User talk:Jytdog

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I hereby award Jytdog and Masem the two halves of this barnstar for their work and discussions regarding Malacidin. LukeSurl t c 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

user:LukeSurl I never responded to this. Thanks! And I never got a half barnstar before - funny and clever. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with advertisement tag?

Hi Jytdog. I edited this version and found that the article was given an advertisement tag.

I looked up this good article and this good article as models for modification, and I translated the Korean version into English. I would appreciated it if you could let me know what was written like promotional contents, so that I can improve or delete.

(and, should I have put this talk on the talk page of the article?)

Thanks.

Bigsmile20 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The page is horrible; your edit was more of the same but not why I tagged it. Yes please use the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Young Pioneer Tours

I believe it is best taken to AFD. I will not participate in that given discussion because I have a declared COI with this organisation, but I think it is notable enough not to be "speedy deleted" as it is the leading company in this specific industry- TF92 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I disagree. The page would have to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are only for blatant offenders which have been instantly created. This article has been on here quite a while, I think this one would require at least a "PROD" or consensus of the community --TF92 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct - we have speedy deleted pages that have been here for ten years. And you should not be directly editing that page as you have a COI, per the WP:COI guideline. I have self reverted as it was speedied before and declined. I am filling out the rest of the connected contributors on the talk page and will AfD it. What dreck. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was A7d and declined. So you are free to nominate it for G11, although I doubt you'll have much luck from a hardliner that isn't willing to grant considerable leeway in light of the COI issue. GMG^talk 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just did the AfD; better to do that than have more drama. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since that leeway would probably be well into IAR territory, and just as likely as not to end up at DRV. GMG^talk 19:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There are several more DPRK tour companies up for deletion if you are interested in these debates [1] [2]--TF92 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I found your comments on JacobPace's talk page to be well reasoned and tactful. Thank you. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An answer to your remark

Hello,

Let me ensure you that, I’m not supported by any brand, person or company. I’m fully independent ! Nonetheless, I understand your remark and take into account the rules you mentioned.

Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.59.184 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what remark you are talking about or what article this deals with.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Medical Journal isn`t a reliable source. I finally understand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sy036267 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your editing, is that all you have been doing is promoting He-Ping Cheng's four stage theory of death. Several people have noted this at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Habakkuk

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.

---

Question 1: Can we agree that the book of Habakkuk had a human author? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

At least one, sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 2: The Book of Habakkuk names this individual as "Habakkuk", with no further explanation of who this individual was, except to state that he was a prophet. The name "Habakkuk" might be the author's real name, but some scholars content this is a pen name or pseudonym, so the author's name may or may not be known. Agreed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this article content on the article talk page. Please do not ask about what I believe. We edit per sources, ideally secondary ones. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is cited from secondary sources in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page with nonsense.

Thank you. Mfwitten (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as nonsense if I were you but hey it is your path here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AE edit

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not sure what you meant to do with this edit at WP:AE but it has been reverted as a mistake by Power~enwiki. In the process, you've pinged a bunch of people (including me because of the old thread on EJustice), so I thought you might like to know so you can (a) re-try whatever it was you meant to do and (b) so you are aware a bunch of editors will be looking and wondering.  :)

PS: The section immediately above this puzzled me, giving yourself warnings, but I see they are part of the text that was added by an editor upset about being given warnings. You removed the edit warring notice but not that part, FYI, in case you want to ditch it too.  :)

EdChem (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad night for me eh? At the AE page i was trying to update the link to the statement by Wiki ED which has fallen into the archives there. should not have done that. will fix the thing above, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hugo Gottesmann

Hi, Thank you so much for your help in one of my reference (2) for the year 1915. I added another reference 3 for the year 1916. Gottessman is referenced in 1916 for his awards. WS114WS114 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Studio71

Thank you again for your message on my talk. At this point, I'm obviously not trying to push harder than I should and have gone quiet on certain discussions to let things cool down. I understand the controversy of contesting a merge, but do you actually think Studio71 is not notable for a WP? You said I see no real chance in the near future for Studio71 to have its own article in WP. That may change in a year or two.

