Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 13 May 2015 (→ER visit response, not appropriate on the page after you edited your own comment.: Correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

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

You've Got mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry - I didn't mean to bother you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Took your suggestions into consideration for User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks

There is now a section titled Make no mistake wherein I modified and emphasized several aspects based on your criticisms and suggestions. Under Keep your behavior in check, I'm a little iffy on whether the last bullet point belongs there. It was originally added by AlbinoFerret and it's a good addition, but I'm not sure where it should go. Thanks again. Atsme☯ 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, thanks for stepping in there with the Titus case. I am trying to figure out if I could have done better. There was a similar case where I got called in, did my best, but a new editor got really bitter and quit. How far does a conversation have to go before I should report it, and where? Thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

the key thing in my view is to the person upset about COI to stop trying to fix it, and bring it to WP:COIN. Things are much messier now than they needed to be. You did a great job trying to help! Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! will keep that in mind. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the thank?

Um, thank you--Sigehelmus (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for providing a source! :) sorry if i missed it the 2nd time. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning

"I will say this one time. do not stalk me." I found this on my talk page just after editing on Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest. First, I have told you that you are no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet you have posted twice since this request. Secondly, the post is hollow, as it appears that you have been stalking me. Thirdly, the post is a threat. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just an FYI Wuerzele, but if a user is posting a warning, WP:NOBAN doesn't really apply when it comes to warnings about behavior, etc. Personally, I'd prefer more information in such a warning on the stalking note to be specific on what it's about, but that's for you guys to figure out if you're going to sort it out through normal discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

again no surprise of you turning up, Jytdog stalker, Ive been waitig for you to rush to defend!--Wuerzele (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask you to refrain from casting aspersions or personal attacks here as you just did or on article talk pages for that matter. It's rather difficult to claim simply letting you know about the scope of WP:NOBAN as "defending", nor is the continued incivility towards me appropriate. My post was just a letting you know about NOBAN and nothing more as I never intended to actually step into whatever this kerfuffle is here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele you followed me into COI and shortly after I edited the Sipuleucel-T article you moved into it - I was the last one to edit that article before you: the latter is what provoked the warning. Do not start following me around. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are threatening and attacking on the basis of assumptions without evidence. Then syntehsizing and repeating the threat. You keep on tryting, but wont wp:hound and wp:bait me.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

i really have no idea what has made you take such a personal disliking to me. have you noticed, i am not engaging with you. i walked away at 24D. I walked away at WT:COI. due to the way you immediately personalize any content dispute we have, I want to stay the hell away from you, and would prefer if you do the same -- do not follow me around. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Howdy

Check out the mess this making: Education_Program:Boston_College/Environmental_Disruptors_of_Development_(Spring_2015)... anything relating to MEDRS shouldn't be edited by unwilling students: ! On a brighter note, if you have a moment, do you have any further ideas about this? SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your constant uncivil comments

Please stop making your constant uncivil comments about me on TITUSIIX's talk page and elsewhere. You are also being unbelievably naive if you believe the bullshit that he is telling you. Anglicanus (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this quite clear to you. You are naively enabling this editor in his dishonesty. If you actually knew anything about the organisations that he is editing on you would not be so forthcoming with your encouragement of him and your criticism of me. Anglicanus (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

please tell me about them.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You can start by having a read of this information. Anglicanus (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This apparently factual information may also help clarify some of my previous comments and concerns. Anglicanus (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tired

Am tired of being abused and insulted with biased editors here. I appreciate any assistance you can have to ensure accuracy. I'd appreciate confidential emails to ronn@5wpr.com if youd like to correspond directly. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It grated

Hi, Jytdog. I'm not much of an advocate for "wikilove" and "WP:CIV" and that, but your post here grated on me, compare my own comment. Please consider that the "usernames" are people of flesh and blood. Did you happen to look at the person's userpage? Bishonen | talk 22:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

thanks for taking the time to write here. i did look at their page - so many gorgeous pictures! i'll go back and review what i wrote - i don't want ever to be dehumanizing. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice - Vote Stacking

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I need people to work on new shows with.

SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the invitation, but i have my hands full now and a whole bunch of medical content on my to-do list... but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your

…patient and kind attention at the Mol binding page, but I will not be editing there any more. There is a very, very long history of disrespect and even stalking with this editor (hence my brief puffery), and I have consequently wasted months of life with him. His modus operandi is always the same, to come into the midst of a period of my work—thanks on the keen intel on the "work in progress" tag, a technical detail I'd note he could have shared with me anytime in the last two years. He then reverts, and and on attempting to discuss, belittles my differing ideas. This proceeds to a phase to wear me out through (i) muddying broader Talk discussion by continuing to making changes during cool-down periods where I've called for expert attention, (ii) removing the calls for outside attention, unilaterally, and (iii) persistence in reverting in various ways, alone or through networks. As such, I have given up on every article where this editor has come on. (In this case, I mistakenly wandered into his turf; in past, his pattern has been to follow me to articles I have earlier engaged, under guise of keeping tabs on a problem editor.) I now stay away from most science (because his and my interests overlap too significantly), instead publishing elsewhere (and not freely contributing here), esp. because of the stalking time-wasting, but also because of his apparent complete lack of self-awareness about his bias and perniciousness. Even when other editors have come on and argued, as you did today, that there was value in what was being reverted—thank you again for your voice—the result, most often is that they depart, being worn out by the tension. This is a further reason—wasting others' time, added to my own own—that leads me to always depart when he arrives. Note when you can, at that article, the discrepancies that have been introduced through fast, careless reversions/edits, and if you can, see the article to better standing. I am out of contributing there, but will support you in any way that I can. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the offer but i don't need any "support" i am orthogonal to your conflict - you both had really good points. i always want everybody to think for him or herself here. no gangs or tag-team. but i do i hear you. hell is other people - and that is WP all day long. :) you need a lot of self-discipline and a thick skin to work here.... and flexibility. fwiw, the times we have interacted i have found you to be kind of... stiff (i think that is the best word) and i think you are maybe used to getting a lot of deference in the RW, and i think those are dispositions make it extra hard for you here. i am sorry about that. and boghog can be gruff, for sure. i do hope you stick around! you have done some great work here. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If only the real world were about deference! I am formal, because I am not American in my beginnings, but from places much more formal. (My secretary would have called me by three titles daily, were I at home; here I am lucky to be called "Hey you," for tea.) No, I can count on one finger of one hand, the individuals with whom I have had the conflict that you are witnessing. It is not pretty, but it is not all superficial either. The last time this editor was at this article was in Januar 2013. Then today, 15 minutes after I have edited, I am part and parcel reverted, with sanity only reverting when third and fourth editors arrived. This bias I have no time for. (The same precise following and reversion happened at Natural Product, an article directly in my field of expertise, where I had made a commitment to colleagues to see it revised, having to drop that because of all the time wasting nonsense. There, no others interested enough to arrive and restore sanity.) No it is not gruffness, that I can handle. It is patent dishonest and biased dealing, and so, while I will reply to falsehoods, and make comments in the article there, I will not edit in it again. Otherwise, note the support mention is to offer to you the same orthogonal involvement. Today I joined a discussion about an article deletion, and voted neither yes (opposing a friend) or no (supporting them), but voted to table, to force both sides to accommodate the other. This neutrality and commitment to respond is simply what I also offer. Cheers, bonne nuit. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

i'm sorry it has been unhappy. it is hard. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather the

…clarifying information about the meaning of covalent be left in, because, while accessible via wikilink, having key distinctions made in the article actually being read helps readers avoid distraction and gain most of the required information before they first click out of the article. This is a matter of personal pedagogic preference (PPP!), on how we think our students best learn, and so an individual matter for educators to wrestle with. But here in particular, a key editorial issue of the article remains whether covalent adducts are complexes or not, and so this detail I would ask to remain in. But, I am not editing there anymore, so it is uo to you, mate. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

oh you are back out again! OK then. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Since adding the primary source tag, the only edit I have made at the article since being reverted, I have only engaged in the talk—there, pointedly I admit. But I have long experience with some editor's selective acknowledgment of facts, and I do not allow them to go unaddressed. Still, even as far as talk is concerned, I am near done. Cheers, Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BJU spring break

