Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 14 January 2016 (→Tag-Team Editing: actually, closing it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Jytdog!

Jytdog,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Liz 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ARCA

I got your ping to me there. Although there hasn't been an issue about it yet, it seems to me that you are getting close to commenting on how the topic ban should apply to other editors, and at some point, that could start to be seen as a violation on your part. You really need to stick to only what applies to yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I consider Agent Orange to be within the scope of my topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

I am advising you that I am raising an Arbitration Enforcement case involving you.DrChrissy 19:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

As I said already to someone else, I will not modify a close just because it's important to do X: if the discussion is in favor of doing X, closing as "don't do X" is disingenuous, and if the discussion opposes doing X, it's wrong to close it as "do X" even if many of the "do X" proponents say that it's important. Closes must reflect what was in the discussion, not affected by anything else unless there's some overriding policy that would weaken or invalidate the discussion's decision. You're welcome to request an outside review of my assessment of the RFC, or if you want to convince me that I mis-assessed the consensus, I'll listen and be willing to discuss the points you raise, but changing the discussion for a reason other than "you misunderstood the original consensus" or "this would go against some higher policy" would be badly inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll consider and respond in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion that pertains to you

Hi, this is a message to inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

You may wish to review the Misplaced Pages guidelines on Neutrality before thoughtlessly reverting someone's POV dispute. If there's any article on the whole site that deserves to be flagged, it's the creationism one. Please back off and don't try to start a revert war with a legitimate dispute. --Kanbei85 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

Please do discuss the issues with other editors before tagging. Calmly. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are removing cited material critical about the dangers of Prozac on the basis of "OR"???

You are removing cited material (cited to an FTA publication) on the basis of "OR".

diff Please come to the talk page to fully explain yourself. Seems contradictory. --Elvey 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

sure Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyclobenzaprine

Not sure I'm doing this right, but wanted to say thank you for removing the spam/self-promotion on the cyclobenzaprine page. I saw it pop up on the bing search preview, but when I went to confirm it I saw someone had pulled it down. It's appreciated! Thank you.

Edit: It appears user Biswak adds a great deal of content favorable to TONIX pharmaceuticals. 96.90.43.118 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

As far as I know you are currently under a community-imposed topic ban for matters related to COI, per this, which started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. You have violated that topic ban several times in the past week or two. I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? Don't make accusations without evidence, thanks. --Elvey 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't making accusations. I was reminding you. Here are some of the diffs however:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1.

As I said I am not planning on taking any action at this time. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You Are Not Welcome on my talk page

Given those ArbCom findings, you are on notice that you are not welcome on my talk page. --Elvey 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (original signature duplicated; contribution was signed when made)

Above comments were made in this dif which I condensed by removing the repetition of the copy/paste of my comment on Elvey's talk page. I also placed the unsigned tag.

Elvey you are not welcome on my Talk page either. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (striking talk page ban - I'll leave space for dialogue open for longer Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC))

Actually, that's not all you removed. You also removed this:

== Reminder ==
As far as I know you are currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted. ArbCom found
#that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
#Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.
You have done more of the same in the past week or two. I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. 

with a misleading edit summary

--Elvey 16:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes I did accidentlally remove that. Thanks for restoring it. I missed it since you so closely parrotted the reminder that I left on your page. Thanks again for restoring it. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tag-Team Editing

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

Re. Jytdog and Alexbrn, it's said here : It's fairly obvious that their strategy is to "share" their reverts amongst themselves, so both appear not to have overstepped the 3RR limit on any single day. The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds), which, together with the evidence presented above, strongly suggests a disruptive pattern of tag-team editing. Can you please comment on that (including the evidence given)?

Do you have any alternative accounts? (see WP:ALTACCN)--Elvey 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hah, an editor known for POV-pushing using a disguised account name made that linked-to comment, ironically. It got no traction at arbcom, probably because it was a fiction. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC); amended 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there documentation that the editor Elvey (who is who you are referring to) is a sock puppet? That's what you're saying there. If that's documented then why is their account active? And if it's not then why are you making this accusation? Incidentally, sometimes things don't get traction at ArbCom because ArbCom doesn't always make the best judgments. I don't have copious confidence in ArbCom finding justice after my experience with the GMOs case. Anyway, wondering about why you're calling Elvey a sock, but they're still editing. SageRad (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh arbcom's always at least approximately right. Personally I think they should have perma-banned a lot of the people in that case. The fact that "RoseL2P" was in fact the user "A1Candidate" (who, I think one could say, was known to have their fair share of issues with reality-based editors) was I believe discussed somewhere in the huge walls of text during that arbcom case - you're welcome to dig back if you want. Anyway, the appearance of editors acting in consort often happens for editors who actively watch noticeboards and/or certain articles and/or each other's User Talk pages: you could make the same "case" for a large number of editors: for example Elvey seems to be having problems inserting their POV into Levofloxacin of late, and might argue that other editors are "collaborating" to stop it. But in reality, it's simply an example of the community protecting the Project, and it's a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom is not always right in my view. I'm a "reality-based editor" though i bet you'd say otherwise. I understand your point about appearance not being proof. Still, you didn't answer my question -- do you have evidence that Elvey is a sock, which is what you said above? If they're a sock then why are they editing, and if they're not a sock then why do you call them that? SageRad (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was a "sock", and not Elvey. The issue with RoseL2P was I think a name-change and/or a legitimate switch of accounts rather than socking: nobody would have known they were really A1Candidate without digging. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well that clears that up. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Crickets in terms of a reply. Just a retaliatory talk page "ban". @Jytdog:: to not respond is unCIVIL. Do you have any alternative accounts? (see WP:ALTACCN) I assume that since Alexbrn says the RoseL2P comment is a fiction, you would say it's a fiction too. (But I find the claim that the "The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds)" is a fiction to be not credible. So there's clearly some nonfiction in there!)

And since your unfounded ad hominem attack is on one who accused you too, and (perhaps not concidentally) draws attention elsewhere, I refocus: Alexbrn: Do you have any alternative accounts?

Thank you SageRad for encouraging Alexbrn's retraction/clarification. --Elvey 16:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly you want Alex to retract/clarify? Seems odd. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor

Thank you for your persistence in demanding secondary sources. In reference to the BDNF entry, here are two review articles that support the edits that I made:

Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Oct 17;36:59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2015.10.001. Activity-dependent signaling: influence on plasticity in circuits controlling fear-related behavior. Hill JL1, Martinowich K2.

Bioessays. 2007 Feb;29(2):116-9. BDNF variant linked to anxiety-related behaviors. Hashimoto K1.

As a clinical neuroscientist, as you might agree after reading these which I can put in if you prefer, my position is that Misplaced Pages is currently misrepresenting the important role of BDNF in "stress-related disorders" which affect hippocampal development and functioning and which include both mood disorders (i.e. depression) AND anxiety disorders. For example, to think that SSRIs in the studies cited are strictly "anti-depressants" is wrong and not consistent with an entire body of literature. Misplaced Pages should be keeping up with the current state of knowledge while I agree not latching onto trends that are based on as yet unreplicated findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanjalo (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for replying, Tanjalo. If you would be great if you would re-post this comment on the article Talk page so that other editors are aware we are talking, and it is there for reference later? When you do I will be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)