This is more just for my own understanding: I believe they are notable but why exactly is a contest of the merge not the right thing to do aside from the fact that it will generate more bad feeling for me? Thanks for your patience with me. JacobPace (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You asked me that already, and I answered already. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of GA Reassessment: Behavioral genetics

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just curious - I do recall at one point you had said that there are holes on Wikipedia that need filling. What kind of examples were you referring to? JacobPace (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is always a ton of work to do. Things get outdated and need updating with more current refs; somebody comes through dump a bunch of content into an article throwing off the WEIGHT which then needs rebalancing; people create SPLITs and leave stub content in the main article, which then gets built back up with different content and sourcing, leaving the main article and split article out of sync and leaving us with "meta-editing" gardening work to do; and there all kinds of notable subjects that don't have articles at all. In the fields of stuff I edit about, some day I intend to write Susan Niditch ( biblical scholar, Rich Aldrich (investor in the boston biotech scene), and Barbara Dalton (pharma VC)... I am sure there are holes in subjects you are knowledgeable about too! I don't think there is a universal "to do" list anywhere but I am sure lots of wikiprojects have to do lists you could check. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will research this over the weekend in more detail. JacobPace (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up question here so I can fully understand. I'm assuming you find these notable through WP:BIO correct? Any specific part that you see validate the notability of these people? No rush at all. You've given me more than is needed as it is. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Niditch will fly per WP:PROF; the other two I am not certain. I imagine they will be but since I have not really gone searching yet I am not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wondering. JacobPace (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Exodus article is one sided and offensive. Please help to resolve.

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.

---

The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page with respect to article content.

You should also be aware that Wikipedia follows scholarship and is not confessional. The history of the Ancient Near East is a scholarly discipline that is conducted in the secular world, like the rest of the discipline of History. I realize this can be frustrating from some religious people. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that postings should be scholarly and not confessional. That is my point. The current post is confessional in that it presents a belief that the historical source material is untrue and disregards the majority of scholarly work that explores the source material including these below just as a few.

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Chart H2 73 0012 – El 'Aqaba to Duba and Ports on the Sinai Coast, UKHO, Taunton

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Hansen, P, Timeline from creation to Jesus

Finkelstein, I & Silberman, N (2001), The Bible Unearthed, The Free Press, New York

Gospel Pedlar, James Ussher: The Annals of the World

Merling, D (1999), Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba?

Shaw, I (2000), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Uphill, E P (1968), Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance, JNES, Vol.27 No.4

Wyatt Archaeology, The Exodus Conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again please discuss specific article content at the article talk page which is Talk:The Exodus

Also, threading and signing comments on talk pages, are both as fundamental here in Wikipedia as "please" and "thank you" - not doing them will make you come across as rude.

I fixed your indenting above, and a bot signed on your behalf.

We indent by putting colons in front of a comment -- put one more than the person who wrote before you -- the Wikipedia software displays an indent. We call this "threading" - see WP:THREAD.

Please sign your post by typing four tildas at the end (exactly four), and the Wikipedia software will turn that into a "signature" - links to your user page and talk page, and a date stamp.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Silberman and Finklestein deny the historicity of the Exodus, as does the Oxford History of Egypt. None of the rest of those sources are even remotely reliable, and would only represent scholarship to a fundamentalist who explicitly denies real scholarship. Hell, the first is by a regular contributor to AiG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytog, may I intervene by pointing out that history is a scholarly activity that is also pursued in the religious world, according to multiple traditions, but which traditions are generally accepted even in the "secular" world? I realize this can be frustrating for some non-religious people. Sorry about that. But that's the real world. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Obnoxious edit summaries

can the obnoxious smug shit you are putting in your edit summaries (in re Imprimis edits) - ridiculous. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

again see my talk page

Is there anyway I can notify you when I make edits there or do I always need to leave a message here too? Upoon7 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to notify me at all. You dont need to leave a message here. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm

I object your delete, which I am going to revert, and find your edit comment "This is treating legend as reality. Not OK in Wikipedia" to be quite inane, or insult on my intelligence. Of course I realize these stories are far-fetched, and I expect every conceivably sane-minded reader to figure that out, without requiring a caveat at every step that this may not be the "reality".