I think you're too skeptical. IMHO, if ABC News covers it, I think the BJU spring break is more than an internal matter. Not that it struck me as something critical that needed adding, but the new spring break did get more national coverage than the GRACE report—something we can perhaps blame on declining journalistic standards.--John Foxe (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

really. you think this is encyclopedia-worthy? it is so, so trivial to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. No problem. I do think you if you understood more about the institution, you'd weigh the information more heavily. Julius Caesar's perspective in writing the Gallic Wars was completely COI, but the book is one of the most accurate (not to mention, most understandable) pieces of Latin prose ever written. There's something to be said for perception that arises from inside knowledge.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bayer's two most famous trademarks

Hi. You just removed my edit of Bayer AG's page regarding their well known brand heroin, and I just wanted to know why? Thanks Zinedine Socrates (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

it was unsourced - if you have a reliable source for that, please feel free to add it back. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's sourced now. Zinedine Socrates (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

I have no stake in the article at all, it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list and that's why I made any edits at all. It looks like one or more Editors want to discredit the subject and personally I could care less. But if you feel its a garbage article, then just nominate it for deletion rather than continue with the passive-aggressive POV editing.

I'm no fan of pseudo science or medicine either, but I don't tip toe around the subject if its not worth keeping on WP. If the sources are WP:RS, then the article just needs to be factual and NEUTRAL. Let the Reader decide what's bunk or not. If not, do the right thing. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

what concerns me right now is that you seem to be saying that the dif i reverted was a good edit. are you? Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not my edit, which one are you referring to? I made a layout and section title change. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

above you provided a dif of an edit I made. what i did there, was revert an edit - that edit, is in the diff i provided. are you saying that the edit i reverted was a good edit? Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that anyone making an edit to that section would need a copy of the book cited, I don't know. Have you read it? Cause that's the only way you'd be able to legitimately make that claim, assuming the source backs up your edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WTF?! Jytdog is obviously reverting gibberish/disruptive edits here. What on earth is in question here? Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So you have a copy of the book and can verify what it says or does not say? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What book and what material is being discussed here? Scalhotrod, what exactly are you accusing Jytdog of? What is wrong with the edits you linked to earlier, and why do you persist in hounding Jytdog about it? I agree with Alexbrn, I see no indication Jytdog did anything wrong in the diffs above, and would like you to clarify, specifically, what the issue is. Yobol (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this either. What edit is making reference to a "book"? This edit was the only edit ever made by a throw-away account, it broke the formatting and grammar and reversed the meaning of the content that was there before. It's sourced to the journal Skeptical Inquirer, if you want to get a feel for how they treat EFT, read this. Then revisit whether the revert of that edit was appropriate. Zad68 19:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The book in question is one of the sources cited.

References

1. Bakker, Gary M. (November 2013). "The current status of energy psychology: Extraordinary claims with less than ordinary evidence". Clinical Psychologist. 17 (3): 91–99. doi:10.1111/cp.12020.

