User talk:Jytdog

Welcome!

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

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

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

Thx

Thanks for the latest revision. It's much more objective and straightforward, even if short, unlike the previous version.

I will look for citations to support the statements I made. I saw your changes to the CCLA article and understand now what you're getting at.

Unfortunately, I've seen the opposite in the past, by other editors, who claimed that if there wasn't any citations supporting the allegation, then the allegation could be accepted at face value. So, my objections to the lack of citations went ignored.

This kind of inconsistency is what creates confusion so I appreciate the fact that you have also provided Wiki policy references.

Best wishes

Tobeme free (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Sure! Good luck, and feel free to ping me if you have questions about Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For having the commitment and kindness to spell out, in detail, COI guidelines and other policies for users who would've been left by the wayside in another situation. Keep it up! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

that is super nice of you. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I aspire to your level of calm and level-headedness, Jytdog, in dealing with these issues. - Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

please aim higher than me! i have much room for improvement. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Major breakthroughs in AI"

You've been told, 'First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary.'

Now have a look at mw:API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also:

• Reasonator and Autodesc are tools that create machine-generated articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

Here's an example of such an article: [1]. Here's another: [2]

meta:2016_Strategy/Knowledge#Approach_Six specifically refers to the idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content." Just sayin'. --Andreas JN466 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It may interest you to know that Lila Tretikov has opened a Q&A page on Meta: meta:Knowledge_Engine/FAQ. Also note [3]; conversations over there are a lot more pleasant. Regards, --Andreas JN466 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted there. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: [4] Andreas JN466 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent . . .

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.

---

. . . contributions and insights re. the KE at JW talk. Much appreciated. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Whatever Jimbo's hiding, he's certainly hiding something, since almost every question he's being asked could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" yet he's frantically throwing chaff. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

yep, it is transparently clumsy. sad. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I am answering you fully and with detail. I am not hiding anything. My answers and clear and honest and transparent. I encourage more specific questions, and I stand ready to answer with all that I know. Listening to a chorus of people with a huge long track record of insulting me rather than honestly engaging me isn't going to lead you to understanding, and that's a very straightforward fact of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. I am doing my own homework. I realize that there are all kinds of people who have strong feelings about you and the WMF, for very many reasons, and ~some of them~ are loony.

I very much want to understand what is going on.

Your responses on your Talk page have been profoundly unhelpful and in response I have indeed grown increasingly fierce. It would be a big waste of time to track diffs but if you look you will see that I have been dialing up the intensity of my responses, step by step.

I realize I am just another face in the crowd to you, but you don't seem to understand how dehumanizing your responses have been. I would love to hit the reset button and have a real discussion. Maybe your note here is a sign you are ready to do that. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you becoming more fierce, but I also don't think I've been "profoundly unhelpful". I've tried to answer all your questions clearly and with full information. Here's an idea - if you're up for a "reset button" then how about starting a new section, with a clear set of specific questions? Try to keep the questions from making accusatory assumptions, just stick to factual questions that you'd like answers to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try that. Thanks! I hear what you say about leaving out accusatory assumptions.

And I ask you to consider, when you are framing your answers, to consider that there is a lot of bad feeling and distrust even from mainstream (?) people like me over this. Please hear me when I say that however you intended them, your answers have felt curt and dismissive. I wrote the section about power relationships because I experienced a feeling of powerlessness throughout this drama (since James was dismissed from the board), and when I thought about ways the community could hold the WMF board accountable, I realized that there were none.

Please hear me, that your style of responding has only re-inforced that feeling of powerlessness for me, and the sense that you and the WMF board don't even feel like you are accountable to us. The feeling of that.

But please try to speak plainly and honestly in a way that addresses what has been upsetting. Not like Lila did here but rather like what Max wrote in his comment on that, here. I will post something in a bit. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2016 (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.

Kudos

		The Original Barnstar
		For your set of polite, persistent, and acute questions about where WMF is at and where it is going at Jimbotalk. Thanks for your efforts. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the barnstar I came here to award. Anything additional would feel cheap, so I'll just add my +1. Keep up the good work. -Pete (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you both. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Our discussion at WT:HA

