be helpful to single dealer platforms. A lot of students use the page so having it warning free would be a big help. Appreciate you're very busy though! Jennifermaitland (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Jytdog - I wonder if I you'll have time to look at this before we head in to Easter weekend? I would really appreciate that. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog - if you don't have time to do a clean up of these pages, can you suggest or nominate another wikipedia user who can? I am happy to reciprocate by reviewing and cleaning up any other pages that might be on your list. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - hope you are well. Are you monitoring your talk page? I am still waiting to hear about the pages Single Dealer Platform and Paul Caplin as per our discussion on March 19th. They still appear with warnings. Is there another editor who can do a clean up if you do not have time? kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer, you didn't answer Jytdogs question on March 19th, and so he has acted as such. If you want this sorted out, you need to answer the question on your Talk page first. Having seen the totality of your edits to both pages, this should be easily sorted out, but only if you engage with Jytdog. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roxy the dog. Jytodoc and I have actually talked extensively about it (if you take a look at my talk page) and we left it that he would try to take a look at it over the weekend after March 19th, but so far just hasn't been able to get around to it. If there are outstanding questions I am more than happy to answer them, but I just understand at this point what they might be. Kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you should read your Talk page again. I read it twice. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that Jennifer, I was wrong. I've just seen the long section on your Talk, below the initial section where Jdog and yourself had an exchange. I hadn't realised the conversation went on to another section which I didn't initially read. I think that the issue has become a little overdone as far as your edits are concerned, but JD has appeared to be totally snowed under with stuff recently, and this may have escaped him. Unless Jytdog objects, I may remove those tags myself later on. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks Roxy the dog. I know he's very snowed under. Basically my concern are the big tags at the top of the articles. If there is stuff in the articles that still needs to be removed I certainly don't mind, but I'd just like to see the articles get back to looking more valid and without those tags as they are a valuable resource with some of the only non-biased information out there (you'll see that any other article referencing single dealer platform is usually on a big bank's website, and all the other stuff about Paul Caplin is to sell music). Happy to help in any way I can with clean ups of other pages if anyone needs a hand with anything. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog. You've been busy, so I thought I'd deal with this. Feel free to double check, but I've just removed tags from articles, left them on Talk pages, and 'consulted' Jennifer (also the name of one of my daughters) to take baby steps, ask us questions if she wants, and enjoy. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

super nice of you to do that. the key thing is that the COI tag should not come off until after you have reviewed the article for NPOV. if you have done that and are OK with what you find, it is great to take off the tag. i'll assume you did! so thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll go back and make that point clear. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What are

Your thoughts on this? User:Geogene/Uw-badcoi It's a warning template to discourage COI accusation battlegrounding and lead editors to COIN. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

nice idea! I think the name is not helpful - you have to look at it through the recipient's eyes and i think the goal is to warn and urge, not offend... some other comments on its talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubts

Sir, I have some doubts, would you like to clear it.Balaji E.M (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Even-though some wiki pages have very less references, it is approved. May I know why?Balaji E.M (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you asking why some article are allowed to be created, and why some articles are deleted. I don't work in that space much, so I cannot tell you much. if you are talking about decisions that individuals make, i can say that i agree - the standards that are applied vary a lot. When the community decides, like at an AfD or an appeal, they ~tend~ to be more consistent in applying standards. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

They are using a review now Not sure if the review supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the review and have been reading. they followed it pretty closely (too closely at points). some over-certainty in the paraphrasing, and too technical overall. and those Capitals! Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you please use conventional punctuation in your discussions? It makes your material much easier to read, and makes your arguments look more professional and thoughtful. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

is there someplace in particular you are struggling with? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Respect my privacy

Dear Jytdog, i can tell you i am member to a no-profit organization committed in overcome disabilities. I'm not sharing further personal information with you concerning my health status, especially on a open system. Thank you for your efforts to keep Misplaced Pages a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mW00t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I am sorry you interpreted my note as asking for any personal information - I will keep that in mind going forward when I reach out to folks. I'll reply further on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

jytdog

Jytdog just pinging you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

you double-pinged me by writing here and using the echo! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

remember the new Star Wars 7 trailer comes out in two weeks (a little change to agree with what you said below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

i already did! but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ive got your back too--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you talking to yourself again?? :) Zad68 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

funny zad!