If you want to figure out some way to contexutalize without making it overtaxing to read, then you are welcome to do so but you have no grounds to do wholesale delete.

These primary sources are also quite properly introduced here and there through secondary sources, generally 19th and 20th century article pieces in folktale type journals as well. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cat-headed illustration

On the image file File:Houghton Swi 607.23 - Ouresiphoítes helveticus, fig X.jpg I will explain why you should not have reverted to the old caption "18th century cat-headed illustration".

It misleads the reader into thinking the creature is called Tatzelwurm in the book it is taken from, whereas it is not. Therefore I called it a dragon (in Latin) as it does the book. Additional information like "encountered ca. 1660" was meant as additonal info on the corresponding text, not to dress this up as real. The caption has been amended to "Depiction of the cat-headed dragon claimed to have been encountered on Mt. Kamor". --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dont delete explanatoy notes that are referenced

Like in your edit here, when my text reads

".. dialects.{{Efn|Dialect of [[Canton of Aargau]].. according to Rochholz}}<ref name=doblhoff-apud-kohlrusch&rochholz/>

isn't it quite obvious that the text enclosed in {{Efn}} is probably given in the same citatin that has "rocholz" in it? Don't delete text as WP:OR without checking if it is in the inline citation. You did this same thing 3 times. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this note and the ones above, please post them at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. If it were a content issue, where you had some source evidence to contradict the information, that would be a worthy topic on the page.

What I am pointing out is that you deleted information claiming WP:OR even though the information was in plain sight in the inline citation I gave. That does not constitute substantive discussion on the topic of Tatzelwurm helpful to others interested in writing about the topic. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

PLease discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Large Paid Editing Declaration

Hi Jytdog, I received a message from User:Bbarmadillo, who seems to have made a gigantic declaration of paid editing. I wonder if you have see it. He sent me an email, for some reason. scope_creep (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm! Looks at first glance like they are being a good citizen. Will look further and keep my fingers crossed. Odd that he emailed you. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shirley Ratcliffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sex chromosome disorders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I chose not to fix this. Sorry bot. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I revised your notes on my editing on Barefoot and I'd like to ask you the following:
- Didn't you notice that all your corrections where you refer to unsourced text didn't have any connection with my text? I never add the text without citations.
- Your notes about badly sourced information have nothing to do with my citations added, they are not mine.
- Can you show me which text that I added is regarded as promotional - for me to know and not to make such mistakes in the further editing
- Why any book I added to External sources you regard redundant (is it enough to cite the website where they are in the Bibliography?)

And as to the editing of Atkins - I didn't mean any editor war beginning. I didn't reverse your editing I just eliminated the sentence where I enumerated the names of celebrities that had used his diet as you wrote it was promotional and continued editing. That's all. If I do it by mistake, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I didn't pay attention to your notes. Will you be so kind to show me what text in this article is regarded as promotional for me not to repeat such mistakes further on.Lyupant (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Please be aware that not everything is about your edits. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"this is not good and we should perhaps consider MfDing"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Inherently non-neutral forum used to canvas keep !votes in AFDs?. This is classic "Rescue Squad" behaviour, where the one person seriously opposing deletion responds to a weak-but-steadily-growing consensus to delete by posting to the Rescue List, and several of their regulars show up to auto-!vote "keep" with superficial "See! I found these sources that I clearly haven't read! GNG!" comments.

