Petergstrom (talk | contribs) →Advertising Dude: new section |
|||
Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
Señor Jytdog, |
Señor Jytdog, |
||
Can you help me with this user |
Can you help me with this user {{userlinks|Jamescool101}}. He is trying to add adverts to the articles [[D-chiro-Inositol]], and [[tendinopathy]]. He encroached the 3RR on [[tendinopathy]], but if there is an appropriate board for advertising would it be better to report there? |
||
[[User:Petergstrom|Petergstrom]] ([[User talk:Petergstrom|talk]]) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Petergstrom|Petergstrom]] ([[User talk:Petergstrom|talk]]) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{tps}} [[User:Petergstrom|Petergstrom]] I can see that the edits are problematic from a MEDRS POV, but what do you think they are advertising? I see references to tendoactive in their edits to [[tendinopathy]] but I can't see anything similar at [[D-chiro-Inositol]]. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 18:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:06, 17 January 2017
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
Question
Why did you delete that fact today? Miratrixplane (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, yesterday. That was a well known fact in the medical community and you deleted it from Wikipedia. Why? Miratrixplane (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So your the Rome fella that likes to stir things up on Wikipedia. And you obviously work for someone interested in keeping this information quite. What a way to make a living young man. Miratrixplane (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And actively deleting negative information on the Johnson & Johnson website. Is that a clue for me to utilize? Maybe. Miratrixplane (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what articles you are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well that says a lot doesn't it Miratrixplane (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I screen shot everything I do sir Miratrixplane (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am very unhappy that you deleted my edit of a well known fact. Do not delete anything of mine again. Miratrixplane (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You may soon be subpoenaed. Miratrixplane (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Miratrixplane what article are you talking about? I am really asking you - please answer. You should also read WP:NLT. -- Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You may soon be subpoenaed. Miratrixplane (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Check your Facebook Miratrixplane (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did, and there is nothing here. This is getting increasingly weird. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I checked that user's contribution history, and there are zero article edits to have been reverted. So this is either a sock or a troll (probably both). You are certainly entitled to raise the NLT issue at ANI if you think that it is worth the effort. Otherwise, I'd say wp:deny and see if that puts an end to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did, and there is nothing here. This is getting increasingly weird. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've indefblocked Miratrixplane for trolling and harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- seems appropriate. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- ?.. some poor devil on bookfarce is going to be terribly confused. Roxy the dog. bark 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- yep, a jaunt into angry wierdness. . Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You deserve this
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Wikipedia's medical content would be so much more biased if it weren't for all your efforts to deal with POV editors. I'm awarding you this barnstar for your most recent efforts to suppress POV content changes at MDMA and in recognition of all of your past efforts (even the controversial ones) to deal with POV and COI editors on Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the state of disrepair that some articles would be in without your efforts to tackle blatant quackery and POV bullshit head-on. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
- OK, maybe I came here because I might have been thinking based on the section title that this was some form of insult, but I was clearly wrong. I have to agree with the appropriateness of the recognition. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hear hear! Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- wtf? Just give him a bone and be done with it. Roxy the dog. bark 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a bonestar? er... bonerstar? :) Thanks everybody. And thanks for what you all do. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds like something I would have said! Anyhoo, I looked at pizzle (kinda wish I hadn't), and I think it has the etymology wrong. I'm pretty sure it originated with Snoop Dog (are you related?). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS: are you impressed at how gangsta I am?
- Long live Snoop! Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds like something I would have said! Anyhoo, I looked at pizzle (kinda wish I hadn't), and I think it has the etymology wrong. I'm pretty sure it originated with Snoop Dog (are you related?). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS: are you impressed at how gangsta I am?
- wtf? Just give him a bone and be done with it. Roxy the dog. bark 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Your revert on Isolation tank
Hello,
I'm puzzled about this revert of yours. The section I edited is titled "Notable users", Feynman is notable, the autobiography where he discusses it is itself notable, there's an entire chapter called "Altered states" about it. Obviously, a source for the fact that this is discussed in the book is the book itself. The statement being both sourced and relevant, I do not understand what more would be needed?