That discussion is making me think of something that I'd rather discuss here instead of there. You are framing a lot of the concerns that you express there in terms of your desire to be considerate of other users by discussing things with them before escalating it to a dispute resolution board. In general, that's a good impulse. But there are limits. As I said at the other talk page, regular editors really should not attempt to investigate things that checkusers are responsible for. But more broadly, having too much pre-discussion can backfire, because the other person feels like you are bugging them. I gave you some advice at my talk recently, about how you might want to stay away from dispute resolution boards for a while. It occurs to me that approaching someone one-on-one is fine initially, because maybe they will respond positively and the two of you can work things out. But if they react negatively to your initial approach, my advice would be to drop it right there. Say woops and just let it go. Getting into a protracted argument with a disruptive user can get you into the kinds of situations where you've had trouble before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I hear where you are coming from. I am going to say now that I do not view my situation as dire-ly as you do. The case against Elvey finally was closed and he was was 3-months-banned and his TBAN extended, and we were finally able to get his disruptive close at WT:MED reversed. There are escalations I am still very much pursuing. I am pursuing them carefully. I agree that if I end up all over ANI that would be a very, very bad thing. The period leading up to the arbcom case was a very bad, and very extended time (I cannot say more, of course) and I do not anticipate getting involved in any kind of content dispute like that again any time soon - I don't even see it on the horizon. I do very much appreciate your advice, and I listen to it. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy to hear that. (And, ahem, the Elvey thing worked out largely because of the information that yours truly provided there. ) My main point here is that it is possible for you to get into extended discussions with disruptive users where you have the best of intentions, because you are trying to fix things by yourself, but where it can backfire when the other user is a bad actor. If you reach out to someone who appreciates it, that's great, and that person will be thankful for your help. But reaching out to someone who is acting in bad faith leads to that person trying to paint you as a trouble-maker if you pursue it. And please don't underestimate the extent to which there are editors looking for a reason to say "see, Jytdog is doing it again!". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your input there was very helpful, as it is almost everywhere in WP. And I am very aware of my haters, and probably even some mainstream editors who look at me with some askance now. But I do hear you about being careful about getting into entanglements. I do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jonathan Fernandez

Hello, Jytdog. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jonathan Fernandez".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete away. I was helping some editor with that, and they abandoned it, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time page extensive edit

Hello jytdog, I see you've overwritten all of my edits on the page. While, I agree and apologies for the way I provided some information, I would appreciate if you stop taking away the content and replacing it with irrelevant information such as linking two public figures together and to the organization for no apparent reason. Can we agree to leave the page as it is now, i.e. unbiased introduction, logo and organization's manifesto. I strongly disagree that publishing organization's manifesto constitutes self-promotion. It is a relevant information, and ultimately it is for a reader to interpret it, not a single abusive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please ask me, on the article's Talk page - I would be happy to discuss it there. It is best to discuss content in a centralized place so everybody who is interested can see it and participate. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Feldenkreis

Did you read the latest edit of the Alexander technique? Alexbrn did it, and my edit of Feldenkreis copied it! If you read the Australian meta-study, my edit here and Alexbrn's @ Alexander reflect it quite accurately. Please get back to me here on this. Thanks. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added another point to the Talk: Feldenkrais Method linguistic discussion. Tapered (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Mashlonik

A tag has been placed on Nicholas Mashlonik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks for taking care of that. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you! Thank you! You cannot imagine how many people you have helped by editing the misophonia page. Because of you people will no longer be misinformed. Misinformation leads to misdiagnosis, mistreatment and misery. Thank you.

Drjobrout (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

sure. thanks for all the "thanks" too! Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REFUND#International Misophonia Research Network. Looks as though you're doing a good job on the main article. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for letting me know about that refund request. this is so messy, on a few levels too. ack Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robbie Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hansen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your request

I'm checking. I won't have anything until tomorrow my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

danke! Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on my review, I'm unwilling to take any action, against the named account or the two IPs. Any disruptive conduct will have to handled through non-SPI forums. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. was what I did OK, process-wise, in your view? Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you handled it very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

great thanks for the assurance. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The MEDRS thing

There's got to be a way for us to come to a meeting of minds on this, and I'm sorry if I came off as unnecessarily testy. I'm skeptical that you can't see the distinction I'm drawing or recognize that it's real, so I'm wondering what the issue is. Two theories come immediately to mind (1. there's so much fringe crap, we can't do anything to ever undermine, even slightly, the perception that mainstream medical authorities are authoritative, even if they sometimes really aren't for everything, especially when politics and money are involved; 2. it's hard to distinguish in a definitional way between an AMA-or-whatever publication that is essentially a literature review produced in-house and which is rather or even entirely neutral, from a position statement that is clearly reflecting political priorities as well as or instead of medical science ones). But for all I know it's something else entirely. You tell me. I don't think either of those two problems are insurmountable, if either of them are the source of the friction. But until this direct policy conflict is resolved, I have to keep treating MEDRS as a weak document, WP:MED's biased, WP:PROJPAGE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS masquerading as a guideline, which cannot actually be followed or taken very seriously. And I'm very firmly anti-FRINGE. Is it worth it to lose the support of editors like me, for nothing but the convenience of not having to deal with a definitional problem about source types? I'm hardly the only editor who has less respect for MEDRS than it could earn. I don't think it does WP:MED or WP any good whatsoever to drive natural allies back across an artificial, pointless line MEDRS's editorial camp has drawn, to the side where their mutual enemy is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to try to talk. I will ask you to try to read the first two sentences of what you just wrote through my eyes. You are saying that i am purposefully not addressing your question. Please think about what it is like to read that. It is not happy. And I suggest you completely chuck that out the window. And on the level of WP:MED - the project has been very careful not to build a walled garden, so please don't treat WP:MED as though it has. It is really corrosive, on a lot of levels. So basically please be more rigorous in AGF on both levels.

