User talk:Jytdog/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Clarification

OK I want to understand where you are coming from here (and I appreciate your fast response to the original proposals). Harold asks to change something so I provide evidence to say why not? I'm happy just to leave stuff if he makes no citations. But I confined myself to facts there with no commentary. I made no comment on his motivations but restricted myself to facts. He is also using the page to make statements based on his opinion, so if you are going to strike my response you should really strike his original statement as well :-) I did my best on his german equivalent to go and find a source for him to help so I think you are being a little harsh with your edit summary there ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondly do you think it is legitimate to use social media to get people to contribute to the page? A tweet from Harold this morning asked for contributions. He used the #Cynefin hashtag so it will go to people outside his circle. However my policy has been not to use social media in an wikipedia edit conflict. Not sure if there is a policy here or not. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, confine yourself to facts that have sources. you, in particularly, need to rigorous. no it is not valid to summon people to WP pages. thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing my best here :-) I have a minor concern that Harold's accusation on Cynthia's involvement (a major part of his off wiki campaign) is being allowed to stand without a response. I'll live with it but it is a concern. Otherwise I'm going to hold off any edit requests for several weeks until things calm down. I had not realised how fast you would be on the monitoring or I might just have left it anyway ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With you, appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

we'll see. what i want to see is behavior aimed toward improving Wikipedia. Not toward furthering your personal interests or toward pursuing your dispute with Harold. Rigor. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as possible I ignore him and I don't respond off wiki if he tries. On wiki it's about reputation so I have responded to changes he has attempted to make, The COI policy as it is being implemented seems to handle the sort of hits that both Cynefin and Dave Snowden article have being subject too over the years. Hopefully I can spend my time monitoring the various Philosophy and Political sites in which I am active. I've got some ideas on COI but I'll leave that for a week or so ----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gents. Yes I used twitter to get more people involved as I think that would help. More diversity = more experience. I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/status/607707402151043072. It that is not done, I'm sorry. If its OK, please tell me.

Re Campaign, Where do I accuse anyone? Where am I campaigning?Hvgard (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes some person is picking one edit i make every day and tweeting it under the handle "industry lapdog". whatever. Hvgard do not canvass' and please read the warning on your userpage about that. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and Hvgard since you have acknowledged that are tweeting about this, i looked, and you have been tweeting about your dispute with dave for a while now, well before today. It appears to be a straight up lie, to say that you were inspired to tweet about this by the "industrylapdog" tweet. You just lost a lot of good will with me.

The tweeting is completely out of bounds. Please strike your claim to have tweeted about this only because of the industrylapdog tweet, and tell me that you will stop tweeting about this. I will also tell you that, I will be watching your twitter feed now, and the next time you tweet about this dispute in Wikipedia, I will seek a topic ban. You need to restrain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just tweeting on was happening here, getting people aware of the edits so that other start to help too. I can't remember I tweeted about wikipedia before. Anyway I wont tweet again about wikipedia Cynefin edits if that considered out of bounds. Hvgard (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good response with regard to what appears to me to be a lie. Whatever. But yes it is out of bounds to tweet about your disputes. I told you it is and provided you the link to the guideline. There is no "if". Don't do it going forward. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What did I lie about? Please point me to where and what. Ofcourse I have ve exchanges on twitter and other social media with many people I agree with or partly or not on many subjects including this one. To my best knowledge the tweet I sent yesterday was the first I sent about Cynefin wikipedia edits ever. I did it in good faith. Now know better, it won't happen again.Hvgard (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your post above says: " I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog..." You were already tweeting about the content dispute before yesterday. June 2 Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. OK. So two. Understood. Hvgard (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your (rather silly) intervention on the'Peter Hitchens' entry

I replied on the Talk page (of the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) to your attempt to make a controversy about the fact that I sometimes(quite openly and under my own name ) make minor factual adjustments to the Wikipedia entry about me, adjustments which I am in a unique position to make. Anybody's welcome to challenge them if they know better than I such things as my late father's naval rank and position.

I am the only person who has responded to your intervention. Everyone else seems uninterested and unhorrified by my behaviour, as is only reasonable. Your attempt to suggest that there is something naughty going on has met with no other response of any kind. Do you think you might therefore take steps to remove the misleading label on the entry which suggests(quite wrongly() that I have been making illegitimate and underhand alterations? If you won't, can you please tell me to whom I can appeal, and how? My computer skills are limited. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the work of cleaning up after conflicted editors is tedious - those tags sometimes remain a long time. you will notice that no one immediately rose up to take it off, which is what folks do when find they tag inapt or silly. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough

It would appear I am now a target of a particular editor because of the comments I made at AN regarding her here [1] and at AN/I before that [2]. The shit-stirring by her can be seen here [3]. A kind, gentle, Wiki-love bestowing grandmother who has been totally misunderstood and just wants Wiki-peace... Sure. Whatever. I thought you and Flyer22 would both be interested in the latest development of this continuing saga. Ugh. it shows, in my opinion, that her behavior hasn't changed, it's just been transferred to someone else. I have left the following at her talk page. Hopefully, it will quell any further attempts on her part to poison the well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view that post on the user's Talk page basically denies that she did anything wrong and may run against whatever agreement she established with KevinGorman. I am not an admin. I suggest you bring that to Kevin's Talk page. If he is not around, I recommend you post to AN. Sorry about that.Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For working to keep coverage of medical and nutrition articles neutral with POV-pushers coming both from pro-industry and anti-industry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Interventional radiology

Hi - first time user - let's see if I got this right. You pulled my additions to Interventional Radiology - I think based on a lack of citation which I have since added. I have several more articles to write but want to get my first Wikipedia contribution correct. I think the content is valuable and directly relates to the history already posted. Regards, Chuckd105 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

we should discuss on the article Talk page, not here. I will open the discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You responded to me on my user talk page and asked me to reply. I did add more information, but not sure how to "reply". How will you know that I answered/ Chuckd105 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

