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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:26, 30 April 2017 editLeprof 7272 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,977 edits →I ask, please← Previous edit Revision as of 08:28, 30 April 2017 edit undoLeprof 7272 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,977 edits →I ask, pleaseNext edit →
Line 564: Line 564:
==I ask, please== ==I ask, please==
...that you host the following end of discussion, since it was you that brought the action in the first place. I placed it at the Noticeboard, and Softlavender deleted it twice. Le Prof ] (]) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC) ...that you host the following end of discussion, since it was you that brought the action in the first place. I placed it at the Noticeboard, and Softlavender deleted it twice. Le Prof ] (]) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

== Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it ==
{{ping|Jytdog}}{{ping|Ivanvector}}{{ping|Primefac}}{{ping|Sro23}}{{ping|Softlavender}}{{ping|L3X1}}{{ping|Beyond My Ken}}{{ping|Obsidi}}{{ping|Doc James}}{{ping|XyZAn}}{{ping|Kudpung}} I am sorry, real life does not allow me to pay much attention to the discussions that take place here. '''I simply saw nothing of this, until it was past, being alerted to it by failure of an IP address to work as a place from which to edit.''' I take responsibility for this ignorance, see following. However, the litany of cases, and the long span of time from which the cases were chosen, and further facts about each that are not given, hide the accurate conclusions that '''(i)''' these examples were always earnest, scholarly, high level '''''sets''''' of edits, generally over many hours or days, and '''(ii)''' that I have repeatedly responded at article Talk pages and elsewhere, to tagging objections, '''''and that I have modified my behaviour substantially over time'''''. In this regard, the emphasis on the 2015-2016 history, and the failure in any way to represent the responses I have given ''in any of the cases'' that are cited can only lead me to describe it as largely a misrepresentation of the facts of the matter.

'''''But, that I continue to irritate many is clear, and so I will summarise the case I have made, again, here.'''''

As a former academic, and a professional, I have argued that making clear to readers the shortcomings of article content is an improtant contribution, and one WP should encourage. Had we 20 top academics, in high traffic/visibility fields, just noting errors and shortcomings, our articles would be all the better for it. Even so, this is ''not'' what I do—contrary to the example cases offered and representations made, I do not just come in and tag. I challenge all voting editors above to go to each case given, and look at the total time spent editing the articles, and the changes made. (I will give an example of the clear misrepresentation involved in description of the cases as they appear, in closing.) Generally speaking, I would be surprised if a fair-minded case can be made for anything other tha "hours of editing, often completing and repairing/adding citations, ending with tags in place to indicate continuing shortcomings of the article." Bottom line, the tags were placed when I had done all I could, in a session, or in an article. And '''''I would remind the assembled, august company, that at present the''''' '''articles that are of "B class" (some issues remaining) and better amount to <3% of all of WP articles''' (2.7% by my last reporting on the matter). '''''In light of this fact, and the easily verified fact that essentially none of my edits are on A, GA, or FA articles, one cannot include that I am calling attention to nonexistent issues. Rather, the problem must be that I am calling attention to real issues in unacceptable ways.'''''

The tagging acknowledged and the tag-''bombing'' misrepresentation laid to rest—'''yes, I am aware that we have differences of opinion on the matter of tags, mine being that readers deserve to know the truth about articles''', the predominant contrary opinion, as far as I can tell, being that too many tags are bad, regardless of state of article, and thus that appearance of articles—that they appear better than they are—is the surpassing priority and interest here at WP. '''''I have explained my understandings and motivations, case by case, at length, in reply to objections. But here they are again in summary.'''''
* Readers are our "clients," we exist for them, and not for ourselves.
* Many of our readers are young, and are ignorant on the subjects about which the come to WP. To quote one, "I have never found anything incorrect in a WP article" (14 yo male student).
* ''Article tags'' function to call attention of editors to broad general problems in articles, and place articles in lists for further editorial attention. They also warn readers, "beware, dragons here" — that there are potential issues in the content they are about ready to ingest. They should, from my perspective, be placed, if an issue occurs not in one section, but in several. In summary, the issues are real, and ''article tags are critical for the foregoing reasons given.''
* ''Section tags'' function to honour editor time, by '''''making clear where''''' within the article the issues exist, to which the article tag is referring. It also acknowledges the fact that some readers arrive at articles sections via links, without ever viewing the top of the the article. Hence the reader service is again a motive here, as is clarity with regard to follow-on editorial work to correct issues. As well, section tags make very clear, when there are several article tags (the very common "multiple issues" article situation), which article tag applies to which section, thus saving time when I or others return to add further to article quality. Thus, ''section tags are critical for these distinct, and separate reasons.''
* ''Inline tags'' serve the same very specific function as section tags, but do so more specifically; moreover, ''they allow an editor to make very clear the progress of checking and editing problem sections.'' Specifically—and this is very often the case, where, in my edits, you see repeated inline tags in a given section—this process will begin with a read of a paragraph that has a single citation at the end of a paragraph, or citations at end of individual sentences. The red flag is raised when I find that a particular fact within the sentence or paragraph is not contained in the cited source. I then begin a start to finish review of the material in the paragraph, clarifying what is and is not found in the cited sources. ''This often results in a back and forth between inline citations, and {{cn}} tags—'''because this is an accurate assessment of the state of affairs in the paragraph'''''. If this one paragraph is the only place of issue in the article, only the inline tags will appear, with a section tag. If the refimprove issue is present in more than one section, then it will appear as an article tag as well. Thus, ''inline (sentence) tags are critical for these separate reasons.''

To put this together, I have repeatedly, in different venues, made the following case. I have in past authored '''manuscripts with multiple authors''' at multiple institutions. And I have jointly edited '''multi-contributor regulatory documents submitted to the US government''' on health related matters. These are both cases of professional production of high quality, rigourous content, by multiple editors. In these cases, regardless of the editorial tools used, '''''there is never a case, in these professional, multi-author/editor efforts, that one only flags a specific issue at a specific point in a work product by placing a message at the head of the document; likewise, it is never the case, in such work, that on noticing persistent patterns of problems throughout a document, that one only annotates the issues inline, without calling the matter more broadly to the team's attention, by placing a note at the top of the document.''''' That is, in short, I am attempting to apply best practices, in the production of quality content, to my work here. Whatever those accusing me of malfeasance might otherwise say, it would be nice to hear, ''at the very least, those involved here acknowledge the foregoing, and the derivative conclusion that a commitment at WP to disallow this—for reasons of appearance, or otherwise—is at odds with the way that such things are done in the best, most important of places in the real world,'' and so arguably contrary to the best ways to move WP articles on to true higher quality.

To summarise, I argue that the foregoing description of my work misrepresents it, both in failing to make clear the long and productive effort involved in my editing, with focus on sourcing—here is , of >35 edits adding 17 kbytes over 6 days, misrepresented in the opening diff list. '''I again challenge the editors participating in this noticeboard to argue that this is not the norm of my work'''; in addition, the arguments misrepresent, in failing to make clear I have explained the foregoing article/section/inline tag purposes and utilities, and motivations, repeatedly to people.

<u>'''''However, for failing to be attentive to my Talk page, I am guilty allowing this noticeboard to continue without response, and for that reason alone, I am deserving of the ban.'''''</u>

Otherwise, three closing comments. ''First,'' Primefac's contention that I have ceased editing while logged is simply untrue, as is her/his contention that I have never given reason for the back and forth (I repeatedly have, even if not to her/his satisfaction). If the reasons do not satisfy say so, but do not deny the reality of my having repeatedly responded. ''Second,'' User:Ivanvector's contention that I use IPs when I get in "hot water" is completely specious, apparently based on the fact that I edited today, '''''before I new about this noticeboard, or the ban.''''' The Talk section from me at your Talk page, earlier in the evening, should make completely clear, that I was clueless that this was going on—first notice coming as I attempted to edit, was logged off, found the IP block, and went to you (Ivanvector), to ask what was going on. Bottom line, assume good faith my friend, and/or do your thorough research before accusing. There is no clear case of attempts to deceive here; your association of today's edit as an example of such is a mis-association.

''Third,'' as others have repeatedly noted, and policies clearly state, there is nothing wrong with IP editing. Persuasion is given to always log, but IP editing by registered editors is only prohibited if it is an attempt to sockpuppet or otherwise deceive. And as annoying as the appearance of my IP edits — claimed as most sets are, with Le Profs abundantly sprinkled through many if not most — are alongside my logged edits, the assessment is rightly made that I go out of my way to always identify. Any argument for malicious or deceptive practice (thank you for those carefully making this point), and any case for sockpuppeting (by definition, where the aim is deception), are ill-informed and specious to the actual facts. I will not go into another long defense, but just say, I simply haven't always presence of mind or time to re-log if in the midst of a long editing, finding (at time of save, generally) that my systems have logged me off. '''''What is key is that I identify, and do not attempt to deceive'''''. If you do not believe this, ask those rising somewhat to my defense—you will find IP edits signed Le Prof alongside logged edits identically signed. ''And this is the norm, and not the exception.'' Sloppy, perhaps. Less considerate of others than of my constraints and time, yes. But arguments mis-casting aspersions to my motives for this duality of work are clearly less informed by relationship/experience with me, or by thorough research, and so are just that, mis-cast aspersions.

Finally, I have copied everyone here except editor Boghog, because, in this case, I have found the editor at times to stalk, to be heavy-handed with regard to his (granted, likewise academically well-informed) scientific views, and also unable to be self-reflective or self-aware about his admixing in, personal sentiment/motivation, into specific editorial disagreements. So, I simply do not relate editorially to him.

'''''In summary, my work and reasoning were mis/unrepresented, but are now properly summarised, my purposes and motivations are argued to be in-line with best practices for multi-author generation of high quality content, but I accept the ban/block as I was "AFK" with regard to engaging User Talk, and so did not see any of this developing.'''''

Long term, this may be the beginning if my ultimate departure here. If it really is true that one cannot edit for 6 days, adding 17 kb of material and quality to an article, then honestly state how the article clearly remains short of our policies and guidelines (and set the article up for improvement, by noting clearly where the issues lie), then this simply is not an academically honest or intellectually tolerant place. The history of WP — e.g., in making our article assessments harder and harder for general readers to find, in seeing tags essentially hidden from mobile users, etc. — seems to be arguing for an emerging interpretation clearly over-emphasising appearance over reality, as the trajectory of the encyclopedia.