Sections of this article sourced to this book are being changed. This material being cited does not appear to be online, so if no one editing the article has a copy of the book, why are they making changes to the content? If no one can verify the source, then yank the content, its really that simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK so you're talking about this edit, it's not sourced to a book but rather a journal, you can read the abstract of the article right here, please do review the abstract and the edit, and then determine whether the edit was an improvement that represented the source accurately. Zad68 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my bad, it's a medical journal not a book. But yes, thats the crux of it. If all that is being cited is the abstract, then it should represent that as well as saying something like "Clinical Psychologist Gary M. Bakker stated in a 2013 article published by the Australian Psychological Society that..." Specificity gives the content and claims credibility along with just being better encyclopedic writing IMO. This EFT thing looks like BS to me, so if there are sources that state this, we should be giving them credit (or discredit, pun intended) they deserve. Make sense? By the way, this also solves the potential issue of using Misplaced Pages's voice to state something when its sourced to one person, as credible as they may be. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So you were complaining about Jytdog's edits without even knowing what the source was (not to mention the content of the source)? Yeah, perhaps you need to read WP:AGF, and do a little more research before complaining about someone else's edits? Yobol (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, I didn't come to this Talk page looking for an argument and I wish I could say the same about you. The article has problems, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. So waive the WP:AGF flag around all you want, but I was uninvolved until I responded to a Pending Changes review and then decided to try and make some basic edits. You are all far more involved in the article and knowledgeable on the content than I ever will (or want to) be. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, but I was trying to calmly discuss the situation and understand the situation better. I'm taking this whole issue and associated pages off my Watch list. Please try to have a nice day, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, whether or not you came here "looking for an argument", you certainly came out swinging at Jytdog's editing, calling it "passive-aggressive POV editing", when, in fact, it was the correct action to take when deliberately incorrect information (as cited) was inserted into the article. Please take this opportunity to reflect and hopefully avoid such mistakes in the future. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jyt, I'm sorry that things went offtrack. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, nor was I making accusations about your edits. All in all, I was just trying to improve an article that I came across via the Pending Changes review. Yobol says that I owe you an apology and I'm happy to do that. As I said to Yobol on their Talk page, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll defend their right to it, plus I can respect one Editor defending another when there is the perception of wrongdoing. And to that end Zad68 seemed to be moving the discussion along productively and Yobol less so. BUT... It all happened because of the discussion that I started. So again, I apologize. I was trying to "be bold" and encourage positive and proactive editing, but it did not come across that way. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! water under the bridge. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lorna Taylor

Hi Jytdog! Just a quick note - if you think the COI tag should be removed all is good, but as a heads up, John Keith 00 was hired to remove to tag, so the editor may not be the best choice to clean it up. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

oh crap i mistake that editor for someone else. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The job caught my eye because it mentioned you specifically, so it was a tad more unusual than most. We've have a few job ads of late asking to remove COI tags - I find the irony interesting. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

oh double gaming. funny. thanks for the heads up. will keep my eye out for that. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

COMON!

HE CALLED ME A DAMN TROLL MAN NOW THATS OFFENSIVE!!!!!! Coolidon (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

comments like this are never good. they are extra self-destructive and foolish when your behavior is being discussed at ANI. Now is the time to reel things in, be reflective, and hear the community's concerns. If you want to keep your editing privileges, anyway. if you want to drive off a cliff and get banned, you are free to do that of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

James Nairn

Hello, Jytdog -- I was just glancing at the article on James Nairn and was surprised to see how young he was when he died. I read the cause in the very last sentence of the article. I just wondered if "perforating" is right there, or whether it should be "perforated". CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

yep that is some 19th century medical lingo. I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

CRISPR revision undo

I've been notified that my in CRISPR article has been undone. Explanation states: WP:CRYSTALBALL content. My contribution was not a speculation. Primates were geneticaly modified with this new technique(groundbreaking achievement). Linked article goes on to speculate about the furture, but the fact remains the same. Slaven0 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Would you please post your comment on the Talk page of the CRISPR article so that you and I and others can discuss? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Slaven0 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

doors

please do not ban doors, he is very important. He did a lot good work to increase awareness about this hellish baldness drug and didn't take any money for that. Please be empathic for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.247.219 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note. three things. first, thanks for talking. second, it will not be my decision; it will be the community's decision. third, using Misplaced Pages to raise awareness of anything is against our policies. Doors continues to ignore that, despite being informed about that policy many times. That is his decision. But thanks again for talking. I am sorry that he and others are suffering but that is another matter from what goes on here. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Azodicarbonamide controversy

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit to the azodicarbonamide page. As you stated, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Would you like to comment there in more detail? Merci beaucoup! NHCLS (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

great, i will respond there! thx

DDR case

@Jytdog

Why did you delete the entire section on how the invention works? I saw no explanation. I hesitate to use the word "vandalization," but I cannot understand what you are up to. Please advise PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I did leave an edit note. Not vandalism. I will start a discussion on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources

@Jytdog Primary sources are more authentic, secondary sources are liable to spindoctors. Is banning primary sources wikipedia policy and why? 70.109.42.135 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

happy to discuss on the article talk page - will you please open a thread there? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center....

appears to have one of the most well-organized and pervasive COI editing programs on Misplaced Pages.