I am "watching" your page so I saw your reply. Have just been busy - I will reply there later today. Thanks for following up! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice from you

Hi, the talk comment below was just reverted by Snowded. Can you point out where I should have made this suggestion? My talk page, the Cynefin talk page, your talk page, Snowded talk page, elsewhere? Please help me out. Thanks:

There are existing and past relationships between all involved and mentioned here and others that historically contributed. That is why its important to find independent sources, which might be difficult. One way forward seems to me to focus - in the interest of readers - on facts about the model independent on "who contributed what Hvgard (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Editors have a right to delete entire comments from their own talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK. While I cannot see that he has banned you from his own Talk page (which editors also have the right to do) I suggest you avoid posting there. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from Personal Attacks at "Genetically modified food" talk page

Please refrain from personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. here Focus on content not editors. David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

once again, you are complaining but have no idea what you are talking about. Please actually read WP:SPA, especially the last paragraphs. Please then look at Grayduck's contribs, and then yours. It is descriptive. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I second David's motion. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

two WP:SPA advocates. oy. i have tried and tried and talk with both of you about what it means to be WP:HERE, but WP:IDHT is the order of the day, apparently. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "two WP:SPA advocates. oy." Do you see here how you are commenting on editors and not content? Your opinion may be based on editors' contributions, but you are still commenting on people. This violates Wikipedia's no-personal-attacks policy, which says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• User:David Tornheim and Haptic-feedback, it's absurd, not to mention silly, to make accusations like you have done above without offering any diffs or other indications of what edits on Talk:Genetically modified food you're referring to. In fact, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are themselves considered to be personal attacks, so please provide diffs or withdraw your accusations. On a quick read of the talkpage, I don't see these claimed personal attacks, but then Jytdog has edited it a lot, so I may have missed them. That is one of the reasons why you should provide examples: so that an uninvolved admin can warn or block Jytdog if your accusations are true. (And can warn you if they're not.) Bishonen | talk 23:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: David did not make any accusations. He only requested that Jytdog refrain from some behaviour. He did, however, provide a "diff". I seconded his motion because I saw that, in Jytdog's edit, he focused on editors and not content, which David asked him not to do, and because Jytdog has made similar comments about me.

I myself made made an accusation, but I clearly quoted Jytdog.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: ^Above Haptic-feedback is correct that I did provide the diff. FYI. I have never encountered Haptic-feedback in any articles, talk pages, etc. to my memory. David Tornheim (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential COI issues

Thank you for your comments. Everything said was strictly neutral POV, cited to peer review journal, and without any self advertisement. The WP articles you cited appear to recognize that as OK. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please abide by the spirit and letter of COI, and please make sure you abide by the spirit and letter of our core content polices that forbid Original research, require verification with reliable sources, and require that content be appropriately contextualized to present views according to their weight and use in a given field. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to argue your POV - that is what law journals and blogs are for. We love experts, but please be mindful of our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Email

Sent per the discussion on my talk page. Risker (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actavis/Allergan

Jytdog,

I am reaching out because you have recently edited the Actavis, Allergan or a similar company’s page, and would like your help. Actavis made the announcement this morning that they are transitioning to the Allergan name effective today.

See the press release here http://www.allergan.com/news/news/thomson-reuters/actavis-plc-is-now-allergan-plc.

We would like to redirect the current Actavis page to the Allergan page, and merge the content found on both.

We’d appreciate your help in vetting the edits we submit and ensuring that our changes meet Wikipedia community guidelines and standards. We plan to start the migration today.

Appreciate your help.

LANEYC (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)LaneyC

I'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gastroschisis

Hey Jytdog-- I'm new to the wiki editing process. I am a current medical student working at Children's Hospital of Illinois. My supervisor is Dr. Edmund Yang, a highly respected voice on gastroschisis. I have attempted to add a snippet to the article about the correlations between spontaneous onset of labor and length of stay. I am aware that this info does not come from a review article, but the editing rules also allow for highly respected opinions outside of review articles, which I believe is a category Dr. Yang falls into. Let me know what I am missing here. Illini0910 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article Talk page. You also have a conflict of interest here. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS. Seriously, WT? THIS is blatant policy violation and disruptive, and subsequent edits mean I can't undo it easily. Elvey^(t•c) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Had to roll back 8 of your edits to undo your edit to my comment. Seriously, STOP with this revert warring and engage in discussion.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

this was an accident and i thought i self-reverted that right away. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For note, Elvey it was unnecessary to rollback those edits like that. A copy-paste was all it took to restore it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Addressed here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kaiser_Permanente. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie

Can't remember the exact process by which I just ended up reading through talk pages from WikiProject Food and drink and two now-blanked user talk pages from back in April. I know it didn't end well, but you did an amazing job all around. Have two, they're small.

valereee (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an awkward and kind of sad situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Total Reverting

Jyt, if you feel there is a problem, why don't you just {Cn} and, if necessary, send a message that you'll delete if not Cn within a few days? Why just shoot from the hip or nuke? Almost all of the deleted material is in the WP article on the case or in US Reports for the case. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not about me "feeling" there is a problem. The content you added violated two fundamental content policies - WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Unverified original research has no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not OR. It is just repeating what the S Ct said in US Reports. The current ref cites support ( verify) every statement. How can you say it is unverified OR? PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

your edit had no sources. now that another editor has added refs and it has been further worked over, it is fine. Please be careful to source everything you add to WP - ideally to secondary, independent sources. That is what we do here. Again, please read WP:EXPERT - you don't seem to understand what we are about here. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It was fine to begin with, the problem started when you reverted sourced material. He did in fact source it, to the SCOTUS case, which is allowed, and then you took it all out. GregJackP Boomer! 18:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The content is fine now.Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

btw GregJackP you seem to have taken some kind of personal disliking to me. People feel how they feel, but please don't be disruptive. Thanks. (I would have written this on your Talk page but I believe you barred me) Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User Talk pages are places to discuss contributors. I am sorry you are holding a grudge against me. We managed to work things out on that article about resisting arrest. I forgot all about it. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor

Is putting us through hell. Looking at his talk page I see you have already warned him about policy and disregard of it and he does not respond positively. Any help you can give to reign that guy in is appreciated because nothing is working on this talk page Zeitgeist film series an example [4]. He does not seem to take positive or critical feedback in a good way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you are going through a difficult time. I am not interested in getting involved. Please remember to use WP:DR - when you bring things to the community these kinds of tangles can untangle some. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In use template

Is there a reason that you ignored the "In use" template that was in place while I was adding material and references to Bowman v. Monsanto Co.? It was in place 10 minutes prior to your edit and caused an edit conflict. Can you give me a reason that I should not take you to AN/I for disruptive editing? GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

COI and user:Patient 32

Could I assist here? This is a new user who does not understand the nuances of Wikipedia. I have been here a while and even I am having difficulty understanding your concern.

I have provided some training to this person to contribute to Wikipedia. I often work with community activists by providing Wikipedia training generally. It would be helpful to me if I knew how to better comply with Wikipedia community policy.

Which part of WP:COI applies in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

in the case of Cleveland Clinic specifically, that user's intensity about negative ratings led me to wonder if he had some relationship with the clinic that was negative. I asked him on his talk page, and he said he did. quite strongly too. Per WP:COI, the essence of a COI is an external relationship that may cause bias when you edit WP. I think it is reasonable to say that he has an external relationship with the clinic that may cause him to be biased when writing about the Clinic. Does that make sense? To the extent that he wants to work on patient safety issues in other articles, he is going to have to be mindful of his intensity on these issues or he is going to get into all kinds of trouble (WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NPOV primarily) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand you.

I fail to see the connection between this person's personal life and passion and the concept of COI. I also fail to see the part of WP:COI which applies to this case. I think you would agree with me that a typical COI involves money, and I think you would agree that money is not a concern in this instance. How would you feel about adding the following statement to WP:COI to make this more clear? Perhaps put this as a subsection in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Other_categories_of_conflict_of_interest -

===COI due to passion===

If you have strong emotions about a topic then you have a COI regarding that topic. Strong emotions can be a result of an extremely positive or negative experience, and may encourage you to share information on Wikipedia as a form of activism. The Wikipedia community discourages this, and says that people who do this have a COI.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know when the last was, that you read WP:ADVOCACY but it makes it clear that there is a thin line between COI and Advocacy. They are hard to tell apart when just looking at edits. I wouldn't agree to that draft language you propose... but i have been thinking that it might make sense to have language about being in a real world dispute with someone or something, as negative passion - disputes - are somehow weightier.... but let's put that on hold for a minute.

SlimVirgin thinks a lot about COI issues, and in ways that I don't sometimes. She would be a good independent voice here. Slim, briefly -- there is a new editor who was at a meeting where Bluerasberry was teaching folks about WP and who got interested in getting involved with WP. The new editor is retired and works with a patient safety advocacy organization. He was a patient at the Cleveland Clinic and was badly hurt there, which is what led him to work with that organization. And sure enough, the Cleveland Clinic article is the first article he went for here, and went right for their patient safety ratings, with passion. In my view, this editor has an external relationship with the Clinic that constitutes a COI, because that is the place that hurt him. That editor will have Advocacy (not COI) issues on articles about other clinics and about articles that touch on patient safety issues. So it is only on the Cleveland Clinic article that I would want him to restrict himself to the Talk page. I understand that others might see that differently. What are your thoughts on this, SV? thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on that SlimVirgin. Please see Bluerasberry's suggestion above for a tweak to COI. What do you think about that, or perhaps something more specific about "negative passion" or better "real world disputes" that are not necessarily financial? We already discuss litigation (which is clearly a dispute and clearly financial) but i mean something that would address situations like the farmers at [Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Sugar_Mountain_Farm|the Sugar Mountain Farm COIN case]] who just hate each other in the RW, or the andrew west COIN case where it turned out that the editor who brought the case had a RW beef with andrew west and was using COIN to attack him; the guy who brought the case realized his COI when we brought that to his attention. what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't support the language about strong feelings, because that takes us back to POV. COI is a separate concept. There needn't be any strong emotion. It is about roles and relationships that give rise to a tendency to bias and/or the perception thereof. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with that. Let me ask a different way. Where in WP:COI to find you find an explanation of why Patient32 has a COI? I pointed to "external relationship" but that was as much as I could do, and bluerasberry, whom I respect a lot, didn't see it. But you and I did. How do we make that easier for folks? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Yes, this is my biggest concern. SlimVirgin I would appreciate your continued thoughts in this direction. My chief worry here is that both of you are coming to the same conclusion, yet I see no basis for that conclusion in WP:COI. I would like for a statement to be in COI such that whenever this issue arises (and I am assuming that this arises frequently) then rather than rely on a personal explanation users can be WP:LINKED to the explanation.

Whenever possible I wish to prevent misunderstanding rather than correct it. I still feel that this person is in a grey area - he is getting a lot of scrutiny for posting editing discussion on the talk page and I had hoped that the talk page would be a safe place to begin a practical discussion for developing the article without him first having to go through a lot of policy discussion, and certainly not for him to have to learn nuance of ambiguous or incompletely written policies. After seeing what Jytdog says I have a new perspective on this but still I would like to go forward showing a rule in Wikipedia space and not a special interpretation for this common and routine case.