(edit conflict) that is very nice of you Ozzie - You have a good heart. i need to count on you always giving your straight opinion. I screw up sometimes and am always glad to get feedback, either way. The key thing is that everybody comes to each issue fresh. We humans do form "packs" but the encyclopedia is a better place if we fight that instinct, and come to every issue with fresh eyes, and start out saying what we think regardless if others agree (but always listening and eventually trying to reach consensus). I'll know you have my back, when you disagree with me in good faith and trust that everything will still be OK. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again! I am glad to be working with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

got that --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

great. i really value you as a colleague here. but we never want people to feel ganged up on (or be ganged up on) and if gandydancer (who likes you a lot) read what you wrote you above (and she may do.. i don't know if she watches my page or not) it would make her feel bad, even though you were trying to be good to me. and nobody deserves to be made to feel bad. i know you wouldn't want to make anybody feel bad. that's why we need to be careful of the "pack" thing and just be honest with each other. thanks again, it does feel good to know that you share the position i am taking in that specific thread. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, must make a nice change to have somebody getting your back, rather than getting on your back ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed it (just in case)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

you just made me laugh out loud. thx :) Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchdog

I have moved the notes about the "contentious" Atrazine article to the Atrazine talk page. I look forward to your comments there as we work to get that publication added, I have a few more I'd like to add to the page so this will be a good test run. Thanks! Remember: filter your water! Especially if you are prego. Apparently we midwesetrners are swamped in this chemical waste runoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Learning articles

I think these are now off of your radar, but FYI I heard from the professor who had students editing learning styles and learning theory (education). He was happy to find out about WikiEdu and I've forwarded your summary of the issues (with a bit more generalized information). Don't know if that means anything will change in the near future, but at least next semester they will likely work with us. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for sticking with it! hooray!! Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help with a redirected page.

Hey there.

A wiki search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH is currently redirected to

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trinity_Baptist_Church_Sex_Scandal&redirect=no

This was due to a move or rename. I'm assuming the latter. Is it possible to edit the original page so that there is content germane to the current state of this organization? I am not looking to bury any of the current information contained in the above mentioned wiki. There is other information that can be posted and accessed by the community.

Thanks, Mcvizual (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

this is your only edit, ever. pretty savvy of you to find me!

The article used to be called Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, New Hampshire and then it was called Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) and then someone objected that the article wasn't about the church at all, but about the sex scandal, so we changed the title to specifically reference the sex scandal. There doesn't seem to be enough material for an article about the church itself; we checked at the time. It would still be overwhelmed by the sex scandal content. It isn't clear exactly what the problem you see is... what is it that you want? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the research field. Finding things is what I do! Honestly, I just looked at the edits and figured you'd be a good place to start since you had "Revert Rights".

I don't necessarily have a problem with the scandal page. The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc. The scandal would obviously be it's own section and link to this main article.

Another issue is that Google uses Wiki titles as business names in search results... Why? I don't know. But when you do a Google search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH, the business name is shown as Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal. I'm currently trying to reach out to Google to rectify this.

Thanks for your ultra-quick response. I also love your use of the ellipsis.Mcvizual (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Let me ask you - what is your relationship with Trinity? It is fine if you are connected with it, but per our conflict of interest rules (like pretty much everywhere else), things go better when people with conflicts are transparent about them So, do tell. (and to be frank, since you are putting in all this effort to rectify things with google and Misplaced Pages, it will be a bit hard to believe if you tell me that you have no connection at all).

But back to the point... above you write: "The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc". That is not how Misplaced Pages works. We have policies that govern whether an article about X can exist in Misplaced Pages or not. That policy is here: WP:NOTABILITY. As I mentioned above, when we looked at this a month or so ago, it was clear to us that the church itself was unlikely to meet the standards described in that policy. This is what drove the name change. The article used to be named after the church, and had a window dressing of poor content about the church, draped around the sex scandal content... and this made no sense. (You can see what it looked like here.) (the title was different then, of course). Does the decision to change the name make sense to you, now that you see the policy, and what the content was, and the decision we made?

Sorry about the issues with Google - I hope they can fix that for you. 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Full Disclosure, I'm not a member of Trinity and I have no COI. I recently started attending and with my background as a User Experience Designer was approached with helping them update their website with more relevant content. In doing research and finding this wiki article, I thought I would try to help them get more of their core information into the Wiki article. I understand the need for notability but this need is not applied evenly across Misplaced Pages. See the Wiki on the Richmond Outreach Center There are multiple churches and organizations that have wiki pages that aren't notable except for some sort of controversy but they have content relating to history, etc. This is not to diminish the scandal at Trinity but rather, to prove a point and to request parity.