Currently active editor Enapolitano has edited the MSKCC-related article Joan Massagué Solé (33% of text) exclusively.

44% of the MSKCC article total text added is from user: Davidthelion2. This editor's contributions consist almost entirely of edits the the following articles. David was last active in 2013

- Simon N. Powell - Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 is responsible for 77% of the text of this article.

- Thomas J. Kelly (scientist) - director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, the basic research arm of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 produced 57% of the text of this article

- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - 44% of the total text is from Davidthelion2

- Peter T. Scardino Chair of the Dept of Surgery at MSKCC. 12% of text from David

user: Joanvalo, whose user page describes herself as a "freelance writer", was last active in 2012. She has also edited solely MSKCC related articles, including

- Peter T. Scardino (Chair of surgery at MSKCC), 78% of the text

- George Bosl - Chair in Clinical Oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 6.5%

User: Anneclear - has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2012

User: MedEditorNYC, no longer active, has only edited the John H. Healey article (head of special surgery at MSKCC) (95% of the articel

[[User: Clearanne has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2013

User: Lyjmsk12 has solely edited MSKCC articles, being responsible for 72% of the text in the Hedvig Hricak article

User: Kzezulinski has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2011

User: Lubieh, last active in 2013, has solely edited MSKCC articles

User: Reportwritermother, last active in 2009, never edited any non-MSKCC related article

What a mess. Formerly 98 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. so much time cleaning up these messes! thanks for posting here. I'll post this at COIN. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yohimbine

Hello Jytdog, One of my students made extensive revisions to the yohimbine page yesterday as part of a class assignment (I teach an advanced undergraduate chemistry course). I see you made extensive revisions, for a number of reasons, and many look to be justified. Still, I wanted to make a couple comments about the revisions. In our class, we studied molecules with either confirmed toxicity or potential toxicity. All of these molecules were bioactive in some way, and many were discovered long ago and used in traditional medicine or ritual, before their chemical structures or behaviors were scientifically characterized. Therefore, in editing articles, we thought history and chemistry were important sections to expand. Is there a reason they do not belong in this article? Most other articles about complex molecules do have this information, since they are very important to the fields of chemistry and the history of the molecule (how was it discovered? what organism does it come from? why did chemists become interested in it?). This page is (or should be) about yohimbine the molecule, not yohimbine the herbal supplement (who knows what mix of substances is in that), and so, I think the content of the article should focus on the molecule, not the herb. Would love to discuss further. Ajfrontier (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note! i'd be happy to discuss - we should do it at the article talk page - if you want to just copy your note above and put it there, i will respond there. (better for many reasons) thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shiatsu

You appear to have sent me a notice about edit warring because I undid an article that you undid while I was in the process of editing. Then another contributor undid while I was editing. I have now contributed to Talk. How is it possible to update an article if articles cannot be updated as they are being undone during the process of editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

if you plan on making extensive edits, there are two things. First, is you should know that many Misplaced Pages articles have many people who watch them, so if you make extensive changes - and especially really changing the direction of the article, you should not be surprised to get immediate feedback and reversions. (which is all fine and part of life here - your being bold, and others reverting you). second, if you want space and time to make a bunch of edits, you can put an "under construction" tag on the article while you work. (see Template:Under construction). Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick

I made a quick table at Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information#The best type of source. I'm not entirely satisfied with it, and I wondered if you'd take a look at it and add or change whatever you'd recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

that is so helpful! Thanks for doing that. Will add some stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

self-notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak citation?

I did a quick check on the citation you provided for the Agent Orange claim on the Monsanto page and the page provided in the citation doesn't seem to even mention Monsanto at all. Link here for reference. Would it be best to revise/remove the citation in this case or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. YesPretense (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll fix it in a minute. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Glyphosate

The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks, makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

From one hound to another

This is pushing the limit of acceptable length for quotations pretty hard. Suggest you reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah that was pretty long, wasn't it. done. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome - thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A request

Please don't follow me to articles. Sarah (SV) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin that is a very reasonable request and believe me I do not enjoy interacting with you nor do I seek it out. It was actually not a "follow" - I was looking a COI issue and came across the article you have been creating. I do think it is a great subject for an article. I didn't intend to do anything but that truncated quote was just a bad thing. I know you don't like pharma but please don't let that influence how you write about medicine. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what I like and don't like. I follow the sources and there's a mountain still to read, so the artice is in flux. It makes no sense to argue at this point about specific wording, and the discussion has cost me research time. Sarah (SV) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Expert editors.