Sometimes they even show up and steamroll an AFD, and never make any effort to fix the article under discussion, until yoi explicitly call them out on it so they either (a) make a feeble attempt to improve the article with sub-optimal sources and OR or (b) unilaterally change the topic of the article completely, delete everything in it, and create an entirely new article in its place (which still is not ideal but meets WP:NLIST), while still claiming that they are "keeping" the article and that the article was always on their new topic.

But don't dare talk about any of this in public, or you'll be hounded for weeks for your "battleground" mentality and your being a member of "the deletionist camp".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to the discussions you opened; it is very useful to know what past conversations were. An effective MfD or other community action would require a lot more homework to show the behavior, and then work to present that concisely so that other people can quickly grasp the issue. I have not done that work yet to see if this is a trend and if so, if it is serious enough to try to galvanize action around; my "if" was an authentic "if". But thanks again for making me aware of those two discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to give you the full background, or even a thorough explanation of my full history with ARS (which only goes back a month). If it had been, I would have also linked you directly to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#RFC about proposed guideline amendment, where some of the worst harassment took place over a concentrated period, in response to my good-faith request that they at least tone down the more blatant canvassing (my proposal would have, in this case, banned Cunard from responding to the growing delete consensus by "calling in reinforcements, so to speak). It's linked in the above discussion anyway, which I assume is what you meant by "those two discussions". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I just read through all of that background, and it leaves me feeling saddened. What I am seeing is a group of editors with a battleground attitude towards AfD, as extreme inclusionists, who have figured out a way to canvass without getting caught. They constructed their project so that they can always say that they are not about canvassing, and just as you said, they are trigger happy to hound anyone who says otherwise. An MfD will get shouted down. I think that the best one can do is to open an ANI thread after each AfD where they show up and make trouble, knowing full well that the ANI thread will degenerate into a long argument that leads nowhere, and after building up enough of those to justify an ArbCom case, open such a case and be prepared to document that they just !vote without actually working to improve the pages. It's a matter of documenting each time an editor comes to an AfD after a post at their project, but does nothing to actually edit the page that was nominated for deletion. And I'm saying this on-Wiki with an expectation that they will see what I have posted here, and will take it as a challenge to actually do rescues the right way, which would make such an ArbCom case unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not so hopeless about an MfD, if there is indeed a problem. The project's own guidelines say that participants are not supposed to show up and votestack but rather do the work to actually rescue - I was happily surprised to see that guidance saying the correct thing. One imagines that this became so prominently posted because participants (being human like everybody else) tend to slide into doing the easier, incorrect thing. If there is a pattern of doing the wrong thing despite their own guidance, that would be a strong reason to delete at MfD - the argument would be (subjunctive, as I haven't done the research yet) that the project leads people to disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very doubtful an MfD would succeed but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anyway. My recollection is that the last time the ARS folks had a bright light shined on them they backed off afterwards and weren't so blatant, at least for a while. You'd have to be scrupulously civil, non-accusing and so on at any MfD for this to work, because (like much of Wikipedia) it's basically a PR game. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are good points. And if nothing else, such an MfD would at least provide further justification for going to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've been in touch with a few of the other editors who expressed similar concerns in the VPM thread, and they basically said it's essentially a spent force that now serves mainly to turn the odd "delete" consensus into "no consensus" (which I suspect will be the outcome at the YPT discussion). I suspect my accidentally stumbling across them last month and bringing it up on VPM "woke the dragon" and this is what has led to recent spurt in activity of both the project and one of its (formerly dormant) members, and I should have left well enough alone. One of the commenters at VPM (who probably should have been blocked for repeated and unapologetic copyvio years ago) "coincidentally" showed up there having never edited VPM before and having been involved in the AFD from 2013 that inspired the discussion,[3] so it seems awfully likely that someone was circulating emails about it. Basically what I'm saying is that the potential benefits of a community discussion must be weighed against the fact that getting ARS angry is probably going to be counter-productive in the short run, as well as the fact that multiple MFDs have already resulted in "no consensus" in the past because shutting down XFDs is literally the thing ARS built its reputation on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In re their guidance saying the right thing, I just did this: [4]. Let's see if it sticks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes lets do see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, thanks for mentioning that it has been up for MfD before - I just searched and found 4 past discussions. I will read them before I do anything. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your AN3 complaint