Regards,
--a3nm (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You did not provide a source. A wikilink is not a source -- in fact WP articles are not reliable sources at all per WP:SPS. I reckon it would not be hard to provide independent sources showing this deserves WEIGHT, but per WP:BURDEN you need to do that now. Jytdog (talk)
- I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert on Aortic aneurysm
Why was my edit removed? if it was the references, what exactly was wrong with it so I can fix it? Aortic patient (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The refs were not acceptable (please see WP:MEDRS) and the content was promotional (please see WP:PROMO) Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. Aortic patient (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to sourcing, please re-read the WP:MEDDEF section of MEDRS more closely - it says that we generate content about health based on secondary sources (literature reviews in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) and that we avoid primary sources as much as possible. Clinical trial publications are primary sources. Including the link to exstent.com and the youtube video make the content appear to advertising copy; WP is not a vehicle for medical marketing and it is not social media. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. Aortic patient (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Vaxxed 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Byates5637 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Please read this - it's generally frowned upon to use standard templates with long-established users. Also, from a quick look at the page concerned, a discussion on the article's Talk page is ongoing - you should input into that rather than making changes directly until consensus is reached. Mike1901 (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note Mike but I really don't like DTTR; templates are for everybody in my view. This template was placed in retaliation however, and Byates5637 has been blocked for actually edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert in Deep brain stimulation
Dear Jytdog,
I am a bit puzzled that you deleted my visualizations of a deep brain stimulation electrode and it's connectivity from the DBS wiki page. May I ask what made you come to the conclusion that they were spam? The reason why I added the visualizations to the wiki site is because I think the images may give both medical personell and patients a good insight into anatomy and a 3D representation of what's happening in the brain, where electrodes are placed and how the result of the procedure will look like. In comparison to the first image (an x-ray), which only gives a 2D representation, I'd say they clearly add information. The reason I cited the software I made them with was to assure reproducibility. This is not needed if it bothered you. Also, please note that the toolbox software the images were made with is completely non-commercial and open source, it's development completely funded by public money.
I'd be happy if you would consider reverting your changes so that at least one of the images remains on the site. Alternatively, I'd be happy to see your reasons why you deleted the images.
Thank you so much for your input on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreashorn (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I moved the images to the Talk page and asked for editors to comment. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello Jytdog - hope all is well. I was hoping you could provide some clarification as to your removal of my update to the "hangover" wikipedia page that noted: "One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract). In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover. In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover[33]. A review on Hovenia dulcis published in 2010 noted that this extract presents a strong candidate for use in the treatment of alcohol hangover, primarily due to its alcohol detoxification properties. The review notes that "the increased level of alcohol-induced liver ALDH activity by treatment with H. dulcis extracts suggests that H. dulcis can effectively relieve the alcohol hangover through enhancing the catabolism of ethanol." [34] A second review published in Drug and Alcohol Review in 2005 noted that "it has now been proved that the extract of H. dulcis, or its complex formulae, hasten detoxification of alcohol," as well as noting that "the extracts of H. dulcis were also more effective in enhancing ALDH activity than ADH activity, [which] is one of the possible explanations of how H. dulcis could relieve hangover effectively, by decreasing acetaldehyde concentration quickly in the liver and blood." [35] In fact, the review notes that "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking." [36]" I realize that I originally added primary sources, as opposed to secondary sources, but my latest revision corrected that error. If you doubt the scientific accuracy, I would be more than willing to send you PDFs of the reviews for your review and to discuss with you the supporting research. Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks! 174.103.115.142 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (1/13/2017 @ 8:52 PM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.115.142 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I opened a section at the Talk page already, here: Talk:Hangover#Korean_remedy - if you'll copy your comment there, i will respond there. Thx Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Lot's wife 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Namarly (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing attention to this. Please join the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
it happens...you're still one of the best editors
- :) thx ozzie. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Academic journals
I notice on your user page that you "find the best sources [you] can for articles you work on". To me this implies that you do research, but maybe this assumption is incorrect. I am saying this because what I am seeing, when you characterize the Academic journals project, it is way off the mark. To me it comes off as kind of arrogant. I guessing you don't intend it to be this way, but that is how it comes across. Also, the comments come across as quite demeaning - as if your view is more accurate than other editors who work on this project.