Thank you for these valuable and balanced contributions! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome! lately it seems i have been welcoming new scientists a lot, and i am so glad that essay exists. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation

Given an unopposed PROD and an unopposed AFD, a PROD is likely to be successful. But playing fast and loose with CSDs bites a lot of newbies, so it's better to avoid it - if they're writing it to promote themselves, maybe I don't care, but if the're writing it because they're church history/church organisation nerds, then maybe I do. The squinting and guessing people's motives game of G11s is killing us with it's false positives on new editors, even if the rate is perhaps low, because genuine new editors ain't so common as vanity-ers and spammers. I'm perhaps more of a stickler for the policy and less of a cowboy than some other admins in this, I know. WilyD 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

understood and i appreciate your caution. I had just wanted to let you know that the G11 wasn't totally kooky. i already prodded it. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sesame Oil usage in Japan

You had reverted an edit on Sesame Oil used in Japanese Rayu, without any explanation, which I find extremely puzzling. Would appreciate if you can answer why you considered - that the removed content - was not appropriate Encyclopaedia material? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

i did leave an edit note; it looked like spamming to me. Can you find better sources? sorry if that was a good faith edit.... Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a good faith Edit. And they were the best English references I could find so far. If you have objections to the references, then you can remove/cite references alone, as I feel the content is not Spam and genuinely useful information. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Thanks for responding to my request at WP:COIN. I'm going to be deliberately vague here to avoid outing the editor. Based on the edits of the editor he appears to be the son of the subject. Wording at the now deleted files, such as identifying the image as being sourced from his mother's house, make the identity fairly clear. There was something that identified him as the son rather than the daughter, but it was a year ago and I can't remember exactly what it was. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

the case there was very clear. we'll take care of it together, one way or another. hopefully in a way without drama. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:COI editnotice

I changed it to "conflict of interest". Despite the drawbacks of the term, I think this is the best way to address both concerns. On one hand it applies to a broader range of editors we would prefer not to edit, while also not applying to such a broad range as "close connection" which may encompass all kinds of scenarios where there is not actually a COI. I thought the discussion was progressing and worthwhile. Should make the template useful for cases like the farm article.

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

as you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Botanical drug has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Jytdog. Botanical drug, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

rfconcoi

May I ask that in this discussion, taking place elsewhere, would you think twice when you feel tempted to guide the discussion -interjecting and commenting as I have seen you do in the past. It attracted some comment last time, which was perhaps harsh, but nevertheless. (please note that I'm not saying don't, but do think twice before.) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would change it to "added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote in bold." QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Added Note : I am not an ALT_MEDDIST of any kind. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

bump. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

did i make you unhappy by asking core how he would modify the RfC roxy? i appreciate you looking out for me btw. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

usc eye institute

this article is very hard to write without hiding info. Maybe just redirect it?

if you whitewash the situation, that is dishonest. if you tell the truth, it is an ugly picture of suing, deceit, money, etc. Neutralandnotinvolved (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll respond at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Request

Jytdog,

I have asked you at least three times to stay off my talk page. You are free to respond to me, and let me know how sad and unwise you find me at articles talk pages and elsewhere, but not my own. Understood? I think it's time for me to be honest: I care so little for your opinion that I usually don't read a thing you write. So it's nothing but a waste of your time to express yourself to me, and it could be considered harassment at this point to continue violating my request to leave my talk page alone. petrarchan47คุก 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

my apologies. i forgot you asked me that. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

COI ?

and  ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like COI is possible- I just rejected that article by the way as advert/not notable, as suggested by some users on Wikiproject:Medicine, and my own opinion of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ER visit response, not appropriate on the page after you edited your own comment.

I'm just posting this here because I understand your position, and I want to make sure you understand mine. You are a rational editor in my experience, and while you may not see it, I'm still engaging in an effort to be a rational editor, myself.