So, '''''from the time-stamp and signature here, I will comply with the ban/block for its duration.''''' Because articles at WP cannot, to any honest academic, be edited without noting their clear violations of WP policies and guidelines, I will enjoy this vacation from WP. Cheers. Le Prof ] (]) 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:28, 30 April 2017


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.

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:

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)


"Blockers"

Regarding this, "blockers" is the WMF's contraction of problem blocking further development—e.g., "this is such a serious problem we're going to abandon the proposal altogether unless we can get address this problem". While WP:Blockers probably shouldn't be red (even if it means committing the mortal wikisin of making it an off-wiki redirect to that MediaWiki page), it's reasonable that they use the abbreviation given how cumbersome it would be to write out in full each time. ‑ Iridescent 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen WMF people use that term to mean only technical things, like "it would break X." I don't know if she meant only that, or also more intangible things like "this would cause vulnerability to BLP violations" or "a gadget that users have to opt-in for will not be used widely enough to have effective policing" or "Wikidata has no BLP policy so there is no way to swiftly and definitively resolve BLP disputes in Wikidata other than whatever local consensus can be obtained at a given data item". Do you see what I mean? I didn't want to put words in her mouth. I would hope that she means all of that and that they ask about all of that. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Mediawiki page—which is presumably the closest we have to an official definition, despite still being marked as a draft—explicitly includes "consistent with the project", so I'd consider it as including the social impact rather than purely "is this technically possible?". Flow worked fine from a technical viewpoint, but its deployment was blocked because nobody wanted to actually have to use the thing, so there's certainly a high-profile precedent. ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I would consider it that way too! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
If you ask the long-suffering WhatamIdoing—whom I'm not pinging as I've pinged her about four times in the last week and she's no doubt sick of the sight of me—she can probably give a definitive ruling. I assume "Community Liaison (Product Development)" translates from Wikipedese to Human as "paid to clean up messes like this". ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask her thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been specializing as sort of a liaison in the opposite direction, spending the majority of my time at Phabricator and WMF wikis. I've been trying to bring community concerns to their attention and trying to improve WMF-community engagement. The meaning of "actionable blockers" is exactly one of the topics I've been discussing with them. The WMF has been struggling to figure out how to work better with us, and this is part of it. I think I need to give a multi-layer definition of "blockers":

The WMF wouldn't be building something if they didn't think it was a good idea. When they think "blockers" the first thing they have in mind is:

  • What are the technical problems we need to fix, so we can continue moving this project forwards.

The WMF reluctantly acknowledges that an unfixable blocker can permanently halt a project. Emphasis on the "reluctantly" part.

What about "non-technical" blockers? Well, that's fuzzy. The WMF often has a hard time understanding what we want and why. Things that are "obvious" to us are sometimes baffling to them. They really hate vague things like "this sucks" or "we don't like it" or "this is worse" or "we don't want it". If they don't understand it, it's not "actionable". They can't figure out what to do with that feedback. I've been told that "Thanks, but we're happy keeping what we had before" is a valid actionable blocker. At least in theory. They can initiate projects based on their opinion that it's a good idea, but they want us to identify concrete problems or data to justify our opposition. There is a general subtext that they will address the issues so the project can proceed.

Crucial point: The Draft Technical Collaboration Guideline (renamed as Guidance) states that the project team "owns" the decision of what is or is not a blocker. I explicitly asked about a Global Community Consensus blocker. (i.e. a blocker supported by consensus at wikis representing a majority of the global editing community.) I suggested that such an issue should be considered an inherently significant issue that must be addressed, that the issue should inherently go to discussion between the WMF and community rather than a simple "decline". That was rejected. The WMF's position is explicitly that global community consensus blockers may be summarily declined by the team developing the project.

Fundamentally, "blocker" means anything they say it means.

You should take a look at the RFC I posted at Village Pump: Proposal to submit blockers on replacing our wikitext editor. I explicitly drafted it with their "blockers" language in mind. Particularly note how it ends with two precisely defined "actionable blockers", and each of them identifies two "actionable" ways to resolve the issue. Regarding load times, obviously everyone agrees faster is better. They are willing to at least attempt to make it faster. It's unclear whether it's possible for them to really fix load times because the new editor is fundamentally based on VisualEditor. Regarding previews, it's open for glacially-slow discussion on Phabricator. However it appears that there is vehement opposition to fixing it. Why? To put it in a nutshell, there is a strong view by many at the WMF that VE and Flow are supposed to be THE editor and discussion system, there is a plan underway to kill wikitext-as-we-know-it, and the broken previews are part of a "well intentioned" sabotage of wikitext. They want all wikitext editing to change over to the broke-ass VE/Flow/Parsoid model.