My expectation is that my views will match yours but still, I would like to see an applicable rule written in a policy page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lane, I like Michael Davis's description of COI as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Imagine you have a piece of measuring equipment, and you need to make not only an accurate measurement, but a reliable one, one that other people can trust (say, a court or a scientific study). Then you find that a small stone has fallen into the machine. Is the stone affecting the measurements? Perhaps not, but it is clear that the equipment is no longer reliable. To continue using it, we would constantly have to check its results against other machines.

So it is with a conflicted editor. Their edits may be fine, but it's hard to tell with a complex issue. What matters is that they can't be relied upon to make neutral edits. People with a COI tend to think their judgment is not impaired, and they are much less likely than other editors to change their minds about an issue, especially when the COI is financial.

As for which part of COI to direct that editor to, the section about campaigning might be appropriate, depending on his circumstances: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest." But we don't address the issue of people who have had bad experiences with organizations. We have something like that in BLP, but there has always been resistance to extending it to groups, because of the danger of it being abused. If we were to add something to COI it would have to be worded extremely carefully. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Here are some reasons why I object to this:

• In practically all contexts except Wikipedia and philosophy, "conflict of interest" is a technical term and it is reserved for use in financial contexts. Many people sign COI statements with their employers, and many people have questions, but so far as I know, the precedent everywhere is to report ties to money and not personal interest.
• Even Wikipedia itself does not revise this definition of conflict of interest and say that it is something more than finance.
• I am not sure that COI policies should apply so strongly in this case anyway. We have a new user presenting plausible sources to cite on the talk page and asking how content can be integrated into the article. This seems like WP:BRIGHTLINE, which even though that is not a fully supported policy, I thought it was enough in most cases to begin a conversation. I want to follow the rules because COI is being discussed regarding this editor then I myself have a COI as I am paid to give wiki-training to this sort of editor, and particularly so because they requested it through my organization.

I am still thinking this through. Some part of this seems unusual to me. Modifying the below text to change COI policy might be a good way to address this case and resolve future problems.

Thanks for talking this through with me - I want to teach best practices to everyone I encounter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lane, COI involving personal or other non-financial connections is not uncommon. For example, there was a fuss in the UK last year [5] when the government appointed a judge to head an inquiry into a child-abuse scandal involving former civil servants and politicians. The judge had to stand down because of COI when newspapers reported that her brother had been the attorney general during the period in which a decision had been made not to prosecute the individuals. She might have done a fine job chairing the inquiry, but public confidence in it would have been undermined by her close personal connection.

Similarly, Patient 32 wouldn't want the WP article about the Cleveland Clinic to be written by the CEO's daughter. People understand why COI is objectionable when they're negatively affected by it, but when they have a COI themselves they often can't see it, or they're convinced that it won't affect their judgment.

Patient 32's edits may be fine, but he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved. I see some primary sources in his contribs, for example, so that would have to be sorted out. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

SlimVirgin "he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved" This is what I want also, and this is what I will direct this person to do. If COI editors can post suggestions to the talk page then I am happy. I think I misunderstood something here, because I think we are in agreement that posting to the talk page is the norm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

Here is WP:BLPCOI, very lightly edited and with the footnote defining COI left off.

Using Wikipedia BLPs to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization individual, should not edit that organization's article person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Would you support the change of this text as a step in the right direction? If Jytdog made the changes and you supported it then I think that would help to match current written policy with the actual practices which are probably enacted on Wikipedia.

I do not follow the omission of "political, social, literary, scholarly", unless it is just to make the statement more concise. It seems to me that those kinds of disputes could apply with organizations as well as BLPs.

Treating organizations with BLP policy seems to me to be what the Wikipedia community does anyway, and I like the idea of combining policies so that the basic idea applies in all comparable situations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

removed the strike. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I can't tell what the text says; some of the striking seems to leave part of it dangling. Can you post it without the striking, i.e. as you're proposing it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

clean version below. just a draft of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Parts of it won't work because copied from the BLP policy. So "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki ..." The passage would mean that a company need only arrive and declare a dispute to force editors to stop editing its article.

I could perhaps support something like: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a dispute with an organization off-wiki should not edit material about that organization, given the conflict of interest."

But we would have to build in something to make clear that it's off-wiki only, to stop the scenario above. And even then I'm not sure. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

how is this?

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

---

This is fine with me if it can actually be incorporated somewhere. This strikes me as unlikely to pass because of "other material about that organization" seems like an injunction against editing the talk page, and I thought that was a safe space for people with a COI to edit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

---

revised to address Bluerasberry's comment above - yes editors with a COI can discuss on Talk pages! SlimVirgin your thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

here is another example of an editor whom I would say has a COI with respect to perceived harm from an organization. Right? Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

@Jytdog:Comment: I got here via the Cleveland Clinic Talk page, following the thought thread, and reviewed things here. Here is a brief comment -

The background situation engenders my sympathy.

The proposed language uses the present verbal tense only, but I would have thought given human nature that inclusion of previous significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization should be considered for inclusion. Previous conflict (only - because all present situations are always problematic, not least for the editor themselves viz-a-viz the situation's outcome, while previous situations may sometimes take on a less significant shade over time for both/all parties) might be qualified as pertaining to "significant". So I suggest:

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is presently involved in any off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who has previously had a significant controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest.

If both changes makes things too layered, the mention of "previous" is the mainstay of what I'd suggest (and "significant" could I suppose be acceptable for both present and past). FeatherPluma (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks!