The original intent of Misplaced Pages may have been to be an open-source encyclopedia. However, one of the standard uses of Misplaced Pages is the general gathering of knowledge about an institution. I've seen it happen time and time again. If you ask a user to tell you something about a company, they will go to the wiki as often (or even more often) than visiting said company's actual website.

I expressed multiple times to church leadership the need to have the scandal as part of the wiki as it is notable and of public record. Not to mention, the way to build genuine trust is NOT to bury information. As I said before, my main goal is to get more of their information into the article. It is not to make a dark stain disappear.

Thanks again.Mcvizual (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the disclosure, that makes sense. (i really do appreciate it. this place is a community at its base and it is good when folks are straight with one another). so what you (and I guess Trinity) want, is that the article would go back to how it was here, with its old name. Is that right? Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If that could happen, that would be great. There is other content that could be added to the wiki I would just need to research it a bit more to be able to cite sources. But at least changing the title and adding the history would square Google away. I don't know if you've ever had to deal with them on an internal basis but that cog turns real, real slow.

Thanks so much for your consideration around this topic.Mcvizual (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify what you wanted. I am not sure that folks will want to do it, but it has to start with a clear description of what you want. OK, my next question to you, is - what sources do you have, about Trinity, that would be used to flesh out the rest of the article? What we want are independent (not Trinity's website for example), reliable sources about Trinity (again, please see WP:RS). What do you have? You can put links here, or citations to books. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, that would have to be researched so that ambiguity can be avoided and proper citations given however, upon second thought, I don't really have a dog in that hunt. My services have been requested in a different area. I will be sure to pass off all requirements so that the additions can be made. That being said, additions might include their weekly radio broadcast but like I said, content and citations is their baby, not mine.Mcvizual (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

no, we need independent sources. their radio show is not indepedent of them. the argument to rename is not going to go far, without some sense that there is actually decent, sourceable content to use. i will give it at try though, by linking to this conversation at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the effort. Like I said, I will let it to the Trinity leadership to provide the additional content/citations. I'll post their findings here for peer review before attempting to revamp the article. I'm done for the night. Take care.Mcvizual (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1. http://concordnewsradio.com/?page_id=567

Thx 4 thx

Thanks for your thanks re GMO edits. Can I solicit your opinion on whether the Marsh vs Baxter case warrants a separate article? I think it does and am looking for an appropriate title. In Western Australia, there is an issue that "organic" farm produce sells for much higher prices than "mined" crops and "battery" animals, etc, and that there is a large potential export market if the chemicals and patent technologies can be kept at bay. Like yourself (as I understand), I have no vested interest either way but do like to see a rational discussion. Regards Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be an interesting article, yes! For examples from other countries, see Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser (canada), Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (US). thanks for fixing the typo (embarassing) and improving otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding .global page

My apologies. I added more sources as requested, and I am involved with the registry operating the TLD and got notified by the lack of content on the page that one of our resellers linked to from it's site. I hope the added sources and aparse content is ok now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeasoderlund (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jeasoderlund. It sounds like you do have a conflict of interest. You should disclose that conflict on your userpage (here) and refrain from editing the article directly going forward, and instead suggest changes on its talk page, using the "request edit" template described in our WP:COI guideline. I have also placed a text-box on the Talk page of .global (Talk:.global so that with one click, you can set up an edit request. Thanks, and good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I've provided pro-bono advice to a couple organizations recently, that ended up being helped by you on-Wiki. After warning them of the un-professional and chaotic nature of Misplaced Pages, I was duly impressed by your reasonable responses and willingness to invest the time in actually editing articles. After making my own COIN post, I took a look at the board to see that none other than Jytdog was practically single-handedly holding down the fort. I was somewhat on the opposite side of you in the discussion about the COI of someone writing about their father scientist, and after investigating the sources closely, you turned out to be right. Given this and seeing Request Edits being handled competently and search results for promotional phrases that I use to trim promotionalism coming down, I'm starting to have renewed faith in Misplaced Pages's ability to competently handle both good faith and bad faith COI in a drama-free manner. In case nobody else has noticed your good work yet, I figured somebody should. CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is super nice of you corporateM. three or four other folks are doing things regularly there - it is not just me. i do wish there were more. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning about your incivility...