Anyway, back to the main topic: Wikidata article summaries. In this case it looks like the WMF is taking a positive approach, genuinely wanting to work with us. The problem is that they haven't really figured out how to do that effectively. The RFC was closed, they want to work with us, but I'm pretty sure we need to be the ones to organize effective follow-up discussions. If we do nothing, I am pretty confident in predicting that they will just latch on to the "blockers" and "solutions" they were searching for in that discussion. Namely they will latch on to the idea of showing these summaries to logged in users, and adding an interface so we can remotely-edit the values hosted at wikidata. Those are the "fixable" blockers which are compatible with moving the current project forwards. That's what they'll see, and they will assume that will be adequate to satisfy objections. Based on my reading of the discussion, I am far from confident that is what the community wants. If we want to evaluate that option, as well as weighing alternatives, then we need to get that discussion rolling. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this! You made me laugh out loud a couple of times (my boss called down the hall, "What!??") and this seems dead on based on my experiences to date which are scanty. Thank you, very much, for your work trying to bridge these two worlds. Awesome of you to take that on.
About the RfC I agree with what you say about the en-WP editing "side" needing to help drive it. I am not the best person for that as I don't understand the WMF side well enough. I had left a message at WhatamIdoing's WMF account en-WP talk page asking her to help tee up the RfC and shepherd it, and had also left a message at Olga's talk page offering to help give input. You seem perfect to help tee it up and i would be very grateful and happy to help how ever i can. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I'm not butting in, but I'd like to add a few clarifying points. Happy to discuss.
What’s a community liaison?
Well, when we first started we were more like firefighters without a hose trying to run around and stop all the fires. Now we’re more like the fire inspector, trying to make sure fires don’t start in the first place. We help try to prevent things like the Wikidata description Rfc from happening. Sometimes we’re successful, things go smoothly, and nobody's the wiser. Other times we’re not. Not every product team has CL support and there is more work to be done than person-hours. Sometimes decisions are made that go against our advice. Sometimes we’re not even aware! (This last one happened to me recently when someone from the Swedish Misplaced Pages community enabled a feature that the team was not ready to deploy!)
What is a blocker?
It's a software development term that has spilled out of its confines in our task tracking software, Phabricator. A silly explanation: When you have a task "Paint the gizmo green in color" and you discover that you're out of green paint, you create a task. "Get green paint". The task tracking software allows you to say that the second task is blocking the first from being done - a blocker. Until that task is complete, work can't continue. Once you have green paint, you resolve the second task, and can resume the first. That's overly simplistic and apologies for insulting any unhappy software developers. :)
The foundation in general follows the principles of Agile software development, which means that we try to be adaptable in how features are introduced and removed. It favors smaller iterative changes over ‘big’ features. An alternative methodology is called Waterfall. A core feature (or in many folks opinions, shortcoming) of the Waterfall model is that it is slower. Once something is a feature, it is there until the Next Big Update - which could be years. Think operating system updates versus your browser updating silently in the background. Wikimedia - the community and the projects they support - is more in tune with agile development. Just like the projects we all work in, it is often a little bit messy. It’s still advantageous, and I hope you’ll agree, that we do work in a system where things can change.
So when we say blocker outside of that context of agile methodologies and bug/task tracking things get a little muddied. It's also muddled that we (the movement) are multifaceted. What one editor or community would consider a blocker another would be fine with (and a bunch of gray in between). As Alsee points out a blocker can mean anything! That is, anything that is preventing further development, which is broad.
Can a blocker be non-technical?
Sure. Well, kind of. In terms of the TCG, blockers are technical or can be solved by technical means or some other action by the devs. A TCG “blocker” is ultimately defined by the Product Manager, because they are responsible for the software and the TCG is speaking in terms of software. "Hey Reading team, I found a big bug that doesn't work in <insert web browser of choice>. Please don't deploy until this is fixed!". Some technical tasks that block development are things that break workflows or have unintended consequences with user scripts.
Other times something that might be called a "blocker" is less about the technology, and more about the nature of the work being done. If the team does research, has data supporting an decision to develop a change, and can show a need for said change, then it can be difficult to determine what all the possible issues are. We don't always do it this way, but sometimes it's hard for us to see that an issue is a problem when we've already done our homework and folks can still find something new! These kinds of issues are not strictly "blockers" (they don't truly prevent further development in the way that my empty can of green paint prevented further work on the paint job), but they do make us wonder whether that project is appropriate for a particular use or community.
For these Wikidata descriptions, I can't speak to the decisions that were made, but concerns were expressed and the decision was to move forward. Here we are. :( Ideally we would address the concerns and deploy an updated feature. Those concerns can be technical (I can’t see or edit them on desktop) or non-technical (the English Misplaced Pages is concerned about BLP).
Who defines a blocker?
Well, ideally this would be a shared responsibly. Product teams define some internally (This task has to be done because it greatly hinders user security!) Others are born from conversation with community (A community member realizes that a change would break code on the Main Page).
When Alsee says "reluctantly" I would agree and I hope you consider why it's understandable. When folks spend time working on something only for it to meet an early end, it can be frustrating. We would much rather see a successful deployment of a feature than an RfC calling for it's removal. When that doesn't go as it should, we ask for blockers to help figure out a way forward.
So, a blocker needs to be something actionable. It can be technical (fix this bug, make this feature), but it can't be "I don't like it". It also should be something that considers a bigger picture than what can sometimes happen in discussions.
Sometimes discussions don’t happen! We reach out to communities, ask for feedback and get little feedback. So we then have little to go off of and that can complicate things. I think we’d all agree that we don’t want staff sitting around much. :)
It helps to consider that many of the folks who show up to Rfcs and similar discussion (like this one!) are the most involved in this sort of work. Product teams should listen, and often do, but sometimes we have to consider the numerous folks who don't turn up and how they would be impacted. That gets tricky and can cause frustration on both ends. "They're not listening to us!" "Who cares about the readers‽" - Ok, those are a bit silly, but I hope you get the point.
There’s also just, like, a huge number of voices in some of these conversations (not just on-wiki!) that it can be hard to suss out what’s the best way forward.
What is the Technical Collaboration Guidance?
Ok, so I'm going to split some hairs, but bear with me. Here in English Misplaced Pages we use the word guidelines to mean something more akin to policy. The Technical Collaboration Guidance (yes it was called Guideline, we changed the name after feedback that it was confusing. Silly us.) is not a guideline in the typical Misplaced Pages way. It's truly guidance or general advice. Primarily intended for WMF product teams to reference, it attempts to distill the best practices of Community Liaisons. Why? Well, liaisons were hired after product teams realized they weren't doing the best they could at reaching out and discussing with communities before deploying software changes (some reading this might say it's an understatement). We're in a little better shape now and started to put down what we should do to help remind ourselves and others. Sometimes we hire new liaisons, or liaison-like roles exist elsewhere in the movement (like Seddon in Fundraising or the folks over at Wikimedia Deutschland who do similar community work) or some teams at the Foundation don't have a dedicated liaison (most of the 'behind the scenes' technology folks).
To be clear, the TCG is not a thing to point at and tell folks where they screwed up. Doing that doesn't make it something folks want to use and turns it into a retroactive "gotcha" versus a proactive aid.
Who's leading the Rfc on what's next with Wikidata descriptions?
The Reading team is in the midst of annual planning. We have not made plans for the near future to work on editing Wikidata descriptions from Misplaced Pages or making changes appear on watchlists. The work mentioned in the conversation around moving the opening section above the infobox is in the plan. That alleviates some of the reasoning for having the Wikidata descriptions.
If you all think it is advisable, we can create a proposal that summarizes the main issues from the conversation after the Rfc and place that in front of the community to build consensus on how we should continue with development. Given this, and past discussions, we think we know pretty well what the technical blockers are.
I would very much like to work with you all on figuring out what that Rfc would look like and what would be actionable things we would need to accomplish to move it forward. However, if the feeling is that even after adding the requested features, the English Misplaced Pages community does not want the feature due to non-technical concerns, then we should agree to address those first.
Thanks to everyone here for constructive discussion. This got a little long-winded. I hope this helps provide some context from this corner of the yard. @Alsee, Jytdog, and Iridescent: CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note User:CKoerner (WMF). This whole thing started because Olga asked for the community to identify blockers. You identify a thing above where you say "When folks spend time working on something only for it to meet an early end, it can be frustrating." I hear that. From my end is frustrating to find decisions being made and foisted on the community, and then we have to identify "blockers" but there is really no point because, well, people have already have already spent time, that is the direction we are going, and hey these people have to do something as they are being paid. I don't know who decided to use the Wikidata labels this way or maybe more importantly what the process was, but it was just ... a bad decision. I get how it seemed attractive/scalable and seemed even kind of clever and elegant, but it was unwise as those fields are unreliable and badly policed. And no the en-WP community should not be blackmailed or hijacked into doing Wiikidata work. WMF should just back out of that. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF):: thanks for your detailed explanation. I'm still worried about your "Who's leading the Rfc on what's next with Wikidata descriptions?" section though. The first question, and one which should have been asked before any development on this was ever started, should have been "is this a Wikidata thing or a wikipedia language version thing", and the answer would have been "this is language-based text, not some universal data item we can take from Wikidata". So, "what's next with Wikidata descriptions" is the wrong question. "What's next with short descriptions" is the correct one. Do we need them, for what purpose (mobile, seearch, related articles, ...), and how do we populate them (with a local template in the article, but which can be "globally" recognized by the WMF software, so preferably a template with the same name and structure in all languages, a magicword of sorts)? Problems like "how can we get these to show up on the watchlist, but not all other Wikidata changes", "how can we let local wikis overrule the wikidata description" or "how can we make these editable onwiki" all vanish if you go to the fundamental issue first. Fram (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, "blackmailed or hijacked". Oh jeez. I feel like you took - out of all the things I said - that we're trying to somehow do something nefarious. :( I understand that you have been frustrated at things that the foundation has done (or not done!). I too have been frustrated from time to time - and I'm part of the organization! :) I continue to acknowledge we can make improvements. Language like this doesn't make it easy to keep working with you. The fact that I'm spending time here trying to figure out a positive way forward for with the community should show some good faith. I hear you. Wikidata labels are not the way to go.
Fram, I appreciate the framing of the question you propose. "What's next with short descriptions". I think the question that started Reading down the path was "How can we help mobile readers get more information quicker - given that our mobile layout isn't as good as we want it?", :) which agrees with Jytdog's concerns over Wikidata descriptions not being the best fit. Perhaps we're being too narrow in our approach.
If that seems like the agreeable way forward - I encourage others to please chime in - then let's peruse that angle. The questions I think we're agreeing with are:
  1. Do we need them? Is this a feature that makes learning more approachable for more people?
  2. Where would these short descriptions be most beneficial? (mobile, search, related articles, ...)
  3. How are they populated - editor workflows, bots, watch lists, etc.
If I may, a few technical considerations. This is assuming that short descriptions are something the English Misplaced Pages (and others in general) want. I might be getting ahead of myself. :)
I can't speak for Reading, I need to do more homework. My thought is that a structured, short descriptor are needed - and have shown their value - at least for search and the visual editor link inspector.
A template-based system is probably not the best way forward. I could see that being overly complicated with database design. However, this might be something that the Multi-content Revisions work might incorporate. If I understand it correctly, it would remain local and appear on watch lists, but would be more structured. I can ask around a little more about the technical side of things to confirm.
I'm concerned that we might need to move this conversation off the gentleman's talk page as to not clutter things up and to broaden the conversation to other editors. Do others agree? Too soon? If others agree can someone help with a suggestion on where? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
User:CKoerner (WMF) I explained what I meant by "blackmailed"/"hijacked" over at VPP which I assumed you had read and remembered. My bad for assuming that. I will copy it here for you:

as i understand it

  • there are people who want this field drawn from Wikidata, and to be good and useful (e.g. this comment from User:PrimeHunter) and having a local override is .. not elegant, breaks things etc.
  • these same people generally want to have the en-WP community monitoring these fields and editing and improving them. They see that as a win for everybody, as this label can be used in lots of places. from that perspective, making the label visible in desktop en-WP and easily editable and not over-ridable is the way to go.
  • in my view, while i get that, i think these people fail to recognize that volunteer time is the lifeblood of this project and every WMF project, and that their line of reasoning is basically blackmail similar to the orangemoody scheme - it sounds like this: "I am going to stick some words from Wikidata onto this en-WP page. Fix it in Wikidata if it goes awry and if you don't, well too bad for en-WP". (I know that is not the intention, but as someone to whom Wikidata is peripheral and has no interest in it, that is what it sounds like to me.) It is siphoning off volunteer time and attention to en-WP to benefit Wikidata and whatever else people want to feed from that. My commitment is to en-WP. That is what I volunteer for.
  • What is more foundational are the basic "constitutional" issues here. Every project has its own consensus, own policies and guidelines, etc. Wikidata is a young project with few policies and will have its own trajectory in developing them. It isn't appropriate, and I have no desire to even try, to enforce en-WP policies in a project where en-WP policies have no consensus (the bedrock of all WMF projects) and do not apply - it is disrespectful to the Wikidata community and a clash of mission and values that makes sense for no one.
  • If there are aesthetic issues with presentation of en-WP articles in mobile, the right answer is for the Reading team to explain that and ask the en-WP community to add a new element to the Manual of Style - namely the "brief description" and that is something we can build with time. Or the like. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That is what I wrote over there. There is a conversation (mostly petered out) at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Blockers_to_having_short_description_on_mobile. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, a more structured, well-mediated, centralized discussion is indeed needed. Dank has also opened the discussion at WT:FAC that they mentioned in the thread just below this one. It is here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#First_2.5_paragraphs_of_the_lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Too soon?

Regarding this: I just checked on a mobile device, and the description from Wikidata was still showing below the page title. So, I'm wondering if the discussion stopped too soon. It's possible that I would close this or a related discussion (I need would need to run it by a couple of folks), and one question jumps out at me right away. The sentiment seemed to be strong, and the WMF folks seemed to agree with the sentiment. That's gold ... it doesn't happen that often that just about everyone is on board, and so I was sorry to see the discussion end. But was it ready to end? Wikipedians on the whole neither know nor care about specific designations of Wikidata fields ... that is, what I'm seeing in the discussion is that people don't like seeing text: 1. on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages 2. right below the page title 3. that comes from Wikidata 4. that can't be edited on Misplaced Pages, and doesn't show up on at least some watchlists, and, crucially 5. that's been demonstrated to last for hours in a vandalized state. It looks like the WMF people want to remove that particular field, and they believe that addresses the concerns expressed. But does it? On mobile devices, infoboxes (and possibly other things) that contain Wikidata fields often get pushed to the top, often on the right-hand side, and they sometimes contain Wikidata fields at the very top. Someone knowledgeable about Wikidata might say "oh, that's a completely different thing" ... but in general, voters from Misplaced Pages didn't seem to care how the field was defined, they were responding to the five points I mentioned ... which it seems to me could apply to certain fields at the top of infoboxes that have been pushed to the top of the page. So ... if any version of that discussion resumes, I hope someone will clarify, otherwise I would be closing what I think of as a not-at-all-clear discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I've also alerted Sarah, and since Alsee is talking about related points just above, I'll ping him too. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Dank (pinging in case you are not watching) Thanks for your note! When doing the cat-herding of gathering community consensus i like tight questions with clear answers, and that is what the RfC was - yes/no on take them down now. I agree 100% that more discussion is needed! I don't the know-how nor skills to frame that RfC in a way that would elicit the kind of feedback that WMF folks would find useful in some way that allows the voices of en-WP to be heard. And there are many issues/wrinkles - you bring up new ones above.
So I chose to close the one I opened and call for a second.
If you think I should unclose it and that the ongoing discussion would be useful, please say so and I will unclose. You are way more clueful about gathering consensus on big issues than me. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't need it unclosed, I trust you, dog. But if it's not unclosed, and if the wikidata text isn't removed within a few days, then it seems to me the voters are going to want to have some kind of voice in what happens, so maybe a new discussion sooner rather than later? - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. Please note that there is ongoing discussion below the RfC trying to identify "blockers". I think that could be better formalized... Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just checked a bunch of articles on mobile and found no descriptions on them. .... Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Been thinking about this problem, which seems potentially significant to me. I think I'm going to back away from being a closer, and roll up my sleeves and get involved. I'll start off with a thread at WT:FAC, and see where that takes us. Feel free to join. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Slate Star Codex AfD

Because the general notability guideline doesn't precisely define "significant coverage", I would appreciate it if you could answer the following two questions about your Delete comment in the Slate Star Codex AfD, to help me in future.

