User talk:Jytdog

Welcome!

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

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

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

Special:Notifications

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Talk:Yahweh

I've just been bold and delated all of that. From the sig I'm sure it's a sock, I just can't remember where else he's been using that and similar sigs. Hope you don't mind. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

have at it! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It was User:Brad Watson, Miami - an SPI was raised by Ian.Thomson who remembered him, and I've blocked and closed the SPI. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

COI Draft

Hi Jytdog. I noticed you've been active at COIN and thought I would ping you to see if you had an interest in taking a look at my COI work here. There doesn't seem to be anyone with the article on their watchlist. The draft is very focused on products. This is because the company is not notable, but its products are, but not notable enough for separate pages on each product individually, so a page on a "brand" of products. I've added it to WikiProject Brands.

The current article only has a few decent sources and is mostly original research. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hey Jytdog I'm a new editor on wikipedia so I am still learning the online etiquette. Since you have more experience I was hoping you would help me understand why you deleted my comment on the Manual of style/medicine. Thanks. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

did you intend to delete most of the page? (here is your edit) Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Thank you. That explains it. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

it happens! i would have restored your comments but I couldn't figure out your intentions. new comments go at the bottom of talk pages, by the way. if you click on the "New Section" tab at the top right side of a Talk page it automatically opens a new section for you at the bottom...Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

re OK, another one!

Why do you keep notifying me of these?

Why don't you just nominate them for deletion, yourself?

— Cirt (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curious and confused is all, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

i wrote to you on your Talk page some time ago that I am pretty new to the whole AfD thing, and am interested to learn how people think about that activity. I've asked you questions about whether you think an article should be nominated a few times now, just expecting that you would reply and tell me what you thought. I wasn't notifying you of anything and wasn't expecting you to take action. (each time, your action is what I thought should happen) The reason I am asking you, is that (as I mentioned before) our interaction on the AfD discussion about that apnea database confused me, both about you and the way people generally think and behave around AfDs, so I am killing two birds with one stone by asking you in particular. I will for sure stop asking you eventually; I will stop now if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I didn't know you were newer to the whole AfD thing, that makes more sense. Yeah, I'd kinda appreciate it if you'd stop asking me and maybe you could ask at WT:MEDICINE instead. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK! Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:TWINKLE? That might help you in your deletion type activities. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

List of local anesthetics

This particular one was not created by the banned user, tho is was extensively added to by him. UnlessI'm mistaken, the banned ed. was not banned until [01:39 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALuklear&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Nov.2, so there is no reason to remove edits prior to that date; no such are presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

you are correct. thanks for correcting that! Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Khalilah Rose

Thank you for the edits on the page Khalilah_Rose as well as for your advice that i not edit it anymore. Another editor sent me a message that i should "You need to reformat the references to show your source, I've done the first two for you. The format is ". I'm looking for advice whether i should just post the suggestion on the page's talk page as is or if there is a special process in suggesting edits in cases of COI. I want to make sure that i don't offend anyone because it seems i may already have done so unwittingly. Thanks again Lilianarice (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It is actually OK to fix things like formatting. It is even OK to change content that is factual and noncontroversial (please judge "noncontroversial" carefully!). But you shouldn't edit the article beyond those very basic kinds of things. This is all described in WP:COI. I appreciate that your intentions are to follow policy and guidelines. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the formatting as discussed. Could you please review the page to see if the advertising tags can be removed? Thanks you Lilianarice (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hie, With all the edits that have been made on the Khalilah Rose page, can the flags placed for advertising please be removed? I have worked to clean it up and am not sure if there is a separate process for removing flags. Thanks Lilianarice (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lilianarice i went ahead and cleaned this up for you and removed the tags. Two words of advice. 1) Grow a thicker skin. There are editors in Wikipedia who truly hate paid editing and will be mean to you. LogicalCowboy's comment was crass and mean (and it shocked me too) but the sarcastic joke was on target. You need to recognize that almost everybody here is a volunteer, and it is pretty arrogant for you to create a crappy article for pay, and expect volunteers to help you with that. Do you see how that is somewhat exploitative? So you should expect people to be mean, and shrug it off when they are. Remain humble and focus on getting your job done. Which, at the end of the day, is to create an article that fits within Wikipedia's mission and complies with our policies and guidelines. 2) On that last bit - the article you wrote was pretty bad. Remember that everything in the article needs to have a reliable source. Try really really hard to write simply, without any "puffery", and make sure that the sources you provide can be checked (your use of "Jus Jah Magazine", while valid, is not smart, as no one can verify the source unless they buy it.. which no one is going to do... so the article will remain tagged and ugly. Do you see what i mean?). Understand that as a paid editor your work is going to be very scrutinized so make it easy for other editors to scrutinize you, and do high quality work so that you succeed. Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice. I really don't have a thick skin i am finding and i will work on keeping my edits and lines simple. It was never my expectation to put Wikipedia editors to work for my articles and in fact i'd be happy to do as many revisions as needed to get it right so no one is put to work. I just wasn't prepared for the vehement attack and repeated questions of what i am being paid. So when LogicalCowboy made his "joke" after asking me about my earnings, i was not able to see it as a joke at all. I will work on this though because the last thing i expected was to get into verbal fights and i would be happy to avoid it all in the future.Lilianarice (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