I'm not attempting to remove information about the possible harm of the drug (if you look in the previous section, you'll see where I mentioned having once driven a friend to the ER after smoking cannabis interfered with his pre-existing heart condition: I know it can be dangerous, even life threatening under the right circumstances!), but am working to ensure that Formerly 98's stated goal of shifting the focus of of the section to put more emphasis on the dangers of the drug doesn't devolve into POV pushing. Were he not involved in this effort, I'd be fine with the language as it is, but with information being added and re-worded to put more emphasis on the dangers, I want to ensure that there's nothing even remotely questionable about the contents.

In this case, my only objection was to the sentence which characterized the incidents reported on as being "determined" to have been caused by cannabis. We're talking about a field (medicine) which most people don't understand very well. It's not a stretch for the average person to assume there is some sort of test a doctor could perform which could conclusively identify the cause of the visit as cannabis injestion, when the truth is that there is not. It's a judgement call on the part of the medical professional, something which is better described as "implicated" than "determined". The use of the word "most" doesn't bother me at all. In fact, given the relative popularity of marijuanna, I'm a little surprised it was only 30%.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I don't see it as a major issue except that the section is being shifted towards a specific focus and in that context, I am nitpicking anything which might push that change in focus over the edge into POV pushing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

i hear you. thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for adding the link. the cannabis articles broadly speaking have been subject to a lot of tug-of-war between members of Wikiproject Medicine and cannabis fans. Formerly 98 (who does work broadly on articles related to drugs) seems to think the section has been "tugged" too far to downplay the risks. Such is wikipedia. It is good you are watching for over-corrections! Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, guilty as charged! It absolutely was my intent to shift the POV of the safety section of this article, which was dramatically non-NPOV. When I started editing this article, the section started out by summarizing a Lancet review on the safety of cannabis with the sentence

"the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high."

Here is what the source actually said

• "The acute toxicity of cannabinoids is very low. There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning"
• "Cannabis smoke may be carcinogenic; it is mutagenic in vitro and in vivo"
• "Chronic heavy cannabis smoking is associated with increased symptoms of chronic bronchitis, such as coughing, production of sputum, and wheezing. Lung function is significantly poorer and there are significantly greater abnormalities in the large airways of marijuana smokers than in non-smokers."
• "In view of the adverse effects of tobacco smoking, the similarity between tobacco and cannabis smoke, and the evidence that cannabis smoking produces histopathological changes that precede lung cancer, long-term cannabis smoking may also increase the risks of respiratory cancer
• " About one in ten of those who ever use cannabis become dependent on it at some time during their 4 or 5 years of heaviest use."
• "Large doses of THC produce confusion, amnesia, delusions, hallucinations, anxiety, and agitation"
• "There is an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia"

All of which was summarized with the sentence "THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of tested rodents is extremely high." The article then went on to cite the AE profile of nabiximols as evidence for the safety of cannabis, even though the dose is 1/10th that normally absorbed as a smoker. But I'm a POV pusher. Right. Formerly 98 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, I've responded on your talk page to avoid cluttering Jydog's. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98 The summation of the Lancet that troubles you remained virtually unchanged after the complete overhaul by Project Medicine regulars (Doc James, SandyGeorgia, Alexbrn and AnthonyCole).

The November 2013 version:

THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has an extremely low toxicity. A 1998 study published in The Lancet reports: "There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning, and the dose of THC required to produce 50% mortality in rodents is extremely high compared with other commonly used drugs".

ProjectMedicine version (December 2013):

THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of rodents is very high...

That "pro-cannabis" or biased editors are to blame for this section is based on evidence I have not seen. petrarchan47คุก 07:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

You in no way owe me an explanation. Thanks for offering one none the less. I apologize if the final part of my message was abit harsh. It's not personal. And that wasn't completely directed in your direction. The point being the individuals would not be in the wrong simply or solely because they are an alt-med practitioner and they are editing an article related to their field. Then again based on their actions it can rise to the level of a COI. I like to think of it along the lines of obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio, to use the words of Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." This is all my point.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

i hear you and thanks for writing. :) just wanted to provide you with the context for the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)