1. Could you describe what was it about the reliable sources that we cited in the article that made their coverage of Slate Star Codex not significant, in your view?

2. Can you give me an idea of what changes (e.g. more reliable sources, more in-depth coverage in a reliable source) would have changed your mind on this AfD - and what is the minimum you would require to change your mind?

For reference, the article has been automatically preserved by Deletionpedia here.--greenrd (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What isn't clear to you about my comment in the AfD? Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, as I noted elsewhere in the AfD discussion, Reason magazine is not a blog, and nor are Noah Smith's columns that are syndicated in newspapers. Nor is Vox. Secondly, even if something is a blog, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a reliable source, and significance is a property of the coverage, not the source. So I'm not sure that the classification of sources as blogs is all that relevant. You may not like blogs being used as sources, but there's nothing to support that in the guidelines (maybe there once was, but not any more).--greenrd (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
These would be the same things you said in the AfD. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Your point being? You're not convinced by those arguments? Why not?--greenrd (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop to WP:THREATEN

This kind of threat is an unacceptable WP:THREATEN violation. Really. Another editor now has now disagreed with your position and undone your your edit war . Please don't judge and don't threaten others without taking more care. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.LanceUnderpants (talk)

I am trying to warn you that your zealousness to debunk anti-vax activism is taking you too far. These discretionary sanctions exist for good reason and if you don't mind them, they will end up being applied to you. That is not a threat - -that is how things work here. And no, Guy's edit did not restore what you did -- not even close. It is concerning that you cannot see why his edit was OK and yours was not. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Jytdog as you were not notified properly, the above user has filed an ANI against you. Claiming you have threatened them, which clearly you haven't. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 02:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: ongoing discussion on hte Christianity and violence wiki page

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Talk:Christianity and violence.
Message added 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TourBus2020 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kombucha#Deaths Gerntrash (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thou shalt not kill

Hi, regarding this revert, please advice which part is NPOV. The intro was added from Ten_Commandments_in_Catholic_theology#Fifth_commandment and using many secondary sources. Other edits was a rearrangement from the old contents and I classified them into new subsections. I'll try to fix it based on your advice. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

thx. self-reverted and worked it over more carefully. how did a citation from the daily mail get in there?? Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, and for replacing the daily mail with better source. How about adding a bit from Kreeft, without additional details, which was removed entirely: "The basis of all Catholic teaching about the fifth commandment is the sanctity of life ethic, which Peter Kreeft argues is philosophically opposed to the quality of life ethic." ? This sentence will complement the previous sentence about killing, since the sentence "Jesus expanded it to prohibit unjust anger, hatred and vengeance, and to require Christians to love their enemies." was removed. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Why Kreeft and not say Augustine or if you want somebody contemporary, somebody like Ratzinger? Seems UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Kreeft is commonly regarded as a notable modern professor in Catholicism. But if the author is considered as the main problem I will find another source with equal words. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Self help books review not a literature review - Anxiety article

Pease point out the exact definition given for a Literature Revew in Misplaced Pages guidelines - I could not see it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch0172 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. In this diff you added this ref which is more of a product review than a literature review of the evidence that self-books can actually help people. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain and preferably undo this edit . There was nothing aggressive at all here, apart from a removal of a long-standing image on flimsy grounds. We can't just remove things because single editors give flawed rationales for why they object to a section. Carl Fredrik 00:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did already. I really appreciate all the work you do but you have been way too heavy handed at MEDRS, turning this guideline more into an instruction manual. As I said to you before, you don't seem to understand how policies and guidelines operate - they aren't rulebooks. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Neuralink

I never liked the idea of any taxpayers' money going to business enterprises, so I'm no big fan of Musk...and I'm now, as of today, wondering about the hoax/scam possibilities of everything he's touched. I'm considering abandoning the article....I assume you think its worth spending time on? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not a lot more to say about the company now, from an encyclopedia perspective, than the bit that is there. The refs outside of the original WSJ are pretty much just media circus hype and speculation. I have considered nominating it for deletion but that would probably just turn into a food fight, so am OK with it remaining as is and just keeping CRYSTALBALL and other kinds of speculation out of it. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I totally agree on the "all hype" judgement. Why do we have to live with even more detailed hype on pages like Mind uploading to give just one example? 84.151.200.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad you agree. That article needs cleanup yes. Jytdog (talk)

Guys, I am not spending more time on this, since you seem to be enjoying to do police here. May I ask which of you guys has any idea about the stuff on Mind uploading? or is there a neuroscientist here to judge the 'relevance' of topics discussed on Neuralink? I started to read the rules on WP and now I am aware of external links and spamming etc. (thanks to Jytdog!) but please be aware that wikipedia is a source for many people to track knowledge and find external links. People are aware of the nature of the WP and take care of the reliability themselves. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. Best luck Zombehpedia (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes "Mind uploading" needs work. It is not high on my priority list (it is science fiction and is clear enough (barely) about that - I am more concerned with real world things) but I reckon I will get to it. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed Gillespie

Hello Jytdog. I look forward to resolving our dispute regarding page "Ed Gillespie." As stated below at the Gillespie talk page, please state your objection to the bonafide entry below, so that we may arrive at a just resolution. I claim that the entry below is bonafide. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juankimnoah (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: I think you're being impersonated on Twitter

This doesn't seem like something you would do at all. Just thought you should know. Nopewasntme (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - that is very kind of you to let me know. there is no end to bullshit is there. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that it is related to the AVN mess, as I went through the same thing, only a bit less subtle. Twitter will kill fake accounts very quickly if you contact them. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - done already :). Will be interesting to see how they deal with someone impersonating an anonymous WP account! Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on what happened last time, my theory was that the plan was to make it look like you were anti-vax, and then use that against you on-wiki (or in my case, with my employer). But being anonymous gives you a lot more protection, and can't see anyone here ever falling for it with you, so it could never work if that was the intent. - Bilby (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. Somebody carrying a lot of anger around with nothing useful to do with their time. People do weird shit when they are bored. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be more nefarious and related to Misplaced Pages as a whole. By logging into my twitter account I can see:
Of his 5 followers, 2 are Misplaced Pages somethings, and
Of the 52 accounts he follows 13 are Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages related
The 1 of 2 retweets he posted is a retweet of the bot that announces new articles,to ....and that article was created 4 days ago by a User who was inactive until this year and very active since. I have to wonder whether that User and the Twitter impersonator are the same or connected. I speculate that this is all about money in view of him offering Misplaced Pages services on his twitter account. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow... just wow. It takes a special kind of asshole to do something like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Unpleasant! Still, "Imitation is a kind of artless Flattery." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both of the comments just above mine. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If there´s an admin watching, Nopewasntme should probably be blocked because . If he feels he should IAR-sock again, he can always IAR-sock again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Has already been blocked by Widr...Lectonar (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • a note on this. I have tried several times (six now maybe?) to get twitter to delete that account through their report an impersonator tool and I just keep getting back automated rejections. I created my own twitter account at Jytdog_WP just to pose a counter to that one. I am not going to use it for much, as i have little interest in the social media echosphere. but i am have spent as much effort on that as i care to. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
How droll. They are claiming that my Jytdog_WP account impersonates them. Idiot universe. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Mine was easier, I guess because they used my real name, and I already had an established Twitter account under it. I'm sorry that you're stuck with this. On the plus side, I can't imagine anyone established on WP mistaking that for genuine. - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Ferric carboxymaltose

Hi Jytdog Ferric carboxymaltose used to be redirected to Iron supplement. I established a proper page for ferric carboxymaltose and took out the redirection. As compensation I linked the topic iron supplementation within the ferric carboxymaltose page to the Iron supplement page. I believe it is quite standard that drugs may have own pages in Misplaced Pages. See Ropinirole, Atenolol, Evolocumab, etc. To my point of view the Ferric carboxymaltose page meets this standard criteria and is worth to be kept an proper page without being redirected. May I ask you to redo your changes regarding redirection. Of course any improvements of the page are welcome. I'm quite new with editing and not yet familiar with all features. Thanks Healthmed (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

?coi

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

yep, refspam. left a few of them where they seemed to actually add value. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Omega-3

J - I have put in a lot of time this week trying to update referencing and improve clarity on the omega-3 entry. I also started a Talk new section on the updated AHA guidelines. I left a note on DocJames Talk page notifying him of all this, and asking if he can please review changes. I reminded him of my situation (consultant to industry), but added that none of my work at Misplaced Pages requested by my clients, nor are they aware of my activity. I am trying very hard to avoid COI and to maintain NPOV. You are welcome to look at the changes, but I would prefer DJ gets first hack at it (he is away on vacation). Please weigh in on my Talk if you feel I've gone seriously astray. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

i will look. there is a whole slew of articles around fatty acids (like ten at least) that are a mess and need cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ipsy (company)

Thanks for turning this into such an interesting article. Maybe we can use it as an example for future students. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

glad you found it interesting; after i dug into it i found their business model remarkable (they found a way to make money off the internet by something other than "eyeballs"... the perennial problem), and am really curious about what they are going to use that $100M for. new business model coming maybe. thanks for bringing better refs to the table! Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I second StarryGrandma, thanks for the revisions. -Reagle (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding this request, I went ahead and merged Ipsy (company) into Ipsy. I then thought about it a bit more, and swapped the histories so the one with the oldest received the merge. Essentially in the end, the content which originally resided at Itsy was merged into the content at Itsy (company), and then the titles were swapped. The redirect from Ipsy (company) serves as attribution and is marked as an {{r from merge}}. Best Regards, — GodsyCONT) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for handling that! Messy. Glad it is resolved. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD - Bilateral Opercular Syndrome