Drjobrout (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

How on earth can a list of award winners be considered "promotional" ???? Virtually all lists of award winners come from the websites of the awarding organisations.Plucas58 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been a boatload of COI editing on that article, so we scrutinize it more. In general for something to be noteworthy enough to be given weight in WP there should be independent sources discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Amir Alexander

So, the weirdest thing. I put a PROD tag at Amir Alexander (entirely unref'd BLP). A new user Amiralexander removed the tag and has been editing it like crazy for several hours. That's not the weird thing though. His talk page says that he is a sockpuppet ?!? Take a look. [[6]] Definitely COI, but also a sock? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It was an IP that posted the sockpuppet accusation, not Amir himself. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that [[7]] either is Amir, or is the sockpuppet, or knows Amir well. The PROD notification went only to Tkuvho yet the immediate response was from Amir. Capitalismojo (talk)

(talk page stalker)Have asked Amiralexander to clarify his identity. We can go from there with either COI procedure or shutting the account down as an impersonator. Let's remember to AGF and the guy hasn't even been welcomed yet or informed of basic policies. — Brianhe (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, he posted to his userpage, it does appear to be Mr. Alexander, the UCLA historian and author. Jytdog, could you send him one of your special tailored expert-retention welcome COI messages? — Brianhe (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your continuing good works! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Carbamazepine vs. Oxcarbazepine

(First off, if you truly believe they shouldn't mention each other, then I'm truly OK with that).

I believe that the comparison between Carbamazepine and Oxcarbazepine should be noted on their respective pages. First off, ANY doctor who prescribes Oxcarbazepine knows that it's a structural derivative of Carbamazepine. Second, they're both marketed by Novartis. Anybody involved in either the use or endorsement of Trileptal knows VERY well that it was designed as an improvement of Tegretol. That's all I've got to say about that. IAMGOOMBA (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

if found your edits to be so strange. why are you adding to content to articles about health, with no sourcing, much less lacking MEDRS sourcing? And so seriously too. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Kirshner

Hi,

Why did you flag Ben Kirshner's page for deletion? He is notable, I was also in the process of adding more references when your edits conflicted with mine.Tonyeny (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi I didn't flag it for deletion. Our messages to each crossed in the ether - please see the note I just left for you on your Talk page. You can reply there, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

COI

I thought you may have an interest in this discussion. I sympathise with the editor's position, but don't feel it is within policy for me to follow his suggestions for article-space editing. I think a middle-ground could probably be found that would make everyone comfortable. Seemed up your alley. CorporateM (Talk) 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indents

Indentation confusion strikes again: This was mostly in reply to another editor. I believe that you and I have very similar views about the problems with those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks! i think we do too. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M-150 (energy drink). 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 Wikipedia'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. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Message understood. From now on, I'll simply modify contributions and delete anything I don't like as you do. Any decent editor would have started a conversation and then waited a while given the slow traffic on the M-150 (energy drink) page. Rdavout (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you should refresh your memory with this: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule. We have both lost already a few minutes too many of our lives in what I believe is a lack of understanding of this policy and Wikipedia:Content_removal. Better understanding of Wikipedia is an investment in better editors on the long-term right? Rdavout (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

please do read WP:VERIFY. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Acenocoumarol

Hi, I noticed you removed some of the brand name information in the lede paragraph of the drug Acenocoumarol. I also noticed that there are still redirects from these other brand names to this article, which seems appropriate, of course (since they are alternate names for the drug). I am a little concerned that people searching on these other terms will end up being redirected to this article but then will be like, "Woah, so is this the drug I mean? I don't see my search term here anywhere on this page!" This is one of the reasons that we often put alternate names for subjects in bold font in the lede paragraphs of their articles, so that people will know where they've ended up (and that where they've ended up is the right place). A link to an external site that lists all these names does not really do that. So I am curious as to your thinking here, and then as to your thoughts on the practicality of the redirects. Thoughts? KDS4444^Talk 22:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

for generic drugs, names of drugs became spam-magnets. i generally remove them and just provide a link to drugs.com where the whole laundrylist of names can be found - when I remove the list i always include that link, exactly for the reason you say! if a drug is still on patent i think it makes sense to include the brand name, and i think it makes sense to keep the original brandname after it goes generic... but after that it seems to me we have no justification for barring any if we allow some.... that's my thinking anyway. if that doesn't make sense we discussion at WT:MED - others may think as you do and prefer to keep them. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And I am not at all certain what is best here myself. Some things about Wikipedia I do with great confidence! This particular thing is... not one of them. Maybe a discussion at WT:MED, as you mentioned, is a good idea. Care to join me in starting one? KDS4444^Talk 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

done! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

COI

Hello, I thought you may have an interest in this col case of user Sedai2014 who admitted to be a supporter of this facebook campaign SEDIA see here diff. User created 3 pages related to the facebook campaign they are Discrimination in education in Norway, Hamideh Kaffash and Discrimination in education. a sockpuppet investigation is also going on see here. If you are interested please check them. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

my goodness, that is quite a mess. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fringe

I brought this here because I didn't want to repeat myself. Do you think I have some sort of ulterior motive here? The current definition says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."

Do you agree that this includes any theory that is significantly different from the leading theory? If so (and it seems quite obvious), why would you want to slap the fringe label on all but the leading theories? This seems like a very straightforward question. Do you think that addition of the words "and is insignificant or irrelevant according to the prevailing or mainstream view" makes the definition too narrow? You gave no indication in your edit summary. I can move these questions back to the other talk page, if you would like, but maybe it would be okay to have this side-conversation here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

no i do not think you have an ulterior motive. happy to keep talking with others at WT:FRINGE Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit - Matthias Hentze

Dear Jytdog, Just wanted to check with you if you had time to look at my updated references so that (hopefully, eventually) some of the disclaimers on the page may be removed. If you found time to take a look anytime this week, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you Princessella123 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Clade diagrams