Per my comment here you have been warned. Atsme☯ 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

please tell me what I wrote that was incivil there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

All of it. Just start striking the entire post because it is filled with unsupported allegations: . I have grown weary of you discrediting me and making it appear as though I support a drug that is banned by the FDA. That accusation alone is actionable because it is based only on your incorrect assumptions which are totally unsupported by the diffs. For example, the natural news link was a RS to cite for content in Griffin's book, and has nothing to do with what I support or believe. Griffin wrote the freaking book, not me. You seem to have a problem understanding what makes a source reliable; i.e. how it is used. The passages I wrote at Griffin (that you reverted) focused on the author and his books. I took a biographical approach to what was written in his books including his views and motivations. Per BLP: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. FYI, WP:FRINGEBLP further confirms it. Let me be clear for the umpteenth time, I am not promoting laetrile, and if you don't strike your false allegations, you best start compiling some diffs. I've asked you politely on numerous occasions to please stop making false allegations and to stop policing me. We are allowed to write about an author's views, especially his most controversial ones, and we shouldn't have to contend with other editors creating false impressions that we support those views. You need to stop it now, Jytdog. I have run out of options and don't know how else to stop your bad behavior short of ARBCOM. Atsme☯ 18:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

policing you? i have no idea what you mean. i avoid you as much as i can. Ok you have now made it clear that you object to me saying that you were promoting laetrile. Let me see if i actually wrote. If i did, i will strike that. Thanks for clarifying. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

so what I actually wrote on SV's page, was "In that article, you been trying for months now to remove MEDRS-sourced content critical of the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment, and instead to write more positive content based on sources like naturalnews.com. " I think that is an accurate description. I also wrote there, "'l'll end this by noting that the promotion of amygdalin as a cancer treatment is actually called quackery in the reliable biomedical literature (PMID 219680). There is quacking here, but it is not financial, but rather advocacy for FRINGE medicine." If you read that carefully, I did not say that you were promoting laetrile. I didn't intend to say that you were, and I am sorry that you read it that way.

i didn't see anything about you promoting laetrile in my reply to at SV's page either.

in the deletion discussion, i originally wrote "This specific realization of that idea, is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP", which I later amended to say "appears to me to be is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP". . Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Just two questions for starters:

1) who, working at the Griffin article, do you believe has a COI?

2) what leads you to think that? Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Collapsed discussion

No offense intended. The discussion over there has remained admirably focused given the contentious nature of the subject matter, and I was just trying to maintain that. Respectfully, Formerly 98 00:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

understood, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of warning

You are hereby advised that your accusation of canvassing at my TP April 5, 2015 and at the user's TP April 5, 2015 was inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of warning. As I explained to you here April 5, 2015, my efforts were about collaboration. You also need to evaluate your own behavior because it is certainly beginning to smell like hounding. Atsme☯ 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

the notice wasn't abuse. if you do only contact one side of a content dispute, that is canvassing. maybe you are not done notifying people about the essay and intend to content people on all sides of the discussions at Naturopathy; if you did or do that, that would not be canvassing. you will do as you will. (btw I watch Gudzwabofer‎'s page, as i have had lots of discussions with him; your edit popped up on my watchlist - no hunting or hounding involved. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It was abuse. I am following guidelines, per Misplaced Pages:Collaborations. My invitation reads: Hi, Gudz (hope the nickname is ok), I am working on improving the following essay, WP:COIducks, and during my research to find areas of behavioral conflict, I ended up at Talk:Naturopathy where I read some of your posts. Since CAM, integrative and alternative medicine are mentioned in the essay, would you be so kind as to give it a read, and offer any suggestions at the essay's TP? Thx in advance. My response to the questions and comments preceding it further proves my course of action as inviting collaboration: Evidentiary material can be easily researched, some of which can be found in the archives of AN, ANI, ARBCOM, AE, and on numerous TPs of related topics. It's all there for your perusal as it was for me. Just curious, do you think it is not an issue? One way to gage stability and issues with an article is to check traffic history, disputes, reverts/undos, edit warring, stability of an article, etc. I have no clue why you would accuse me of canvassing. Stop it. Atsme☯ 19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