Hello Jytdog. I first noticed this article because of the auto hidden category Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names, so I fixed its reference tag. But at the same time I saw the CSD notice, but wondered if it was a mistake. The summary says that this article has no relevant history or has not expanded on the other mentioned article. However, the other article seems to only be a stub. I could be mistaken, but I don't immediately see what is particularly wrong with this article; but I wanted to get your input instead of just removing the tag. Thank you, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There was already an article on this topic, as the speedy delete notice says. This student (as other students in this class have done) is simply shoving their articles into mainspace under alternative names instead of integrating with existing content. We don't allow duplicate articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't moving/userfication and a message to the main author be more appropriate than CSD in this case? This isn't a controversial POV fork, a non-notable or attack BLP, and it would be easy to merge the articles. What if noone has time to react and the author is confused or has no time to work on it (course over if a student, or whatever)? This becomes a systematically lost contribution, unless someone else also notices in time, to save its source, contest or request for undelete/userfication procedures. This is almost like if we didn't assume good faith or cared about the quality of the content. Shouldn't CSD nominators also use their own judgement to perhaps use another solution in cases like this, where deletion is obviously not ideal? Or perhaps even, help in the merging process (build the encyclopedia), rather than defeat it? This makes me wonder what other potentially precious contributions could have been lost like this, or if the CSD policy might need amendment, if you're really following it to the letter (I'm taking a note to reread it). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you, I'm trying to understand. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The admin at the subject article found a better solution. No this is not something I usually do. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm do you mean the move/redirect and blanking (which is what allowed me to eventually still access the new article by forging URLs, i.e. at Bilateral opercular syndrome)? If so, does this mean that it will not get deleted at current time? If so, I'll probably leave a note to the author about where it is still possible to access the article source, for eventual merging. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed your messages to the concerned editors. Thanks for your help, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(unrelated) Bing–Neel syndrome would have been next on my list for citation cleanup (it showed up in the same hidden category), but I see you already handled this beautifully. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Detecting COPYVIO

Jytdog thank you for detecting the COPYVIO on Coiled sewn sandals. Beyond manually checking the prose against the source (which is what I assume you did here), do you recommend or use a tool? I always wonder if User:EranBot would be watching all edits but never saw anything flagged, but I just found Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which is awesome, but has to be run manually? I'd like to improve my capabilities on this front -- at University we have Turnitin built in to course submission. -Reagle (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

that is the best tool i know of. User:Doc James does a lot of copyvio patrolling and may have other suggestions. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
EranBot has turned into CopyPatrol
CopyPatrol looks at all new edits to En WP over a certain size but does not pick them all up. It is based on Turnitin which is giving us a free license.
I am sure those doing the follow up would love to have more people join them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I found the copying when I tried to un-orphan the article by linking to it in the text of sandal. I opened the reference to see how best to do this, and things looked very familiar. Before putting up the notice I did try Duplication Detector and Earwig's Copyvio Detector but neither of them picked up the copy well. They flagged short similar phrases and missed the longer direct copies from a large pdf. Maybe CopyPatrol would have done better. Students take shortcuts, but I hadn't suspected this. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes the problem is common unfortunately.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
StarryGrandma, thanks for that. -Reagle (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Wondering your thoughts on:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Brendon Burchard revert

The Misplaced Pages guidelines indicates links to social networking websites like Facebook, MySpace, etc. are to be avoided. That makes a lot of sense.

But YouTube, although it has social media features, is mostly a content website (video content website). It has films, documentaries, etc.

And from a practical point, the type of people who would go to his Misplaced Pages page would want to see his business and motivational videos. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. This is exactly what ELNO is meant to avoid. People can find his youtube channel from his personal webpage. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the lead for the YouTube and Facebook articles. YouTube is not described as a social media website in the lead of the article, whereas Facebook is. So why would YouTube apply for ELNO?
I wouldn't list YouTube for every public figure. Just for public figures who create a lot of popular video content and have a specialty for creating video content. Knox490 (talk)
You are just wikilawyering this to death. A youtube channel is pretty much deadon social media. Adding it is just promotional, as this is how the guy creates leads that he makes money from, being an internet marketer and all. You can start an RfC at the article talk page if you want; it will likely go down in flames as the promotional nature of the link is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The guy is a mix between a motivational speaker and internet marketing guru. I thought he was more of a motivational speaker so I put the YouTube link. I thought people would like to watch his motivational videos. I don't follow the guy that closely. I just watched a couple of his motivational videos and I thought they were not the typical "get rich quick" fare.
I will just drop it. I am going to edit other areas. Knox490 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am a fairly inexperienced editor at Misplaced Pages.

I looked at the various Misplaced Pages pages for motivational speakers, musical groups and other places where I would expect to find YouTube video links and I do not find them.

Thanks for the tip. I wish the guidelines were more explicit as that would make it easier on the more inexperienced editors. Knox490 (talk)

I appreciate you talking! Happy to talk if any questions arise as you keep working. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I just found this page: Misplaced Pages:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Misplaced Pages. It greatly simplifies things. The wiki markup is a piece of cake. I have done programming in the past. Knox490 (talk)

Question Regarding Sockpuppetry

Hey, my understanding is that CheckUser will generally only check two registered users against each other, and not a user and an IP address. So is there anywhere to bring up something like this , or do we just need to pretend we can't see it? Alephb (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Alephb: Still at WP:SPI. Open a case but don't ask for a CU. Admins will judge on the behavioral evidence you present. --NeilN 03:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do. Alephb (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ce I was about to say the same thing. In other words, the anons can be part of the SPI (there's even a place for them in the blank template created when you open a new case) but there will never be a definitive correlation between the IP and the registered account. Behavioral evidence means things like similar writing style, editing platform tags, choice of subjects, etc. as opposed to "technical evidence" like IP address and browser. - Bri (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
My answer, is that it depends on whether the person is pretending to be a different person while they edit logged-out so that they look like 2 people (like revert while logged in, then log out, and revert again). Editing while logged out is not itself a violation of SOCK. It is very unwise to edit contentiously while logged out as it ~looks~ a lot like trying to SOCK. But I looked at those pages, and I don't see that they are trying to look like two people. I would leave the user a note at their talk page and ask them to let folks at the various talk pages know if they were editing while logged out. If they won't acknowledge it, then I would an open an SPI as this is definitely quacking. They are disruptive for sure. But not necessarily in doing this.
On the other hand there were a couple of IPs reverting at Abraham.... so either way. An SPI would be justified as NeilN said. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Alephb: If there is a need for the CU, the clerks will usually add it and endorse in my experience. Although a checkuser cannot publicly link an IP to an account, they will have access to the data if it escalates to needing to check that technical evidence. I did look at this though because I saw the discussion going on in my watchlist and I think the behavioral evidence is enough for evaluation. -- Dane 04:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
In the edits and elsewhere, BedrockPerson has claimed he's not the IP. And the IP shows up (in almost all cases that it appears) in the middle of an argument between Bedrock and somebody else. It does not show up when Bedrock is peacefully editing all by his lonesome. I've filed it at SPI, though I'm not positive if I'm making some kind of procedural mistake in all this. I've read through literally all the diffs where they work together, and it looks like unmistakeable shenagigans from where I stand. There's a couple other IP's probably involved, but I stuck to the one I had better evidence for.Alephb (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
oh totally valid then. thanks for filing it. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

COI

To your point about conflict of interest, of course you're right: anyone who is not a volunteer has a conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

well, hm. That is not really the issue with classes that come here to edit. There is a very specific (and to me, clear) set of external interests there. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (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 Fenugreek. 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Fenugreek.23A_herb.2Fan_herb. The discussion is about the topic Fenugreek. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Porphyro (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

SAM-e

J - Thanks for all the hard work on keeping the SAM-e entry based on high quality reviews and meta-analyses rather than peoples' desires to cherry-pick favorable clinical trial results. This has always been contentious, and sadly, a search at clinicaltrials.gov found little being done vis-a-vis new research for depression, osteoarthritis or liver disease. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley issues

I hate to promote my own userspace, but if you want things to pull from for that Berkeley class, see User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles for a list. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I just found this after randomly visiting Jytdog's user page. I was unaware of the other sections beyond 105, which is where I had run into the NPOV issues. Train2104, is this a comprehensive list of all the Berkeley articles? I'm only asking because they IMO they should all be checked for copyvios and plagiarism after two cases I found over the weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: As far as I can tell, yes. The 6 links at the top go to every article they've ever edited, if I understand WikiEdu correctly. I went through those to make this list, though I can't guarantee it's complete since some of the pages they've been worked on have been moved numerous times. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks. I'll go through the rest. Don't know how I missed the other class sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
There are also many user sandboxes and a couple draftspace drafts, which I've ignored, but of course copyvios there are a no-no too. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to publicly thank you for the recent advice you gave me. I have taken the suggested action. A good friend is someone who quietly warns you about this sort of thing and you showed yourself to be a good friend today. Again, thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Only warning

closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You are reverting a version that was agreed upon by 4 editors. However much you think you are right, you can not do that.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Debresser why not just provide a source as requested and as required by WP:V? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll be happy to do so sometime in the near future, but I have a problem with an editor going against a unanimous talkpage consensus of 4 other editors and removing a statement that was in the article for years. There is simply no way that can be okay. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the consensus; repeating a lie does make it true. The content had been tagged disputed since 2015. I will launch the RfC tonight which will be a SNOW close against you. Your editing and behavior here are way beyond the pale. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It is than best to leave the content out until someone can get around to finding a reference to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
In view of the fact that 4 editors agree with it, and that is no misrepresentation as Jytdog mistakenly calls it, and the fact that this information has been in the article for years, I fail to see the hurry and strongly recommend to chill and give it a few days. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not allow bullshit on my talk page. Do not post here again. I am closing and archiving this. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sitush (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous rights to land along rivers

Hi Jytdog, Thank you for your review for our page! The wiki page is actually still in progress and we will add more citations in 2-3 days. About the topic, we are student from UCB and this is actually our final project. The subsections are already set up and we do not have too much flexibility. Would you mind we move the section back to the page until the end of semester and also give us some advice about how should we improve in order to make it more related to the page topic? Thank you again! Ljqianl (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Ljqianl thanks for your note. Misplaced Pages is the commons and governed by community policies and guidelines. Just like companies don't have the right to dump things into public waters, classes don't have the right to take over space in the commons for classwork. Can you see that? If you want to work privately feel free to move the article into User space and you can do (mostly) what you like there. (It is a little weird to do while there is an AfD running but people will probably continue cutting you all slack for that). If you don't know how to move an article I can do that for you. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:jytdog Thank you for your advice and we are 100% understand what you said! We will try to talk with our instructor and figure out what should we do for the following steps. Because our project are required to present on a wiki page, it might not work if we move it to the user space. But thank you again and we totally appreciate all of your suggestions!Ljqianl (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Kinda Hanna, BLP issue

See which I don't think has an RS. Editor keeps adding it, see the talk page. Worth taking to RSN, although I've had bad luck there with lack of interest?. Doug Weller talk 06:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change Policy in the US questions

Hi Jytdog, I am contributing to the climate justice section of the Climate Change Policy in the US page, including the section on the "Climate Mayors." You asked for third-party sources in this section, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for unbiased third-party sources. I have an article from Fox News discussing specifically the March 28th, 2017 letter by the MNCAA, but I did not include it because I was unsure if it was a good source. What is the best way to source very recent developments such as this? Thanks!