Hi, the sources are in the above prose on each section - do the cladograms still need them? Only it seems like useless repetition... XyZAn (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my note. XyZAn. It isn't true that all the companies you list are in the narrative. Your adding the clade to the Allergan article is the one I saw, and working from the top of the diagram, the article does not describe the acquisitions of Auden Mckenzie. Durata, Furiex or Aptalis, or Galen.. it does describe Forest. I didn't look further, but do you see what I mean? I haven't checked other ones yet either.... Thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No Problem, I'll add refs for those companies which aren't in the above prose in now. I think the clades easily describe how confusing the Allergan/Actavis situation can get! XyZAn (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a reference for Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited. I've clarified that Galen was the previous name of Warner Chilcott (so it doesn't need another ref) and also clarified that both Aptalis Pharma and Furiex Pharmaceuticals Inc were previously acquired by Forest, so again, don't need a reference as they're in the respective sub pages. XyZAn (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks. pfizer, gsk, sanofi, BMS... those should be the real circus! Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, yeah I've looked at pfizer, can't get my head round the code of the clade diagrams yet so I put it off!! GSK would be a good one to do, especially if they get bought out by Pfizer et al as rumour suggests! Great working with you XyZAn (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go:

GlaxoSmithKline

SmithKline Beecham plc (renamed 1989) SmithKline Beckman (renamed 1982) SmithKline‑RIT (renamed 1968) Smith, Kline & French<br />(reorganized 1929 into  Smith Kline and French Laboratories) French, Richards and Company (Acq 1891) Smith, Kline and Company (Founded 1830) Recherche et Industrie Thérapeutiques (Acq 1968) Beckman Instruments, Inc.<br />(Merged 1982, Sold 1989) Specialized Instruments Corp. (Acq 1954) Offner Electronics (Acq 1961) Allergan (Acq 1982, Sold 1989) International Clinical Laboratories (Acq 1989) Beecham Group Plc<br />(merged 1989) Norcliff Thayer (Acq 1986) Beecham Group Ltd S. E. Massengill Company (Acq 1971) Beecham Group Ltd (Renamed 1945) C.L. Bencard (Acq 1953) County Chemicals (Acq 1929) Glaxo Wellcome (Renamed 1995) Glaxo (Merged 1995) Glaxo (Founded 1850) Joseph Nathan (Acq 1947) Allen & Hanburys (Acq 1958) Meyer Laboratories (Acq 1978) Affymax (Acq 1995) Burroughs Wellcome (Merged 1995) McDougall & Robertson Inc (Acq 1959) Burroughs Wellcome & Company (Founded 1880)

References

XyZAn (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wow. it is so great to see it laid out like that. i like how you are keeping it clean, but I would prefer refs at each merger. do you really think that would be too cluttered? also you note that beckman was spun back out in 1989 but allergan was too. (source) ....i took the liberty of adding "Sold 1989: to allergan and just adding a ref to see what it looks like... not so bad? Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it looks OK, might get a bit messy with companies who have lots of branches. I've done one for Pfizer, it's mental, still needs some work doing to it, but all the acquisitions are documented on their relevant page or parent companies page.

Pfizer

Pfizer Pfizer Warner–Lambert Warner–Lambert<br />(Merged 1955) William R. Warner (Founded 1856) Lambert Pharmacal Company Parke-Davis (Founded 1860, Acq 1976) Wilkinson Sword (Acq 1993) Agouron (Acq 1999) Pharmacia (Acq 2002) Wyeth (Acq 2009) American Home Products Wyeth (Acq 1931) Chef Boyardee S.M.A. Corporation Ayerst Laboratories (Acq 1943) Fort Dodge Serum Company (Acq 1945) Bristol-Myers (Animal Health div) Parke-Davis (Animal Health div) A.H. Robins Sherwood Medical (Acq 1982) American Cyanamid (Acq 1994) Lederle Laboratories Solvay (Acq 1995, Animal Health div) Genetics Institute, Inc. (Acq 1992) King Pharmaceuticals<br />(Acq 2010) Monarch Pharmaceuticals, Inc. King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc. Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. Parkedale Pharmaceuticals, Inc. King Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Monarch Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited Innopharma (Acq 2014) Redvax (Acq 2015) Hospira (Acq 2015) Hospira (Spun off from Abbott Laboratories, 2004) Mayne Pharma Ltd (Acq 2007) Pliva-Croatia Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Acq 2009, Generics & Injectables div) Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Acq 2010) TheraDoc (Acq 2010)

XyZAn (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wow. just had time to really look at that. amazing. thank you so much! Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, i've added pfizers to their page and have done, shire, valeant, novartis, GSK, teva, allergan/actavis, celgene, might look at Sanofi now XyZAn (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphan drugs

Hi Jytdog, I have recently added orphan drugs to my list of topics I follow and contribute to in Wikipedia and will continue to do so. I have no problem with my content being edited removed if the team deems it to be someway inappropriate and there is a solid academic argument for its removal.

In regards to the material based on the 2014 Evaluate Pharma publication any removal of the content would require a rebuttal with full citations for each point argued by Hadjivasiliou. If you do a very basic Google scholar search for orphan drugs you will find that the economic challenges mentioned above are listed as issues of concern to policy-makers globally and they will only become intensified. This deserves a space in a well-rounded Wikipedia article.

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard post for life extension edit

Hello! We recently disagreed about the reliability of a source that I used on the life extension page. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, since I could not find any other Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of posts on Medium, which seems to use a unique model as a publishing tool. For this reason, I made a post on the notice-board about reliable sources. Feel free to contribute. Cheers. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks, there actually have been past discussions there. I will link them there. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Gloving

Despite the article being nominated for deletion a while back, and the result being delete, it still has not been deleted. The discussion is here. There article has no real merit and appears as an advert for a company selling a product involved in "Gloving" (all the refs point to them). Can you cast your eyes over it and see what you think please? I have messaged a couple of admins who were involved in the original debate, but they seem to be inactive on Wiki these days. 79616gr (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted in March 2014 and then was re-created in Dec 2014. That happens when there is someone paid or passionate about the article subject. I see it has already been speedied. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's gone now, and hopefully not to return. Thanks for checking. 79616gr (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Comment Response

Dear jytdog,

Thank you for your very thoughtful suggestions as to how I might contribute more competently to Wikipedia articles. I have read your "Five Pillars" and can see that you have considered this matter in some detail, which I respect. As you suggest, I will go through the Wikipedia:Identification process to validate my RW identity. I am always grateful to receive constructive feedback on how I might improve my editing, and I fully acknowledge your comments pertaining to the Raymond Cattell article that I have been working on, and consequently, have gone back and re-checked every reference citation to make sure that the cited reference(s) actually support the particular assertion being made. As a result of that exercise, I have since removed 19 reference citations throughout the text, so that what remains should be highly accurate. I thank you for pointing this problem out to me, and I believe that as a result, the article is now more compelling and concise.