we seem to disagree here. i do hope you notify other editors at Naturopathy of this essay, as they are also knowledgeable about that topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, it looks to me as if you repeatedly deny the clearly, civilly, and appropriately expressed concerns of other editors by accusing them of "abuse." SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No worry, Jytdog. I finally have a collaborator, and good one to boot!! He added some really nice touches to the essay. It looks great. Question - since the essay is sort of an extension of COI guidelines, shouldn't the participants in the survey claim or acknowledge their COI statements if they have one on their UP? Since the essay is about identifying problem areas of COI, every participant in the survey with a COI statement needs to disclose it, including you according to the guidelines, right? Atsme☯ 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"sort of an extension of COI guidelines" ← no, it's a user essay with no guideline weight whatsoever. Even so, it's so toxic it is (deservedly) going to get deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has a COI they should disclose it yes, and that would go for me too. Why do you ask? Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloke walks into "the Ferret and Dramaboard" pub and says "What's the difference between a COI and a COI statement?" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so if they have already published a COI statement on their UP, and they participate in an article where there may be a COI, are they supposed to indicate they have a published COI statement (like a link) somewhere in the discussion, or in the edit summary, or ???? Atsme☯ 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme☯ 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• now i understand your question. There are two levels to this - Terms of Use per, and COI more generally. The Terms of Use are very explicit, about where you need to make disclosures if you are editing for pay. Doing any one of those, satisfies the ToU. In practice, we have been trying to get folks to disclose both on their User page, so we have a central location to see everything so we can better audit, and on the Talk page of the relevant article (we do that, with the "connected contributor" template). I have to note here, that although the ToU is a legal contract, there is no consensus in WP to take them as policy, and Arbcom has said that because there is no consensus to take it as policy, they will not act on ToU violations, as Arbcom cannot itself make policy. For matters that fall outside the ToU (COi without paid editing) it is murkier. What COI actually says, is "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question". COI is "just" a guideline, but people that part of it pretty seriously. I am not aware of anyone getting blocked for refusing to do that, though.

*broader note... b/c COI is not policy and working on it steps very close to OUTING, it needs to be handled thoughtfully, with discretion, and by persuasion more than with a stick. People with a COI who have action taken against them here, have that action taken on the basis of violations of policies or guidelines that are very near to being policy, like MEDRS. In my experience (and while i have a lot it is not exhaustive) most editors want to be "good". You can work with folks like that, and the work is persuading them of the goodness of complying with COI. It can be done. Conflicted editors who don't care about WP, end up getting swiftly indeffed for policy violations. Super recent example (just this morning) check out User talk:David Coburn MEP and that user's contribs, and you will see what I mean. There are cases like wifione, though... those are hard.

*all that said, editors who really want to be transparent (a sign of a good Wikipedian), include a link to their COI declarations in their signatures, to make it super easy to see and avoid the problem of people ever not knowing about it and being upset about that. This is really the best practice. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jytdog, just wanted to thank you for your further attempts to reason with said user about Russ Martin. As you can see, I tried to be nice to him and explain in detail on my talk page. Sadly he responded with personal attacks. Hopefully he will come around. Best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός} 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

sure.. advocacy is similar to COI and i deal with the latter a lot. happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would probably argue he does have a conflict of interest. He actually admitted to being a donor to the subject's foundation, which is pretty stark to me. Anyways, that's beside the point. Let's see how it plays out. Fingers crossed things will calm down now. --Jay _{Σεβαστός} 10:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

COI gets thrown around too loosely - it has a specific meaning in WP. If you haven't read them and thought about them, please do read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing Misplaced Pages since June 2010. I'm well aware of Misplaced Pages's definition of conflict of interest: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." I would reasonably say that a donor to a foundation who is clearly editing in a bias manner does exhibit a conflict of interest. Anyways, as I previously said, I think this is beside the point. Let's just see how things pan out, and hope this editor sees some sense. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός} 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

you and i agree that he is an advocate and that this is a problem. we don't need to agree on the COI part, i reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Let's just keep our eyes on this. --Jay _{Σεβαστός} 10:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus / Medications

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

replied at talk page. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of edit warring

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

I see on you talk page you have been accused of incivility on previous occasions.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

i have made no false accusations. you added content, i reverted, you reverted without discussion. That is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

People do single edit reverts all the time. It is not edit warring. Are you for real ?--Penbat (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

reverting a revert is editing warring. please read WP:EDITWARRING. if you edit war 3 times it is actionable. but the prior ones are already edit warring, yes. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I strongly resent your COI claim

User_talk:Penbat#SPA_.2F_COI. I have neuropathic pain and have researched about a dozen different possible treatments. Scrambler device recently came to my attention and noticed there wasn't a Misplaced Pages article for it so i thought it was worth doing. Pleaee withdraw your smear immediately.--Penbat (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking a question is not a smear, and it would be best if you actually said "yes" or "no" to the questions I asked there. You do not answer yes or no, even here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