Regarding this report, I think it needs some kind of editor consensus at an appropriate venue. If you think that WP:PSCI is the major issue you might consider the WP:FTN. I don't see a case for an AN3 block with the data you have provided. In my opinion the case wouldn't be clear-cut even at AE. The ARBPS decision is mostly oriented to 'alternative science' where somebody is defending a set of beliefs that appear to be a system but are in conflict with normal science. Or something like the electric universe. A plain old WP:RFC is something else you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ed! Sorry I missed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your borderline vandalism of The Great Courses

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.

---

Hey it's one thing to rightfully call out spam, and delete dubious references such as those to the Teaching Company's website. But gutting an article by rather wantonly stripping out half of the content, and removing correct and useful information that has been put there by the many Wikipedian contributors who appreciate the excellent Great Courses series -- I am one of them -- your act is borderline vandalism. The list of types of courses and teachers (many of whom have articles in Wikipedia -- they are excellent teachers generally) is valuable information for pretty much everybody. Instead of gutting an article, why not add a tag saying more sources are needed? Then, when I attempt to restore some of the deleted non-promotional content, you reverted my restoration which is edit warring. You're going to have to learn a lesson here, that there are other contributors to this encyclopedia, and they may have viewpoints that differ from yours, and you, acting unilaterally, can get you in trouble with the Wikipedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:PROMO are policy. Removing policy-violating content is not vandalism. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're going hogwild with your deletions, then edit-warring when I tried to restore valuable content. You should treat Wikipedians like me, who've been here awhile, with more deference and respect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN you are very welcome to find high quality sources for that content that was removed and restore it if it complies with the rest of WP policies. Nobody welcomes restoration of unsourced, promotional content. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

COIN

Thanks for starting the discussion. I added some background that I hope won't be too distracting.

I think you want to revise is very hard to understand if there is some external interest driving it. because I believe you mean "very hard to understand unless there is...". --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that is what i meant. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this coincidence...

...or did somebody pick on the dumping waste in National Forests metaphor? "It's not polite to treat Wikipedia like an endlessly renewable resource with infinite free labor" – Phoebe Ayers, quoted in The Verge Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I reckon it is coincidence - I am happy to see it and want to see more of it! Thanks for letting me know about it Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Journal series

Re: this, have you thought about these as well? Best, JBL (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Penuma

We typically simple redirect brands to generics. But am easy either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

yes i know. i wanted this gone. thanks for bearing with that. medical marketing in wikipedia grrrrr. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Smarter Lunchroom Movement

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Smarter Lunchroom Movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, and at least possibly notable. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Consumer Education Foundation

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Consumer Education Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Eastmain I am well aware of the criteria. I strongly urge you to read WP:PROMO - if you have a pattern of stripping speedy tags from blatant spam that would be a bad thing. There are a nest of people connected to this group that have done nothing but dump promotional garbage to WP. This is not even a little ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Fink

Thanks for re-draftifying this. You beat me to it by a few minutes. I've deleted and salted the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the redirect! I feel bad for KDS4444; he has lived himself into a bad place.Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the word “common”

A one word revisionist? Please use article’s TALK page to see why there is so much confusion over the common usage of the alternate name. Riptide360 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the relevant article's talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

request for feedback to recent post

Please respond to me current post on the talk page. It's interesting that when I"undo" an edit, it receives immediate response- but when I listen to the editing community- no one responds to my requests. Please respond to my current post. I have taken this matter to the editing community, as requested, and can not receive a response. Shushu2 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2

Thanks, I replied at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance

Hi Jytdog. This is a courtesy note to let you know I have closed a Request for Comment you initiated, at Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your good work.[5] Bishonen | talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)