Also, I acknowledge that I am new to Wikipedia and need first to learn the principles within which to operate as a Wikipedia editor. There are many other articles within my area of academic expertise that I am eager to start working on, including articles on Hans Eysenck, the Five Factor Model, personality theory, personality assessment, intelligence testing, IQ scores, neuropsychology, schizotypal personality, depression, psychometrics, item homogeneity, factor analysis, meta analysis, social psychology, Australian psychology, British psychology, etc. Consequently, I will now turn my attention to some of these other articles.

Again, thank you for your informative and helpful advice. Gjboyle (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ketoconazole

Hello Jytdog, thanks for mentioning WP:MEDRS. However, since Ketoconazole was urgently withdrawn in 30 June, I doubt there could be any reliable english source for this. The news articled has been replaced with a official statement from China Food and Drug Administration, which I believe is reliable enough.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a much better source! Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In re Bilski citation style

I reverted your edit here on the talk page of the article. It appears that you followed PraeceptorIP to the article merely to revert his good faith and correct edit. He tagged the talk page to show that the article uses the Bluebook reference style, which it clearly does. It is not a violation of WP:CITEVAR to properly label what style the article is using. Please stop harassing that editor on articles where his edits are correct and made in good faith. If you are not sure of what citation style is being used, ask. I or any number of other editors are more than happy to help. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

nope, not accurate on any level. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

by the way, as I am not welcome on your Talk page, neither are you on mine. Do not comment here going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

tea and iron absorption

I think combining iron absorption with Aluminium and other metals may not be such a good idea. Iron is not toxic like Aluminium and Lead and is very essential to the body. Secondly are there any objections to the details I provided ? Why remove those details unless they are wrong ? Reference being old is not valid, IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, but let's do this at the article Talk page.... if you comment there, I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

COI?

[8][9] ? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

yep, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I found the last bit of http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/jun2013_Young-for-Life_01.htm very interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

COI editor Fklatt

See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing.

It looks like he is making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"Don't revert due to 'no consensus'"

Hello Jytdog,

You have suggested several pertinent Wikipedia essays in our recent correspondence, so I thought that you might appreciate a suggestion of my own.

Since you reverted my latest edit with "there is no consensus for this on the Talk page" as the only given reason, I recommend that you read "WP:DRNC". If you do not read it, then please at least note its "nutshell" description: "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it."

If you do read it, though, then please let me know what you think of it and how it relates to our situation.

Best regards,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Stay off my talk page or the iBan you threatened me with earlier will become a reality. Atsme^📞📧 22:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I always try to talk to conflicted editors on their Talk page before bringing things to the community. I have posted at COIN here and as I posted there, I will not be participating going forward, since that would be a distraction. This isn't personal. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Quick heads-up that I've [[advised a good-faith person to head over to COIN for gentle advice on how to pay someone to write her autobiography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will try to get there first and respond kindly but she is likely to be met cruelly - so many editors react negatively and swiftly to paid editing....Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Who's SerialJoe? That's not my name. I'm sure glad that COIN was closed. Perfect timing I would say.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The close was changed. You can check those external links against current policy. This isn't explicitly said but where the website is used as a source you could check that against current policy on reliable sourcing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

COI

Hi, I've moved the discussion here instead of the article talk page, I hope that's OK. I have taken some care to avoid getting involved in the interminable edit wars, and I hope you noted that I have not commented on whether your claim of COI was a correct call.

What I am concerned about is the tagging of pure biology articles where I cannot see how the claimed COI could possibly have influenced the content, particularly a featured article where several experienced articles saw no evidence of biased writing during its assessment. I think you need to demonstrate what evidence of the COI influencing the content you saw when you read these articles, and take the American paddlefish to WP:FAR if you think the original WP:FAC assessment was flawed. As I said before, if you cannot say what you saw in these tagged species articles that made you call them as influenced by coi, you need to remove the tags or it looks petty and pointy

Of course I accept that you didn't tag all of her articles, but that doesn't detract from the point that I'm making. I hope you will show GF here, re-read the articles, and either make it clear where the COI has influenced the text or remove the tag. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