References

  1. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/trump-climate-policies-wont-be-enforced-say-75-us-mayors.html)

-- Mcmonty2357 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an independent source and it seems to be reporting fairly decently. Would be surprising if that is the only one on this, but there it is. Please avoid placing too much emphasis on very recent events. WP is an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennepicfoundation

You probably saw it on her talk page, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennepicfoundation:_move_from_topic_ban_to_full_ban. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind either changing your non-admin closure of this discussion to WP:SBAN or re-opening the discussion? As you've worded it, the editor can appeal a block, but the community was unanimous (so far) in supporting the SBAN which has a very different process for appeal. Any admin can unilaterally unblock a blocked user, but an un-ban requires consensus. Ks0stm was aware when he issued the block, assuming the discussion would continue . All that said, I think your close was the right thing to do, but your comments are not quite in line with the community's consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
not at all. will do that now. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Trazodone

Thank you for your message on my Talk page. I only made one edit on the Trazodone page, signed in the normal way. I am a professional chemist and was interested in the reports this week on a potential new use for Trazodone. The report I cited was from a reputable source (the BBC) and I have seen similar reports in many other sources. I checked that the scientists doing the work are reputable (they work at the MRC labs in the UK), although I agree that there may not yet be peer-reviewed publications from them regarding this particular development. I don't see why "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" should not report factually accurate and newsworthy information like this, so although I now bow to your superior knowledge of the editorial standards strived for in the medical articles I must say that I disagree with pedantically following such guidelines in relation to off label and investigative uses. I did not "hype" the new findings, merely reported them so that others, like me, who looked in Misplaced Pages to see what is known of the chemical in question would have the latest information. Mikedt10 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that the IP wasn't you! Sorry about that - people do that kind of thing all the time. Please do read WP:MEDRS and if you don't understand it, you might find WP:Why MEDRS? helpful. There is nothing pedantic about it - MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community, and for good reason. I hope you take the time to understand why. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have read WP:MEDRS and related material and approve of the general points and the need to cite secondary/tertiary sources. Does this mean that "investigative" work on existing medicines cannot be reported in Misplaced Pages? If they can, please help me understand how to write about them. For example, would some explicit caveat in the text be appropriate when adding a report only backed up by primary source(s)? If that is the way to go, then perhaps senior editors like yourself should add that caveat, rather than simply revert the offending reference.Mikedt10 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We look to offer the public accepted knowledge, not "this week's media circus". If there isn't a literature review that talks about this, it shouldn't be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. If you are at all familiar with the history of academic research in AD (or any field) you will know that we have cured Alzheimers (and cancer etc) in mice a zillion times, but pretty much every drug actually tested in humans for AD has failed. There are reasons for that. But what happens almost every week, is the following -- some academic scientist does experiments in mice, the university/institute puts out a press release about it, the press makes a little media circus for a while. Happens weekly about something. We don't partake in that. One of the ways we steer clear of it, is via high sourcing requirements. There is "investigative" work that is significant enough to be discussed in reviews. Research trends and well-developed (late clinical trials) drug candidates are discussed in reviews; we have content about them. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations page

Hello Jytdog, Recently you flagged out article -- "Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations page," formerlly "Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States," and Socio-environmental impacts of animal agriculture" for deletion. Can we discuss why this happened and how to address the problems you found so that the article can be remediated? HELI (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you all didn't get better training about the mission of WP and the basic content policies and guidelines and that your assignment was to add policy-violating content to Misplaced Pages.
Misplaced Pages is not a site for advocacy.
There is a difference between writing NPOV, well-sourced articles about the effects that local polluters and other environmental disruptors have on nearby communities (which are often poor, and often people of color) and the way that law and policies have enabled that, and advocating for environmental justice.
The page is an essay that tries to make arguments. Stuff like "The topic of environmental justice is relevant because the adverse effects of CAFOs and other animal agriculture operations are often more concentrated around rural communities of color with largely agricultural economies. For example, consider....." is something you write in an essay (it also has no source - how could it? Whoever wrote that was writing the thesis of their essay). You don't find content like that in a Misplaced Pages article.
There is also what we call an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stuff in the page. What does labelling have to do with the rest of the content there? Little to nothing that I can see.
As I noted in the deletion nomination, much of this stuff is covered already in other articles.
Again I get it that you were assigned to create this. I am sorry for that. Your instructor is new to Misplaced Pages and didn't really understand how this place works, and this has sucked for all of us. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't directly address the question. To fix it:
Remove all the advocacy and essay writing.
Fix the grammar and citations (ie "Trump’s reversal of the Stream Protection Rule lifting water pollution regulations on streams in the United States." (sentence fragment) and refs like #32 (used 5 times) and ref #12 each of which links to nothing and has no detail that would allow anyone to figure out what is being cited).
Look at existing articles to see where to integrate the content into existing content in other articles. Integrate it. There will probably be nothing left.
Nominate the empty page for speedy deletion using WP:G7. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Grumble grumble

Regarding this this. I think this could have gone either way. I was about to reply to your comment when Drmies closed. No problem. I do think, though, that its unfair to characterize some points as knee jerk . I think there are other ways of dealing with what I would consider undue issues rather than BLP problems than to delete, and that and other comments were well and carefully thought out. Just sayin'. Grumble grumble.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That RfC

I am not sure how many times I have to repeat that I did not start that RfC. I was asked to commented on it and so that is what I was doing (it was a delayed response because I haven't had time to look at anything here for most of this month). From what I understand, your position is that the labor of wikipedia editors is more important than the content itself. Your being someone who puts a lot of effort into maintaining a certain standard at wikipedia, I can understand your position. I also understand your evocation of the policies. This is why I myself did not start an RfC, but it is there and I do not see why I am required to be pious toward the work of others when I find that, ultimately, the result is less than satisfactory. You call this disrespectful. Ok. I do not believe that the work of the wikipedia community is to be put above the content. There are no new or additional sources. True. But the section in question tends, in my humble opinion, towards a particular point of view. This is clear when you bring up the fact that community members in past RfCs expressed suspicions that the school is a diploma mill, a view which is expressed (indirectly, perhaps, but only slightly) in the article on the basis of a website from a single state in a single country. I do not see how the expression of suspicion by the article is any worse than the promotional campaign - it is not neutral. I also understand that consensus is important here, to the point wikipedia couldn't function without it. Nonetheless, consensus is sometimes wrong and I am within my right here as well as within the guidelines to express my position in that regard in an RfC that I DID NOT start and was asked to comment upon. My position is that the content ought to be removed to avoid a war of opinion between the promotion campaign and the 'suspicious ones'. If it were so cut and dry that the previous RfCs had solved this problem then Mootros wouldn't have opened the RfC. My comments are simply follow from DGG and Markbassett, both who raised the question as to whether or not there is enough information to say anything at all about the school's accreditation and whether providing such information is in any case relevant enough to include. That my position, following from the comments of these two, requires the removal of community work is unfortunate and I am sorry that it offends you. I have more respect for the information provided by wikipedia than I do for any single editor or group of editors. It is no surprise to me that in a situation where a handful of people put considerably more effort into maintaining that information (and necessarily so), a politics of labor hierarchy would arise. Your most recent responses to me are aggressive and I consider them to be needless attacks which are personal-political and interpretive and I would appreciate that you keep in mind that, until this point, (and I am again repeating myself), I have been nothing but acquiescent towards you. Respectfully, Wildgraf quinn (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Having been part of the group of editors who lived through the really ugly battering of the page by EGS advocates, seeing this raise its head again is just... ugly. I never said that you started the RfC, so your raising of that is not relevant. What is cut and dry is the history of POV battering, which your comments on the Talk page and here are fully aligned with. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the current state of the section expresses a particular POV. This was (as I understand) the reason the RfC was started and my entire line of argumentation was to suggest the removal the possibility altogether (of POV regarding the accreditation status of the school, which, in all likelihood, is not relevant information for a wikipedia entry). My comments to Mootros were on the basis of "why" they started the RfC and the manner in which the question/problem was worded. Their underlying issue seems to be a biased/non-neutral application of sources and I do not believe the wording of the RfC did enough to express that - that is all. I do not see how my comments are POV battering. How am I supposed to know (I'm not) the extent to which past RfCs may have been resolved in a manner that was reactionary towards the "POV battering" and promotional campaign of the school? I've read some of it, as you know, and it is indeed very nasty (at times, both sides). It is by an astonishing logic that I become lumped in with the article's past - a past I have simply tried to clean up - simply because I do not agree that the work of the community has gotten it unequivocally right. I'm not sure if continuing a back and forth about this is in any way constructive for either of us, so I apologize for that. I just don't like some of the nastiness and subtleness (and/or passive aggressive insinuation) I perceive in your posts to me. We are obviously not going to come to any agreement on this and so, again, respectfully, Wildgraf quinn (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. Please stop repeating it. You are not getting it. No further sources have emerged that would produce a change in the consensus under the policies and guidelines and all you are doing is trying to bulldoze a change. Your attitude remains disrespectful of the work the community has done. You do not have to agree with the consensus, but you need to respect it. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Intention was not to "bulldoze" - point noted. Thanks. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Stream Protection Rule