For this, starting an AFD and my previous complaint about calling a single revert edit warring you seem to be totally hyper in all respects, starting world war three on any excuse.--Penbat (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am really offended you thought there was a COI. I have no idea why you thought so.--Penbat (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of User:Penbat it says: Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. To my knowledge there has never ever been any activity in any way related to acrambler devices in the UK whatsoever.--Penbat (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You did more than just ask me a question. You started by dumping a dirty great big official Wiki COI template on my talk page. I had already taken the trouble to engage on the scrambler device talk page which you seemed to take no notice of. --Penbat (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Penbat, Jytdog and others experienced with dealing with COI here don't engage in smear campaigns, but ask very pointed questions to reach a resolution and to avoid drama about it. The template is there to help guide editors through the various guidelines we have related to the topic, not as some form of punishment. When an editing pattern like yours suggests there may be a COI, it's perfectly normal for someone to ask very basic questions to address that. If you don't have a COI, all you simply would have needed to do was clarify that and it wouldn't have come up in the conversation at all anymore. COI questions like Jytdog posed can be wrapped up quickly and without drama rather easily, which is exactly how we're supposed to handle questions about COI. There's no need to be offended at the way it was handled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely lost why it was thought there was a COI.--Penbat (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

we are having discussions about what a paid editor looks like, elsewhere in WP. Here are some signs that you are showing:

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

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

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

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

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

As a thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		For sticking up for me and helping to ensure the matter was resolved quickly Huddsblue (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. you did handle the COI thing poorly -- which happens sometimes and when it does it, it is a bad thing. (see above). I really meant it though - we need people to be looking out for COI at AfC so I can show you how I do it (which does not usually end up like the above, where i made the mistake in analyzing and I made the mistake of nominating the article for deletion at the same time that I was trying to have a discussion. The nomination destroyed the trust that is required to have the discussion.... that was just stupid of me. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

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

AN/I

I don't believe you've been notified, but you're mentioned at a new section at AN/I. Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The omission of the notification is my fault – I offered to do it on behalf of the OP, then stepped away from my machine without waiting for a reply. I'm sorry about that. Since I'm here: I'm sorry to see two editors that I respect at such loggerheads, and hope that calm collaboration and good humour will soon return. Please let me know if there's anything at all I can do to help make that happen. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on your talk page

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

Oh, and my hatting there was not designed to restrict further discussion ("last word" sort of stuff) so please amend as you see fit. St★lwart 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

no what you did was great at the AfD and I appreciate your thoughts! i have to run but will respond more later. thanks for talking - i really do appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting points. i agree with you that if the device had garnered significant coverage in NYT etc that would make it NOTABLE. I will make that more clear at the AfD. (but if it had reached those kinds of mass media sources, it would likely have been discussed in some secondary source in the biomedical literature too) There are tons of things we could mention in Treatment or Research sections of health-related articles (gazillions of primary sources about many possible things) and reliance on 2ndary sources is really essential there.

i hear you, kind of.. on the use of primary sources outside of health. if you don't mind i would be interested in seeing a diff of the kind of use you describe... if you wouldn't mind...

i very much hear you about my generalization - i will change by essay/soapbox to refer to my experience in articles about health... thanks for pointing that out! 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is applying the WP:MEDRS definition of "primary source" to a WP:GNG-related discussion about notability which really should use the WP:OR definition of "primary source". Agree they are similar but the WP:MEDRS version includes restrictions that the other doesn't. Referring people to WP:PRIMARY in a AFD about a medical subject doesn't (or shouldn't) carry that much weight because the standard you're suggesting should be applied cannot be derived from that guideline as easily as it can be from the other. That's the fault of WP - maintaining two different versions - but you're seeing in AFDs like this one that others don't necessarily share that view.

More than happy to give some examples of non-medical contexts. Perhaps the most well-known (to me) is that of John Bargrave who lived during the 17th century and wrote extensively about his contemporaries - their roles, positions, rises and falls, scandals, marriages, affairs and all manner of things. He lived among those he wrote about - he was highly respected and was free to move among noblemen and women, courtiers, The Vatican, the homes and "palaces" of the well-to-do and gained first-hand knowledge of goings-on. He has been cited extensively (by me and others) with regard to a wide range of subjects, many of which he "participated in" directly. We use his descriptions of people, his opinions of their actions, his responses to their responses and his personal view on a range of issues. We also use his writings as sources for the absolutely mundane (he lived on x street, x met y once, he was appointed to x position, he died on x date). In essence, he functioned as a 17th-century Geraldo Rivera or something but many of his accounts were never intended for publication. My point is that the line isn't always clear. Just like your research scientists, Bargrave's accounts are based on direct personal experiences including personal meetings with those involved as well as analysis of specific situations and his take on the results (eg. he was sent to x as a result of y scandal). But he was respected then and nothing has happened to diminish that since - coverage by him would likely be considered sufficient to confer notability.