What is happy is that I think you are onto something with the definitional issue you start talking about. You seem to be drawing a distinction between different kinds of statements put out by MSMBs. What I would urge you to do, is build that out. And I will say that if you cannot clearly define categories, and provide examples of each, you should back off the very strong statements you are making, until you can. You should not be pushing so hard on something that is maybe true, but tentative.

we can probably have a productive conversation (as in, getting somewhere in community) trying to see if there is a usefully-makeable distinction among kinds of statements. That conversation is very unlikely to happen if you are demanding changes to the guideline and accusing WP:MED of being a walled garden.

As you have been around way longer than me, I shouldn't have to say this to you, but I think that if you want to build consensus for change, the way to do that is by drawing people in to see the problem and asking for help solving it. "Hey all - MEDRS says X. But when I look at X, I see two kinds of things, A and B. Here are examples of A, and here are examples of B. Stuff in B, in my view, is really outside the purview of reporting "accepted knowledge" and instead provides "judgements about social issues." I think we should make this distinction in MEDRS. Do folks see the difference I am defining, and agree that we should express that distinction in MEDRS? Do you maybe see yet other categories within X?" That would start a much more productive discussion that could drive change. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just did Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Resetting Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

All fair points, which I will absorb, and I appreciate both the measured response here, and the efforts to realign the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for talking! And thanks for surfacing this issue - i think there is maybe something there. sorry i didn't hear it before. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia user group, with a bank account and its own fundraising banners...

representing the people who make and run the WMF's cash cow? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that would end well. Once there is a smell of money, the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start (cf. WM UK). But it is entertaining to imagine the competing fundraising banners: "No, don't give them money, this is the real Wikipedia... " JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "the wrong people get involved, the new organization keeps expanding to provide jobs for the boys and ends up representing itself, and all sorts of political wranglings start" that's WMF to a t. I'm not saying we'd be any better (though I think we might) but at least then they'd be coming to us for resources instead of us to them, cap in hand ... and if they take another five years to get the visual editor right we can just sack them, and give the contract to Google. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

the specific idea is funny; i don't know that WMF would allow our banners.  :) it does fit with talk of a union of editors or the like - some kind of entity that could actually hold the board accountable (but only through work slow downs or strikes). Without such an entity the board is not accountable to us in any concrete way. It would mean building a whole additional layer of infrastructure here in addition to all the governance we already have, and then figuring out how to actually govern the thing. that is daunting. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like very hard work. Probably the easiest approach would be just turning the WMF into a membership-based organisation, where the members elect the majority of board members and the board appoints expert members. It's being discussed on meta somewhere. The present situation isn't optimum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with harassment and vandalizing of OCLA page

Hi Jytdog

You helped out with this page Ontario Civil Liberties Association and I agreed with your final edit.

However, an IP address keeps coming in and making ridiculous changes to the page.

I have filed a complaint in the Admin forum HERE and am drawing it to your attention.

Hope you can help resolve this?

Tobeme free (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

This would be a good time to use "page protection". I will request it, and will link there, so you can see how to I did it. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

done here If this were a registered user, the edit warring notice board would be the way to go but it is little use with an IP editor Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Learning a lot from you. Appreciate the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim of "harassment" or "vandalism" is ridiculous. See my response at Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association#OCLA.2FCCLA. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

forumshopping is a kind of harassment, and your hands are not clean here. Please don't act like they are. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My hands are clean here. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI post removed by intention

Hi,

You seem to have good connections in the ANI area. Dishonesty is a requirement? Anyway, please keep my recent posts removed as I intended. -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, you mean this change you made. You really should WP:REDACT - oy. DePiep you are too cantankerous for your own good. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Refrain from Allegations of Bad Faith

Warning: Please refrain from your repeated allegations of bad faith: [5] [6]. I warned you at the talk page here to stop and yet you have continued. I also mentioned in that diff that this may be a violation of your topic ban on GMO's. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning about my TBAN.. I don't agree that I have stepped over my topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

edits at Jimbo's talk

Hi, jyt -

You said you were done at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please make that for at least a month.

Jimbo leaves moderation of his talk page up to others. I've moderated his page about 3 times now. I try not to over-do it. I've been taken to Arbcom about 3 times on this and it's been upheld each time.