All I was looking for was clarification that there is a COI, for Atsme to declare it, and for the COI sourcing and ELs to be reviewed case by case. The close of the case now affirms the COI. It is for folks who watch those articles to review them - specifically the use of the Earthwave in sourcing and ELs, in light of the COI. As I mentioned earlier it is not about the overall content but rather the use of Earthwave as a source and as ELs - and only about content per in so far as the content is supported by those sources. Also as I mentioned, nonprofits tend to use WP in just this way, to get more traffic, which has the potential to lead to more donations. I will not do the review myself. I tend to try to stay out of specific content issues when I am working on COI issues - it just muddies the waters. Hence the tags on the articles - so folks who watch them can consider the sourcing/ELs/content in light of the COI Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on - not quite. I sent information to OS Risker providing much more detailed information about my emeritus status. I tried to explain I was retired but the conversation kept getting mixed up with the 2011 edits - all of which were reverted and basically just involved external links. When I came back to WP, it had nothing to do with Earthwave. My first edits were far removed and began with the Holy Land Foundation, then to Anjem Choudary. My first article was Gabor B. Racz. It wasn't until much later that I began working on the fishes and I did so as a retired person (actually semi-retired because of my ranching interests). This needs to be reevaluated for certain. Atsme^📞📧 12:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Atsme, you don't help yourself when you remove the COI tags yourself, when I've said I'll follow it up. Jytdog, that leaves the FA article in particular in limbo. If you think the claimed COI is so serious that you have effectively unilaterally overruled all the FAC reviewers, then presumably you will follow it up and challenge the FA. If not I think you should remove it? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see my note above. I do not get involved in the content - including any kind of GA or FA review - when I am working on COI issues. It just makes things messy. I leave it to the folks working on the relevant articles to reconsider things in light of the COI. For example, please see this note that was just left by one of Atsme's GA reviewers. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I have seen no indication that there has been a change in Executive Director at Earthwave from 2011 to today. Even if you step down tomorrow, the edits you made in 2011 and when you came back, from 2014 up until tomorrow, were made while you had the COI. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tags because of the personal information link. The damage is done now because they kept being reverted. My retirement notice is on my user page and it began January 2014. I didn't start editing any fish articles until April 2014. I was retired. I was accused of COI on articles where there was none - such as Gabor Racz and the Ambush article. I'm waiting for the final decision from OS. Atsme^📞📧 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the RW matches that claim that I have found. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See www.earthwave.org - Atsme^📞📧 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Things getting changed on various sites you manage in response to these COI issues is getting tiresome - like you deleted this post about Racz on earthwave's facebook page after i pointed it out. Whoever updated the earthwave.org site forgot to add information about who took over running the show there. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming just filthy. I am not going to comment on this issue anymore. Please don't post here about it anymore. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How is what you've been doing not a violation of WP's privacy policy? Not post here? You are digging way too deep into my private life and private identity. I disclosed an association in 2011. I disclosed my retirement in 2014 on my user page when I came back to WP. What you're doing now is way over the line. I'm not an active board member - I volunteer with regards to public dissemination from time to time and it's not just EWS that I volunteer - just exactly as Risker believed in the beginning - I also volunteer for WP the same as you do. You don't see me digging into your private life or where you work. What right do you have to dig that deeply into mine? Your probing into places where you do not belong because you are trying to make something into what it is not. What this involves now is not a simple disclosure of my association with EWS. Risker and the OS team really need to look into your activity and to the extent you are willing to go. The question now is why are you so obsessed. You have not gone this far with any other declaration. You have no right to do that. This is outrageous. Atsme^📞📧 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See Risker's page - you disclosed your RW relationship to Earthwave. All I am looking for is to address COI issues with you. This is not a case of Earthshattering Significance like WIki-PR or Wifione. Earthwave is a little organization and the COI has affected just a few articles. Your behavior with regard to managing this small COI is so overblown that I cannot stomach this anymore. Stay off my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For excellent work in the very recent past shedding light on COI editor behaviour. (I've never done a barnstar before. What does it actually mean?) Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks Roxy - i'm honored to be your first. For the what's it mean, you can see the intro to Wikipedia:Barnstars which tells the history. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Unpromising draft

FYI, Draft:Adam Bold looks a whole lot like the former article, nuked twice: once at AfD and subsequently speedied by User:Tokyogirl79. The AfC now has failed twice and has an SPA nursing it along, who has not replied to my COI notice on his talkpage. Do you think that I should post this at COIN, or just see if it dies a quiet death? — Brianhe (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, there's another rewrite in the works from same editor: Draft:Mutual Fund Show. — Brianhe (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will reach out to them. By the way - the text created by the COI notice doesn't ask any questions or call for any response, so when people don't write anything in reply to it, it is kind of not surprising. That was what prompted me to start adding things around it - to make it more of a conversation opener rather than a flat notice. If you add a question after it like "Would you please tell me if you have any relationship with the subjects you have edited?" they have something to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The additional text is a great idea and I like the way you have crafted it. Maybe there should be a second "official" template that includes it? That said, I would expect a GF COI editor to at least reply to he current {{uw-coi}} as compliant, or a non COI editor to reply somewhat indignantly. A non response means to me they are hoping not to get noticed again. — Brianhe (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I hear that, about the types of responses. The various wordings I have been using are in my sandbox in several iterations along with a bunch of other junk, and I tweak them for each situation. Feel free to use them, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello again,

I just want to let you know that I filed a dispute resolution request (here) regarding our disagreement about content on the life extension page.

Cheers,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A volunteer moderator has taken our case! They are requesting first statements on their analysis. If you would like to resolve our dispute, then please take a look. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Just another courtesy update for you: Ronz responded here to your comment about the appropriateness of our resolution attempt. Feel free to take your time with your response, though. I hope you're having a good day! --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Another update: the moderator has asked for clarification on your commitment to the resolution here. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your disruptions

I've asked you before to stay off my TP because you have shown nothing but ill-will toward me. You have committed the ultimate violation against me and WP privacy policy by probing into my personal life and work associations where you had no business going. Now you've posted an inappropriate Canvassing notice on my TP because of my post to Tsavage that again was none of your business and was perfectly appropriate. If that wasn't enough you had to come back and interfere in a discussion where your input wasn't requested or desired. It's my TP - my discussion. It was deleted. Your behavior has gone beyond questionable. It's actionable. Stay away from me. See WP:APPNOTE (my italics for emphasis) An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) Editors known for expertise in the field Editors who have asked to be kept informed Atsme^📞📧 02:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You canvassed, so you received a notice. Sorry for the additional comment. Please stay off my talk page as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The transparency of the canvas attempt is amusing, Second Quantization (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Emails related to COIN

Is it ok with you if I release the COIN related emails you sent me to ARBCOM? Atsme^📞📧 13:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No. The reason for that, is that I have concerns about how you would do that. If Arbcom wants them from me, I can provide them to Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)