In the end, surely the fact that those respected independent scientists have elected to conduct that study, research that methodology or product, analyse the results and write about it, confers notability on the subject? They have no personal stake in the success (or otherwise) of the product or methodology, per se. That's the same as a respected independent reviewer writing about a movie they saw or a piece of music they listened to. That's coverage of the subject. Now we don't take that review and (in Misplaced Pages's voice) say "it's a great movie", just like we don't take a scientific study and say "it's a great drug". But surely "it exists and it claims to do x" isn't pushing that too far? St★lwart 06:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Without looking at John Bargrave, from your description the article sounds unencyclopedic and more like a secondary piece -- it should be tertiary. From WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (my bold). A lot of editors don't realise that their function is to be a mere minion, skimming the top off existing secondary sources (in which you find "accepted knowledge") and assembling it here. Quite often the good ones will turn out secondary-type work which is, frankly, way too well-researched, thoughtful and original for Misplaced Pages. Researching is something we must not do. I sometimes feel too guilty taking the axe to such stuff, and leave it alone, even knowing it violates foundational policy about what this project is. We really need some WP:WRONGLEVEL writing which spells this out, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, John Bargrave is the source, not the article. As a source, Bargrave is referenced in dozens and dozens of articles. His article is probably okay. St★lwart 06:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And it's not a matter of including everything and anything but some of the events in question were clearly important (having been written about by others) though Bargrave's is the only account of specific aspects (precursors to the Wars of Castro, political machinations surrounding the papal conclave of 1644). Those are important (obviously notable) events but without Bargrave's personal accounts, they would be limited to "x battled y" and "x was elected" stubs. St★lwart 06:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing back Stalwart. Part of my (pretty crazy) background is that my college and post-graduate studies have dealt a lot with history - i'm well aware of historiography and the tools/methods used in the discipline, and the risks & rewards of relying on contemporary accounts like Bargrave's. Sources like that historians' raw stuff - their primary sources. I don't work on that stuff here much, but in editing WP, I would stay clear of them, and instead would rely on secondary sources that contextualized and verified what they said. I wasn't familiar with Bargrave (thanks for telling me about him!) but Vasari is an interesting parallel, right? Our article on Vasari makes it clear that while seminal, is often unreliable, and i hope that our articles on artists don't cite Vasari directly.

i am pretty inexperienced at AfD (am starting to work more there, as part of my work dealing with COI and its effects on WP, and am learning what works and what doesn't) and have been noting some of the reactions to citing MEDRS. When sourcing is an issue at an AfD, going forward I may not cite MEDRS and instead may just cite NPOV/OR/VERIFY and their emphasis on secondary sources, to avoid having MEDRS become a distraction - the goal is to make a clean and persuasive !vote. (AfD is an interesting laboratory - the consensus building process is so focused and condensed!).... anyway, thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the interesting point about Bargrave is that he didn't actually write all of what is credited as his work. He took the commentary of others (in some cases no better than gossip) and added his own (often extensive) notes based on his own travels/meetings/observations in an effort to create his own reference work which he never intended for publication. We "history" editors (in my experience) tend to see the marriage certificate as a primary source but an account of the wedding by someone who attended as a secondary source. It is never that cut-and-dry, of course, but it usually comes down to common sense. Giorgio Vasari is a bit before my "time period of choice" but is an apt parallel - I would perhaps use his work as a reference for "x painted y" but not for "y is an outstanding example of the z period and makes use of a range of techniques including...". Yeah?

An effective case at AFD is almost always grounded in WP:N as that is the issue at hand in 99% of cases. AFD is designed to determine whether the community considers something notable enough for inclusion. NPOV, OR and V are all WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems, provided there are sources available. A lack of good writing can be fixed by the addition of better writing, but a lack of notability is insurmountable. St★lwart 02:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

hm - thanks! but N is by sources, right? do you find that articles based on primary sources survive N? seems like 2ndary should be necessary - that is the angle I am considering. really thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For sure, per WP:GNG, and so we return to my original point which is that people might not see WP:MEDRS "primary sources" as WP:PRIMARY primary sources. So to their mind, those are suitable for conferring coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've seen plenty of subjects survive on the basis of coverage in sources that MEDRS would consider "primary" but WP:PRIMARY would not. That's not a fault of MEDRS but, then, MEDRS was never designed to be a notability guideline. In many instances, its like the difference between "innocent" and "acquitted". "Sufficiently not primary in this particular context" isn't the same as "secondary" if you get my drift, though truly secondary sources might be ideal. St★lwart 04:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

i see what you are saying. Well we'll see how things go for me with working AfD on the basis of not N b/c of WP:SECONDARY straight, not MEDRS. I'm happy to work on that basis and will be interested to see if I can convince folks. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the chat - has been fun. St★lwart 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

COI ?