Greetings Jytdog,

I am a part of a group of students at UC Berkeley who were editing the Stream Protection Rule page. Thank you for some of your edits, but we would like to ask why did you restructure the article? Additionally, you removed some crucial elements of the SPR history, environmental impact, and environmental justice components. It would be beneficial to include these in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibrilkyser (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content on the article talk page. Please ask specific questions there, and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

David Samadi's page

Hi, pls clarify why do you deep link the Boston Globe article in David Samadi's page? Also pls clarify if you have a COI ref David Samadi.Evonomix (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no connection with Samadi. As I wrote on your Talk page, I work on COI issues along with my regular editing, and if you take a glance at the beige box at the top of the Talk page you will see that this article has been the subject of boatloads of conflicted editing, so I have had to work on it a lot. We have discussed the Globe reference already on the Talk page and I recommended what you could do it you wish to challenge it. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Evonomix and Jytdog... I have also declined a request for a "Third Opinion" which was requested for this 'dispute'. I think that you have the matter firmly in hand Jytdog, although I'll be keeping an eye on the article for a few weeks. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Trooper1005. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello, would you like to have a look at discussions going on here, especially, the Rfc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hospital de San Carlos

excellent vote. Please sign your post thought! LibStar (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog. Thank you. Seraphim System 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Just sad. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your AE request

Hey there. Your AE request is way too big. Please shrink it to 500 words. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have shrunk the statement to <500 words. OK? Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Aha, it's still quite large, but this is more doable. Thank you! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
yes the diffs section is extensive. thanks for the tolerance. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just saying

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I agreed with this edit, but one could just say "revert unsourced" instead of making a personalized remark. Would reduce potential drama and be less bitey. Just saying. Montanabw 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit note with which that content in particular was added, was remarkable. So I remarked. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
We are always trying to retain and to recruit new editors. Teaching rather than snark is probably the more productive approach in that arena. I mention this given my comment above where I also suggest there are more collegial ways of dealing with people you disagree with.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Thanks for again demonstrating your tendency to dogpile with each other. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
No Jytdog. You are ignoring the advice. This is a collaborative project and new editors are needed. You can side step and deflect the advice or you can see that two people in a short time are asking you to treat people as if they matter to this project. I have no need to support an editor on this article with Montana's experience. I am however frustrated when we as a project treat people badly and feel bound to speak up about it. This isn't about Montana or the article its about how people are treated.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
This is done. Thanks for the additional diff. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Likewise?(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A beer for you!

Sometimes Misplaced Pages is a funny place to work... StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
yes it is! Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Emailed you

Earlier today. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pity you closed the thread above so briskly...

Don't bite the newbies.

... because I would have liked to comment if I'd seen it sooner. This thread. I wanted to say that I too think your edit summary to the brand new editor was an unnecessary and harmful putdown, to put it no more strongly. The edit summary you responded to may have been "remarkable", but it was also quite typical of well-meaning newbies, as was the whole edit. In this case, a newbie who seemed to have good potential to learn Misplaced Pages's culture and customs. I don't think you can have seen me exhibit a tendency to dogpile with Montana and Olive (actually I have, if anything, the opposite tendency). Bishonen | talk 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for adding. I hear you. I actually feel bad for the snark and regretting saving as soon as i did that. Snark is not my thing. I just have little patience for those two above (ack) Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I want to say this again. My comment in the now closed thread had nothing to do with Montana although in a round about way I was supporting her. I was concerned about an earlier cmt Jytdog had made which I felt was a negative view of well-meaning editors who bothered to cmt in an RfD. His "A kneejerk "there are plenty of sources so keep" !vote does the subject and the spirit of the community consensus that generated and maintains BLP as a policy, a real disservice." implies editors don't think deeply or carefully which isn't very fair. I tried to make my cmt in response to that light and mild - . When I saw another cmt here which did not support a new editor I really felt frustrated and so commented again. I would have commented no matter who had written the comment. I do respect Montana and have watch listed her for about 10 years; she has written a huge number of excellent articles for Misplaced Pages and I will continue to support her if I feel she needs support. That happens seldom actually. This was not about piling up on anyone; that's backwards. It was about agreeing that an attack on a new editor doesn't serve us very well. We all can get to places where we speak in a way that doesn't serve the encyclopedia. I have tried to treat you with respect, Jytdog and have stayed out of your way most of the time even when I disagree with you. I will continue to do that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC))
Jytdog, do you know that the "just have little patience (ack)" feeling is mutual? Perhaps you don't realize how mean-spirited you come across, but your block record shows that I am not alone in noticing that you should work on this. I cannot speculate as to your motives, but you can really be harsh. Bishonen) is giving you good advice -- for your own sake, it's important that you listen when you are told to dial it back by people from different "sides". Montanabw 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't had my first cup of tea yet...

...so I'm sure I came across as snippy and unpleasant at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine. For the record, I (obviously) agree that the article in question shouldn't exist or I wouldn't have nominated it - it's just a mess of dictionary definitions after all, and my own redirect attempt was reverted. I just don't want to give the article creator any loophole they can use to request undeletion of it! I've had my cup of tea now and I welcome your participation in the AfD discussion. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you were totally correct, what I did what just stupid. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Berkeley AE case

You may want to have a look at this ... – Train2104 (t • c) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I saw it. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Train2104 I suggest you self-revert your remarks made in response to it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Will do. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
In light of your comment about clerks handling posts not being appropriate, and the similar comments expressed later, I've restored my original comment. I'm new to AE, so I'm not too familiar with the process. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Politics aside, that is one of the most thorough NPOV investigations I have ever seen. That must've taken you a significant amount of time to put together and goes a LONG way to strengthening the integrity of this project. Well done. v/r - TP 03:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a page

Dear Jytdog,

As previously you have contributed to Misplaced Pages in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Misplaced Pages notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources:

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Misplaced Pages guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Misplaced Pages.

References

  1. https://www.creamfinance.com/#home
  2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/habits-and-routines-of-entrepreneur-matiss-ansviesulis_us_58cf643ce4b0537abd95727c
  3. https://www.inc.com/magazine/201603/noah-davis/inc-5000-europe-2016-fastest-growing-private-companies.html
  4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/habits-and-routines-of-entrepreneur-matiss-ansviesulis_us_58cf643ce4b0537abd95727c
  5. http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFFWN1H10D
  6. https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianmitchell/2017/02/20/meet-the-fintech-ceo-making-money-easily-available-anywhere-in-the-world/#5a39bb19f724
  7. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150929005886/en/
  8. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/creamfinance-partnership-with-mintos-to-offer-investments-in-loans-in-georgia-2015-09-29
  9. http://www.labsoflatvia.com/news/latvian-creamfinance-nabs-a-21m-investment
  10. http://www.techbullion.com/creamfinance-among-fastest-growing-europe-2017-inc-5000-rank
  11. https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianmitchell/2017/02/20/meet-the-fintech-ceo-making-money-easily-available-anywhere-in-the-world/#5a39bb19f724

-- Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but I am not interested. There are some editors you could pay to do this for you - see MaryGaulke or FacultiesIntact - both are good citizens of Misplaced Pages and do good work, in my experience. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Following me and attacking my referenced relevant edits

My reference to a vendor's listing mentioning "Equipoise", the item's name, is to support the existence and use of that name. The vendor was chosen at random, and it is no more spam, like you call it, than mentioning Microsoft or Amazon as it is done commonly within Misplaced Pages articles to reference a product. A more useful and constructive action from your part would be to find another source, or request one, without merely putting the article on your chopping board. Also, you suppress the brand name ("Equipoise") under which the substance is universally known. It is like suppressing the trade name "Aspirin" when referring to acetylsalicylic acid. And, stop attacking and undoing/deleting my referenced relevant edits with no explanation, akin to vandalism. You were warned before about this. Thank you 50.187.63.48 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That article has been on my watchlist for a while and I fixed it already, twenty minutes before you even wrote here. Please stop adding spammy references to Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point and, you use the tactics of making changes after an undo to obfuscate 50.187.63.48 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I reverted an invalid edit that previously been reverted by someone else, and made a valid one. You are now just making drama and, wow - you re-added the spam link. I am bringing you to the EWN. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You keep missing the point. My edits were valid. The reference sources I chose were random among the many suitable ones, and yet sufficient to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. I have no vested interest in those sources. Furthermore, you ended up incorporating my contribution into your final edit, providing a spammy "drugs.com" instead, an eyeballs catching website that pushes advertising, as your reference. Also, you keep reverting editors' contributions with no explanation, akin to vandalism. If anything, your action constitute edit warring. I am satisfied by now that your final edits incorporated my contribution, albeit with a low quality reference. Therefore I will not pursue a revert of your last revert. 50.187.63.48 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope you used a pure spam ref. We use drugs.com very widely. Although it has ads it is a very good objective ref. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The main point is that any vendor or site, regardless of whether they market or not merchandise, even in ways that you dismissively call "spam", is sufficient as a reference to prove the existence of the common trade names in question. Now, if MANY vendors sale the same product named with the same brand name, then that becomes a reality, and that is what is being mentioned in the article about such product. It does not matter if that merchandise trade name is not mentioned in an academic or trade journal, etc. You keep being blinded by the fact that some reference might be "spam", and yet such a mainstream site is just fine to show a brand name exists, and that it is being used and sold as such. This applies to boldenone, to GW501516 and to any other merchandise. That is why my edits were and are valid. 50.187.63.48 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Zvi Ben-Dor Benite

See and . Seems a very good source? Doug Weller talk 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I actually just bought that book, it looks great. Will revisit. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I just got Barkun today. Also a great book.Doug Weller talk 20:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Received a message from you "you reverted Drmies... Drmies is an admin and arb; this was probably unwise of you"

That particular point that was edited has been, and continues to be, searching for a consensus. To make that edit simply ignores the discussion.