False accusation not AGF

Accusing an editor of edit warring without addressing the very valid concerns Semitransgenic _talk. 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is re-reverting without discussion. You deleted very well established sourcing. I reverted and asked you to discuss on Talk. You went ahead and deleted it again. That is absolutely edit warring. It doesn't violate 3RR but it is absolutely edit warring. It may be too long since you read WP:EDITWAR.Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

inaccurate, I did not delete again, I was deleting a second irrelevant cite, you reverted while I was in the middle of editing. Additionally, three reverts constitutes an edit war, in future please get this straight before having a hissy fit. Semitransgenic _talk. 02:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry but you are not understanding WP:EDITWAR correctly. It says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions," When you deleted the first time and I reverted, that is the time to stop and Talk. WP:BRD explains this too. You don't keep right on going, restoring your edit, and talk at the same time. You are now at 3 edits on that topic - one more and you break 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

and I'm sorry, but do you perhaps have ownership issues you need help with? You had an issue with the edit therefore the onus was on you to clearly state your objection at the outset, you failed to do this and instead reverted in a highly reactionary manner. You actually reverted a valid edit, without explanation, not once, but twice, I continued making improvements to the article and provided rational edit summaries for my actions; which were also further highlighted on the talk page. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

please read WP:BRD. you and i have had good interactions in the past and bad ones. i hope this one doesn't go south. this one is off to a bad start for sure... Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

BRD is clear: "BRD does not encourage reverting...be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." You are the editor who assumed bad faith, reverted, did not provide a specific reason ("hell no" wtf is that?), and did not raise on objection on the talk page (as you should have done) yet you are still justifying your actions? dude, get real, you got emotional and defensive, deal with it. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

you removed content that had been in the article for a long time and was there with solid consensus of the editors who watch the page and work on it. I reverted and asked you to discuss on talk. You went ahead and re-reverted. That is problematic and is edit warring. i followed your bad suit and re-re-reverted, and you went further into badness and re-re-re-reverted. I am not following your suit anymore since it is clear to me that you are committed to violating WP:EDITWAR and i am not going near 3RR, while you are clearly demanding that your version stand. I will let others revert you. Enough of this, hm? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Semitransgenic, Three reverts is the bright line specified at WP:WAR, but fewer can be the case too. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Continuing to revert without going to the talk page (or even reverting when you do go there) is edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

dude thanks for chipping in, but, with 3RR the editor who makes the initial revert is always first past the post, the notion being that it discourages the kind of behaviour JDog is engaging in (blocking constructive edits by accusing someone of edit warring). BRD is clear, bold edits are encouraged, reverts are not. The edits I made were valid, supported by community guidelines, and clearly explained in the summary; this cannot be said for the other editor. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You made the change, Jytdog reverted, and then it was time to discuss at the talk page if we're following WP:BRD. The Discussion part of that specifically says, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." You didn't do that and that's basically where edit warring begins with increasing degrees with more reverts. Probably best to drop the stick the edit warring bit, especially since there is discussion going on at the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comments - WikiCorrect-Health

Dear User talk:Jytdog, We are in no way would want to violate Wikipedia policies. Just following the recent US government guidelines on editing Wikipedia pages. I am from IMS Health and I have disclosed it in the profile page. I have submitted a username change as you have suggested. Thanks again for letting me know about the violation. Also, I have disclosed about my affiliation with a link to my company's website, and FDA guidelines which was published in 2014 for full transparency. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thanks.

--WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Erica Jensen-Jarolim

I don't see you commenting at the AfD. In my opinion you are gutting the article of material that is needed to demonstrate notability, and I also don't see the relevance of MEDRS in a bio - especially since you are also requiring the citations of her papers to be removed. Please speak to the issues in the ongoing discussion (where I have also referred to your edit summary demand for quotations and translations of the foreign-language source - now supplied). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

removed Decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement

removed content regarding "decreased risk"[edit] Removed the content regarding decreased suicide risk because the section read like a pharmaceutical company advertisement and was inappropriately in the wiki article regarding increased risk NOT decreased risk. Perhaps a new article should be started for this PHARMA advertisement? Maybe we have enough on television? In fact the information cited in the content I removed was from an article sponsored and with data SUPPLIED by the pharmaceutical industry. Here is the footnote from the very article the section cited and used.

"Additional Contributions: Data were supplied by the National Institute of Mental Health (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study), Wyeth, and Eli Lilly and Co.

Financial Disclosure: Dr Gibbons has served as an expert witness for . . ."Wyeth, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in cases related to antidepressants and anticonvulsants and suicide. Dr Brown directed a suicide prevention program at the University of South Florida that received funding from JDS Pharmaceuticals. Dr Mann has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.173 (talk) (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied on the article Talk page already, here: Talk:Antidepressants_and_suicide_risk#Antidepressants_decrease_suicide_risk_section_should_be_removed_completely. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Jytdog. An user has expressed concerns about the lead of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing what was summarized by you. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Request re: COI section title

Hi Jytdog. Would you mind deleting the words "making legal threats" from this title, since I demonstrably did not make legal threats, and since legal threats are not the purview of the COI policy pages? Thanks The title as it stands now: "Sean J Savage editor making legal threats and editing about a family member" Seanjsavage (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Carmine Miranda

On the case of the page Carmine Miranda Thank you for the note on my page. I only ended up editing it because another user John Nagle changed the words i suggested and wrote that Carmine came last in a competition and that his award was the lowest. This was not true or well researched so i raised it to his attention but nothing was done. So i figured that i'd make the fix and wait for another editor to review it. The other edit i made was adding the new album record. I thought this at least would not be contentious since it is as factual as it gets. I have requested several edits on the talk page but only a few have been implemented as yet. So i am stumped as to how i can get this done. Is it possible i could get approval to make the edits then have them reviewed? This way it is not like i'm putting the Wikipedia editors to work for nothing when i am getting paid for the article.Lilianarice (talk)

Ezetimibe

With respect to your recent edits at Ezetimibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Six-year_study.2C_reported_at_the_annual_meeting_of_the_American_Heart_Association User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate threats.

Please see my response to you on my talk page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

warnings are not threats. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Olive branch

    I'll extend the olive branch.
    Thanks for the spotting the horse. Graham Beards (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's good to be wrong!

So glad this Rolfing article was not deleted. A lot of people put a lot of work into it. I will check the dates in the future so that I don't make the same mistake twice. Thank you for being so gracious about my mistake.