Tetramethylhexadecenyl_succinyl_cysteine ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

oh my. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome job on that messy article Jytdog, couldn't have wished for a better outcome. §FreeRangeFrog 03:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for bringing it to project med! glad you are ok with it. i am not so sure... Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention...

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

sounds good.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Transcaval TAVI

Hello Jytdog I request you allow my contributions to remain regarding transcaval TAVI. It appears effective, has been applied in over 90 patients to date, and has been lifesaving in some cases. The text is clear and has a high quality medical reference. I believe it important for patients and physicians to be aware of the alternative to other access techniques described, because lay sources of information are limited and because symptomatic aortic valve stenosis is quite dire without treatment. I'm new to wikipedia so regret if I am not following some appropriate procedure or technique Thank you 216.15.0.209 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! please discuss on the article talk page - you can just copy your message there, and i'll be happy to respond there. please also read WP:MEDRS and the definitions there - the source you are using is a WP:PRIMARY source. Please also read our conflict of interest guideline and if you have anything to disclose, please do so at the article Talk page. (WP is like any scholarly work - you have to disclose COI here too) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Flame of Peace

Hello Dear Jytdog,

please help to translate the Text in this Article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.174.197 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2015‎ (UTC)

would love to help but i don't have bandwidth for that now. lovely organization though! Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Exodus

Please stop undoing my reference-backed changes on The Exodus. Your version only accounts for one perspective, and omits various archaeological evidence and historical commentary to the contrary. My changes offer users exposure to the full breadth of opinion, whereas your version forces--with clear agenda--only one set of opinion. Clearly, your actions lack academic integrity and violate Misplaced Pages's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neherz123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2015‎ (UTC)

glad you have figured out Talk pages! Please bring up your issues at the article Talk pages, so everybody can discuss what you would like to do... i will tee that up for you, actually. just give me two minutes. (oh, and please sign your posts with four tildas, like this ~~~~ - doing this is described in the welcome message i left on your page. the wikipedia software turns the four tildas into a "signature" with links to your userpage and the date. please do read that stuff on your talk page! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Group

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

i'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Signum COI Issue

Hi, we are related to Signum Biosciences. How we can disclose COI for future edits? We would like to understand the reasoning behind the reason EHT and Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine pages were redirected to your edited Signum Biosciences page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigrd (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Thanks for replying. let's do this on your talk page, OK? I'll reply over there. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You've Got mail

I have seen your notes to me, and the answer is that I only have influence over the edits I make. I cannot speak to anyone else's. Yet, I comment on the talk pages and make my views known. In the case you just reversed, I would surmise that you reversed it just because you believe the editor was unwarranted and not necessarily because of the intent of the change. With that article in particular I would think that editors would be more concerned at being objective and not try to paint the subject based on his/her own opinions or beliefs. While I admit that there can be a lot of heated debate on the issues involved, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an neutral center and not a news site for ideological positioning.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

as head of communications i reckon you have hiring/firing authority, and that if you said "Activity from our firm on Ronn's WP page is going to be a problem for us. I will fire anyone who edits Ronn's page. Don't do it" I reckon nobody would do it. On the other hand, if all those socks are Ronn I can see your problem, of course, and have sympathy for you.

i reverted the change b/c that has been a subject of discussion and that sock just woke up and changed it out of the blue. it will require discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

btw if you emailed me, i haven't gotten anything... Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you oversubscribed me here. I am a group head here for the Corporate practice. While I have a say in firmwide policy, I am primarily devoted to the work my team does; not that of the whole firm; and thank you!Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

:) gotcha. well whatever you can do, with some internal lobbying of your fellow group head, would be better for everybody involved. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I'm notifying you that I am opening a dispute in order to bring a third party and community into the discussion. I have tried to explain my changes, but all you do is link things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mr Scottch (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

you are new here. we do things by policies and guidelines that are explained in the links i am giving you. see you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Procainamide text

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

April 2015

I've posted a message about your inconsistent behavior on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)