I have done some intense research for the almost the entire set of Metamaterials articles on Wikipedia. I started and built many of these. Other topics I wrote also entailed research. I mean searching through scientific journal articles that describe the topic and everything related to the topic. I have worked on Physics articles, and had to read journal articles for this activity. It seems to me that you have done nothing like this by the way you characterize the Academic journals project. I can see, after how ever many days on this talk page, that you truly don't understand it - even after feedback you have been receiving, which doesn't seem to sink in. I'm just letting you know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I appreciate you wanting to talk directly and in a less ... noisy environment.
- Sorry for coming across arrogantly; not my intention. I am getting strident probably after repeating myself a bunch of times.
- Definitely agree that communication is failing.
- I am acutely aware that i am communicating across cultures/boundaries. It is not that I think anybody there is ignorant or incompetent, it is just that something has become normal in your project that seems bizarre to me and to others. (I addressed this issue explicitly on the Talk page in the 2nd paragraph starting with "Everybody here is busy..." here - please do read that if you haven't seen it).
- Maybe breaking down the main message into smaller bits? The main message I have been trying to communicate, is 1) that you all take it as very normal and obvious that journal indexes are reliable sources themselves for notability. and 2) this is just... abnormal in the wider project and surprising; and 3) NJOURNALS doesn't explain about indexes at all; and 4) the recent turmoil is about 80% driven by this; and 5) it would be useful for everybody if NJOURNALs did explain.
- Which part(s) of that do you disagree with? Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I recall, the 2nd paragraph you wrote and I guess this all started with that first "fringe" journal that went to AfD. We both agreed that a using this guide as a bright-line rule is inappropriate. I still agree with that. Moving on - I find it shocking that people have a hard time understanding that the indexes are very good indicators of a given journal's influence and serve as reliable sources. But, I suppose, it is what it is.
- The third paragraph I proposed yesterday somewhat explains the indexes and that is just a start. However, can you see the explanation in there? It gets into some detail, but maybe not the finest detail.
- After re-reading your last blurb I understand Randykitty's approach better and I understand the resistance to it. I think the resistance is because it wasn't clear what the parameters of that particular essay are. I'll work on this more during the week. Also, hopefully this will be in addition to what is already there in NJOURNALS, otherwise I fear there will be more resistance.
- Just so you know, I felt bad after posting the original post, because I know you are a good person. But once something like that is posted there is no way to actually delete it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are so kind!! thanks so much for talking. i took your initial post in stride and what i heard was "you are being too harsh and are frustrating me but let's talk more". Your whole post at talk:NJOURNALS was a huge step forward and your proposals there are too. Am just looking for more of a narrative - three or four sentences - that explains why NJOURNAL uses indexes and how. i hope that is not too much to help people who haven't thought it through or lived there way into understanding that already. thx again. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I felt bad after posting the original post, because I know you are a good person. But once something like that is posted there is no way to actually delete it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Beall's List Hacked
I've inserted the information with a link in the section on Beall's list User:Harnad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
- Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- My first edit to Wikipedia was removing an advertisement from an article. I remember that I wanted to know what the hell a Turnkey system was (it came up peripherally in the course of my work) and had turned to WP and was just aghast at a blatant advertisement that had been stuck into it. So much that I created an account and removed it. Some things don't change. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Inhaled insulin
From what I understand it was an actual product but has been pulled / is no longer made? Are they making it again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- sanofi dumped it but the originator, Mannkind, got it back into production and marketing ~6 months later. [1]
References
- ^ Palmer, Eric (November 10, 2016). "Sanofi forgives MannKind's boatload of debt over failed Afrezza deal". FiercePharma.
-- Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah cool. They are still trying. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Advertising Dude
Señor Jytdog,
Can you help me with this user Jamescool101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is trying to add adverts to the articles D-chiro-Inositol, and tendinopathy. He encroached the 3RR on tendinopathy, but if there is an appropriate board for advertising would it be better to report there?
Petergstrom (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Petergstrom I can see that the edits are problematic from a MEDRS POV, but what do you think they are advertising? I see references to tendoactive in their edits to tendinopathy but I can't see anything similar at D-chiro-Inositol. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)