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

everybody makes them! thanks for graciously accepting. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Pack it in. You know what you are doing is edit warring. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

the reference to UCS has been there a very long time. You deleted it, I restored it. We are discussing it - that is all good, per WP:BRD. You just went and deleted it again. that is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No reply

Nikthestunned is not replying on talkpage and he is saying on his talkpage that he is not interested to discuss and still he does not like this draft. If lock will expire can you keep check that no one revises page without talking? What is the use of debate if he will revise it after lock is expired? --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

i have already described my intentions on the Talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is revised under lock. Now what? Is it possible to copy paste if no one is interested to debate? --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

it seems to me that you agreed with some of the critiques of your edits. why don't you edit the draft article on the Talk page to reflect what you would like to do, when the article is unlocked? Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I will try today. I am inviting every one on wikipedia to help to help me make corrections in draft. Thank you for your help. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have deleted RFC but I have asked for help on help desk. Neutral editors need to see my work and tell me to correct. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

you are just ignoring me. nobody knows what you would implement, if you were free to do whatever you like. show them. edit the version on the Talk page according to the criticism you have already gotten, and ask for feedback on the result! Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will try one time more. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am trying to change it but it may get deadlock with nikthestunned. Is mediation better or dispute resolution noticeboard? Some users are still treating me like conflict of interest I want to avoid malformmed dispute again. I deleted rfc in good faith. Thank you for your help. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

i looked at what is going on, at the Talk page. it's a mess. to be frank, neither you nor nikthestunned seem to understand how WP operates.... and it is just a messy tangle. i may wade in there and just fix it. but you need to start writing much much shorter and more focused comments. try to address one single issue at a time, resolve whatever disagreement there is, and move to the next one. addressing four things simultaneously just leads to confusion. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice request

Ahoy Jytdog. You recently advised me, re: the Gary Hart talk page: "If the page starts going out of whack you can get more eyeballs on the issue by starting an RfC or using other dispute resolution tools but please keep your own nose clean on the COI issues."

(Reminder: I have a stated family connection to one of the journalists involved in the Hart coverage.)

I think any dispassionate third party editor will agree that the page has, indeed, "started going out of whack.

In following your advice I've read up on the dispute resolution options and an RfC does sound like a good option. I think it would clearly fall under "pol|media|bio." But I'm overwhelmed as to which neutral claim/request to make. To "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct" I need to choose from a LOT of issues going on here: controversial unsourced claims being posted, personal attacks, POV policy violations, potential sock puppeting, fringe beliefs, etc. In a nutshell: Dispassionate eyeballs on the page will spot multiple issues. (Slightly larger nutshell: There are several edit requests I posted that, IMHO, seem objectively legit, and editors are posting responses to them that don't directly address the actual claims but go off on one or several of the tangents above.)

What would you recommend using as an RfC statement that would make this most efficient and waste the fewest editors' time? Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

i've been glancing over the activity there and have been weighing options. There are indeed many things going on! Please remember that there is no deadline - we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. If you want to get an RfC moving, select the most important thing to you, and draft an RfC statement and post it on Talk, and ask the editors on other sides if they think it is a neutral representation of the issue. Once you come to agreement on that (which in itself can get tangled... but editors really working in good faith can usually agree on what they are disagreeing about!) then actually post it as an RfC. I will weigh in on the many issues eventually! (this weekend most likely) Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll trust your final recommendation, but riddle me this: If I, as just one person, am having trouble deciding which single lower-level issue to focus on, and ESPECIALLY if the overriding issue is that, so far, each of the straightforward edit suggestions triggered a hornet's nest of vitriolic opposition that fits the many classifications listed above, I suspect that asking the emotionally-invested parties to help decide on which issue to focus for an RfC request will further confuse that thicket rather than streamline and resolve it. If the currently active Hart editors can't agree on whether a citation that says "X is clearly impossible" can be used to support the claim "X is true," I think we need to get this set of disputes out of the just the hands of the parties so close to it (mine included), and place them before more distanced, neutral eyeballs, which is the point of RfC, no? Having considered that – if you still think the best route forward is to turn to the Hart page editors for a decision on what flavor RfC to submit – how would you word that proposal to the Hart page editors? And: Am I the right person to do that? Thanks for your time and consideration with this. Seanjsavage (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

as you can perhaps tell I am wading through the section of the article on his 1988 run now. maybe some of these issues will be resolved when i am done. i still need to go and re-read what you all are arguing about and see if it matters anymore.. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the much-needed TLC you have provided the Gary Hart article. I don't know how you work so fast, but it's already in much better shape. Seanjsavage (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Heh, I'm amused that I added that rationale after reading User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. "It's important because it's a source of health information" seems rather bland and uncompelling, if the real reason is that we don't want people to get hurt. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

yep i do think that "we don't want people to get hurt" is too far. But please do open a discussion at WT:MEDRS. Others might agree with you! Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I just opened it, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Privs