Please keep in mind that being an admin and arb doesn't make you special. As Jimmy Wales put it, "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position." Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I had removed that bit about that revert, if you actually look at what I did. It is tacky and useless to make dramah over stuff that people self-revert and I would advise you not to do that in the future. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts at Howard A. Kelly

Jytdog - I believe you are making unnecessary reverts on a page while it would have been better to flag the page, leave a comment, or make the changes yourself. This would have been sufficient action for an article with non-neutral language. As to your other complaint, I am the students' instructor, am familiar with the literature, and confirm they have not plagiarized their sources and have appropriately cited everything. You have not fixed anything, only thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I am warning you to undo your latest revert as it is unproductive and the sort of behavior which leads to edit wars. Physhist (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, please continue discussing at the Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I ask, please

...that you host the following end of discussion, since it was you that brought the action in the first place. I placed it at the Noticeboard, and Softlavender deleted it twice. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it

@Jytdog:@Ivanvector:@Primefac:@Sro23:@Softlavender:@L3X1:@Beyond My Ken:@Obsidi:@Doc James:@XyZAn:@Kudpung: I am sorry, real life does not allow me to pay much attention to the discussions that take place here. I simply saw nothing of this, until it was past, being alerted to it by failure of an IP address to work as a place from which to edit. I take responsibility for this ignorance, see following. However, the litany of cases, and the long span of time from which the cases were chosen, and further facts about each that are not given, hide the accurate conclusions that (i) these examples were always earnest, scholarly, high level sets of edits, generally over many hours or days, and (ii) that I have repeatedly responded at article Talk pages and elsewhere, to tagging objections, and that I have modified my behaviour substantially over time. In this regard, the emphasis on the 2015-2016 history, and the failure in any way to represent the responses I have given in any of the cases that are cited can only lead me to describe it as largely a misrepresentation of the facts of the matter.

But, that I continue to irritate many is clear, and so I will summarise the case I have made, again, here.

As a former academic, and a professional, I have argued that making clear to readers the shortcomings of article content is an improtant contribution, and one WP should encourage. Had we 20 top academics, in high traffic/visibility fields, just noting errors and shortcomings, our articles would be all the better for it. Even so, this is not what I do—contrary to the example cases offered and representations made, I do not just come in and tag. I challenge all voting editors above to go to each case given, and look at the total time spent editing the articles, and the changes made. (I will give an example of the clear misrepresentation involved in description of the cases as they appear, in closing.) Generally speaking, I would be surprised if a fair-minded case can be made for anything other tha "hours of editing, often completing and repairing/adding citations, ending with tags in place to indicate continuing shortcomings of the article." Bottom line, the tags were placed when I had done all I could, in a session, or in an article. And I would remind the assembled, august company, that at present the articles that are of "B class" (some issues remaining) and better amount to <3% of all of WP articles (2.7% by my last reporting on the matter). In light of this fact, and the easily verified fact that essentially none of my edits are on A, GA, or FA articles, one cannot include that I am calling attention to nonexistent issues. Rather, the problem must be that I am calling attention to real issues in unacceptable ways.

The tagging acknowledged and the tag-bombing misrepresentation laid to rest—yes, I am aware that we have differences of opinion on the matter of tags, mine being that readers deserve to know the truth about articles, the predominant contrary opinion, as far as I can tell, being that too many tags are bad, regardless of state of article, and thus that appearance of articles—that they appear better than they are—is the surpassing priority and interest here at WP. I have explained my understandings and motivations, case by case, at length, in reply to objections. But here they are again in summary.

  • Readers are our "clients," we exist for them, and not for ourselves.
  • Many of our readers are young, and are ignorant on the subjects about which the come to WP. To quote one, "I have never found anything incorrect in a WP article" (14 yo male student).
  • Article tags function to call attention of editors to broad general problems in articles, and place articles in lists for further editorial attention. They also warn readers, "beware, dragons here" — that there are potential issues in the content they are about ready to ingest. They should, from my perspective, be placed, if an issue occurs not in one section, but in several. In summary, the issues are real, and article tags are critical for the foregoing reasons given.
  • Section tags function to honour editor time, by making clear where within the article the issues exist, to which the article tag is referring. It also acknowledges the fact that some readers arrive at articles sections via links, without ever viewing the top of the the article. Hence the reader service is again a motive here, as is clarity with regard to follow-on editorial work to correct issues. As well, section tags make very clear, when there are several article tags (the very common "multiple issues" article situation), which article tag applies to which section, thus saving time when I or others return to add further to article quality. Thus, section tags are critical for these distinct, and separate reasons.
  • Inline tags serve the same very specific function as section tags, but do so more specifically; moreover, they allow an editor to make very clear the progress of checking and editing problem sections. Specifically—and this is very often the case, where, in my edits, you see repeated inline tags in a given section—this process will begin with a read of a paragraph that has a single citation at the end of a paragraph, or citations at end of individual sentences. The red flag is raised when I find that a particular fact within the sentence or paragraph is not contained in the cited source. I then begin a start to finish review of the material in the paragraph, clarifying what is and is not found in the cited sources. This often results in a back and forth between inline citations, and tags—because this is an accurate assessment of the state of affairs in the paragraph. If this one paragraph is the only place of issue in the article, only the inline tags will appear, with a section tag. If the refimprove issue is present in more than one section, then it will appear as an article tag as well. Thus, inline (sentence) tags are critical for these separate reasons.

To put this together, I have repeatedly, in different venues, made the following case. I have in past authored manuscripts with multiple authors at multiple institutions. And I have jointly edited multi-contributor regulatory documents submitted to the US government on health related matters. These are both cases of professional production of high quality, rigourous content, by multiple editors. In these cases, regardless of the editorial tools used, there is never a case, in these professional, multi-author/editor efforts, that one only flags a specific issue at a specific point in a work product by placing a message at the head of the document; likewise, it is never the case, in such work, that on noticing persistent patterns of problems throughout a document, that one only annotates the issues inline, without calling the matter more broadly to the team's attention, by placing a note at the top of the document. That is, in short, I am attempting to apply best practices, in the production of quality content, to my work here. Whatever those accusing me of malfeasance might otherwise say, it would be nice to hear, at the very least, those involved here acknowledge the foregoing, and the derivative conclusion that a commitment at WP to disallow this—for reasons of appearance, or otherwise—is at odds with the way that such things are done in the best, most important of places in the real world, and so arguably contrary to the best ways to move WP articles on to true higher quality.

To summarise, I argue that the foregoing description of my work misrepresents it, both in failing to make clear the long and productive effort involved in my editing, with focus on sourcing—here is one illustrative diff, of >35 edits adding 17 kbytes over 6 days, misrepresented in the opening diff list. I again challenge the editors participating in this noticeboard to argue that this is not the norm of my work; in addition, the arguments misrepresent, in failing to make clear I have explained the foregoing article/section/inline tag purposes and utilities, and motivations, repeatedly to people.

However, for failing to be attentive to my Talk page, I am guilty allowing this noticeboard to continue without response, and for that reason alone, I am deserving of the ban.

Otherwise, three closing comments. First, Primefac's contention that I have ceased editing while logged is simply untrue, as is her/his contention that I have never given reason for the back and forth (I repeatedly have, even if not to her/his satisfaction). If the reasons do not satisfy say so, but do not deny the reality of my having repeatedly responded. Second, User:Ivanvector's contention that I use IPs when I get in "hot water" is completely specious, apparently based on the fact that I edited today, before I new about this noticeboard, or the ban. The Talk section from me at your Talk page, earlier in the evening, should make completely clear, that I was clueless that this was going on—first notice coming as I attempted to edit, was logged off, found the IP block, and went to you (Ivanvector), to ask what was going on. Bottom line, assume good faith my friend, and/or do your thorough research before accusing. There is no clear case of attempts to deceive here; your association of today's edit as an example of such is a mis-association.

Third, as others have repeatedly noted, and policies clearly state, there is nothing wrong with IP editing. Persuasion is given to always log, but IP editing by registered editors is only prohibited if it is an attempt to sockpuppet or otherwise deceive. And as annoying as the appearance of my IP edits — claimed as most sets are, with Le Profs abundantly sprinkled through many if not most — are alongside my logged edits, the assessment is rightly made that I go out of my way to always identify. Any argument for malicious or deceptive practice (thank you for those carefully making this point), and any case for sockpuppeting (by definition, where the aim is deception), are ill-informed and specious to the actual facts. I will not go into another long defense, but just say, I simply haven't always presence of mind or time to re-log if in the midst of a long editing, finding (at time of save, generally) that my systems have logged me off. What is key is that I identify, and do not attempt to deceive. If you do not believe this, ask those rising somewhat to my defense—you will find IP edits signed Le Prof alongside logged edits identically signed. And this is the norm, and not the exception. Sloppy, perhaps. Less considerate of others than of my constraints and time, yes. But arguments mis-casting aspersions to my motives for this duality of work are clearly less informed by relationship/experience with me, or by thorough research, and so are just that, mis-cast aspersions.

Finally, I have copied everyone here except editor Boghog, because, in this case, I have found the editor at times to stalk, to be heavy-handed with regard to his (granted, likewise academically well-informed) scientific views, and also unable to be self-reflective or self-aware about his admixing in, personal sentiment/motivation, into specific editorial disagreements. So, I simply do not relate editorially to him.

In summary, my work and reasoning were mis/unrepresented, but are now properly summarised, my purposes and motivations are argued to be in-line with best practices for multi-author generation of high quality content, but I accept the ban/block as I was "AFK" with regard to engaging User Talk, and so did not see any of this developing.

Long term, this may be the beginning if my ultimate departure here. If it really is true that one cannot edit for 6 days, adding 17 kb of material and quality to an article, then honestly state how the article clearly remains short of our policies and guidelines (and set the article up for improvement, by noting clearly where the issues lie), then this simply is not an academically honest or intellectually tolerant place. The history of WP — e.g., in making our article assessments harder and harder for general readers to find, in seeing tags essentially hidden from mobile users, etc. — seems to be arguing for an emerging interpretation clearly over-emphasising appearance over reality, as the trajectory of the encyclopedia.

So, from the time-stamp and signature here, I will comply with the ban/block for its duration. Because articles at WP cannot, to any honest academic, be edited without noting their clear violations of WP policies and guidelines, I will enjoy this vacation from WP. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)