Hi Jyt - I went ahead and granted you autopatrolled and reviewer, since looking at your contribs I see no reason why you couldn't be trusted with either. Admittedly, neither is a parituclarly big deal. I also went ahead and extended the semiprotection at Gary Hart since the IP's post on my talk page indicated that it's unlikely they will desist anytime soon. I'll keep an eye on the page and block any autoconfirmed socks they end up using as well. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Easily justified changes for a respected editor. I have no idea what Jytdog aspires to, but he sets a great example here. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks very much Kevin, and thanks for your kind words, Roxy! Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet

Hi Jytdog, I'm checking if you saw my last message on the South Beach Diet Talk page. I know your back-and-forth with LaMona didn't quite resolve last week, but I'm hoping to still move forward with some new changes to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

image for Synthetic biology

Dear Jytdog, Can you convince Drbogdan that the below was a good faith edit? It's time we had a photo on this web site!

Synthetic biology

Please explain why you undid my posting of an existing Wikipedia photo on a 2nd Wikipedia web site (synthetic biology, which presently lacks any photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.144 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - yes, the iGEM image edit was reverted - as noted in my edit summary => "Rv possibly good faith ip edit - per WP:PROMO, WP:BRD & related." - image may be ok in the relevant iGEM article - but - may seem like WP:PROMO (and/or WP:SPAM?) on the Synthetic biology article - such a use is discouraged on Wikipedia of course - you may wish to discuss this further on the related talk page at Talk:Synthetic biology - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(above is what poster copy/pasted here Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.216 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 November 2014(UTC)

i think drbogdan's judgement was spot on. you need a better image. also, it's about time you created an account, isn't it? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Diego Grez

Thanks for undoing the deletion by Diego Grez (talk · contribs). That account went on a revert spree. It's now blocked, assumed to be a password compromise. John Nagle (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

yer welcome! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys about that, these reverts were accidental --Diego Grez (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you break off discussions, I will be forced to go to WP:AN/I for removal of sourced material from multiple articles. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss things on article Talk pages; I responded to you at the GSK article just a few minutes ago. There is no deadline and nobody is at their computer 24/7, so keep your pants on. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You made a comment on my talk page "I am not responding further". I understand no one is at the computer 24/7. In 40 minutes I will be watching the Blackhawks. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ON YOUR TALK PAGE. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have been more clear. YELLING doesnt help. AlbinoFerret 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

MDMA

Your third opinion is requested on the question "is MDMA neurotoxic". We have agreed that you would be a knowledgable and neutral third party, and respectfully request your input. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS

What are your plans for carrying through on the MEDRS discussion? I thought that we had gotten a reasonable consensus to use treatment guidelines first with the caveat that Cochrane's views would be noted when out of the majority. Then we moved into a discussion of whether Cochrane has any place at all in identifying scientific consensus, and though there were some good arguments here, participation in that discussion was low precluding formation of a compelling consensus. I recommend that we go back and add the "Treatment guidelines are the preeminent source for sceintific consensus, but note Cochrane's dissent when it occurs" wording that seemed to be closest to the consensus when participation in the conversation was active, and add it to MEDRS. I often think Cochrane is a little out there and I see your points, but simply moving away from quoting Cochrane in Wikipedia's voice in every drug article seems to me like it would be a major improvement over what we have now. I'd like to do something that would not be immediately reverted. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... i will write over there. are you OK with the language i proposed about "metanalyses, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration? Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too particular. My issue is that we should not quote the opinions of a handful of authors who speak only for themselves in wikipedias voice when we have guidelines written by panels selected for their expertise and endorsed by recognized medical organizations. Esp. when the forMer contradict the latter. Anything that reduces this and can gain generall support works for me.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ok, i took a shot at implementing it. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I will now contact admins of your behavior to settle this.

Your recent editing history at Organic_farming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.