Hope to see you in a month or so.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your intentions. I'll do as I will do. I do not intend to engage Jimmy going forward but I do intend to speak with other editors there, nor do I intend to address his behavior further. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." ArbCom has made it clear that this applies to Jimbo's talk page as much as, perhaps even more than, other users' talk pages. Jimbo has made it clear that other users should moderate his talk page for him. He has made this clear several times in particular concerning my modertion. It is obvious that nobody wants to welcome somebody to his talk page who just outright calls him a liar. So you are not welcomed on that page and I will remove all your additions there.

Of course, if Jimbo says you are welcomed there, I won't remove your edits. Feel free just to ask him. Or ArbCom. Just to be sure you understand - I will remove any edit you put on that page, until I hear otherwise from Jimbo or ArbCom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo gives a flying fuck if I post or not, and I won't beg his leave. He has thoroughly disrespected me enough by pretending to have a conversation with me. And I have no idea why I would talk to Arbcom about your playing gardenkeeper for Jimbo. I am, in any case, uninterested in getting into a dramafest with you. So I bow to your asserted will. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

rendered moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question to tps... so apparently there is some kind of appeal possible via Arbcom over what Smallbones has done. What he says is that he is banning me b/c I said that Jimmy was lying. Which he was. In my view it is not uncivil to say someone is lying, when they are indeed lying. So if I were to bring this to Arbcom, it would seem to me the question there would be whether Jimmy was indeed lying. Which could be interesting. Thoughts on this? Via email or he, whatever you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) To make my question easier to consider.. The relevant section of the jimbo's talk page is User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_we_left_the_discussion, which was summarizing the conversation, now archived here, which I initiated at Jimmy's invitation, here. This question was about where the board was, in their role as the people to whom Lila was accountable, with regard to Lila's acknowledged mistake of not engaging the community on the Knowledge Engine. In an iteration of the question, I wrote this and added a bit more here: it is not answering the question because it leaves a perfect hole where a direct response would be; my sense is you are asking me to read between the lines of "broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure" and "no one told her not to" and the only things I can put there are things like: "Lila refused to bring this to the community although the board told her to do so, and we didn't make it clear enough that her job depended on her doing that and doing it well" or "we actually didn't know the kind of plans that were being pitched in the WMF's name; and if we had, we would have driven community engagement sooner". Please don't ask me to read between the lines. I am asking you to please tell me where the board was, on overseeing Lila as she made the ongoing mistake of not engaging the community. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC) he responded with this: The board has broadly encouraged open discussion and disclosure, and I'm unaware of anyone individually giving her advice to hide anything about long term strategy. Going into slightly more depth than that, I didn't see anything particularly unusual or controversial about the concepts being presented to us about the evolving ideas around improving search and discover, and I simply assumed that there was community discussion and consultation about it. The grander concept which, as I now understand, Damon was pitching via cloak-and-dagger PGP encrypted files (one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick because Damon didn't trust the public keyservers), didn't really get traction and was quickly abandoned. By the time of the board meeting in Mexico City, we specifically discussed that this would not be anything like a "Google competitor". As to the exact details of every single discussion with funders, obviously the board is not privy to those as a practical matter. Certainly had we understood that a disconnect was going on, and that the community was not being consulted, we absolutely would have pushed harder for community engagement sooner. As it is, I think most likely other board members, like me, simply assumed that it was being talked about and not treated as some kind of super top secret thing. Is that helpful?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC) to which i responded with this, calling saying: Thanks for replying. With all of the sturm und drang that is detailed in the Timeline - much of which concerns transparency (which includes engaging the community of course) - and it is all right there, from the funds dissemination committee in May, to James email in October, to Asaf's response to Lila in November, especially the Funds Dissemination Committee note on November 23 ("They state that they are "appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF's approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof)" ..... all the evidence says that Board was well aware that Lila was not engaging the committee. I started this in the hope that this could be an authentic engagement and you could move toward regaining the community's trust. You. are. lying. You are displaying the arrogance of power and demonstrating the reality that you and the Board are not accountable to the community. And that is where we are. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I was treating Smallbones' thing as annoying and blew off the drama, but it just struck me that maybe it would be useful to take him up on that, and have Arbcom look at whether my statement was justified. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo restored the statement here, 7 hours after i posted the above. hatted it. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your efforts to engage with the issues around the Knight grant, the Knowledge Engine, and the involvement of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees have been highly valuable. Here is a small token of my appreciation. Pete (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that we had, was not the outcome I wanted. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Derr. Because you didn't do it right. Here, for next time: [7] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That is what it was like. Thanks for that. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

:) The effort is worth it regardless. If you're wearying of engaging with Jimmy directly on his talk page (I personally have little patience for that), may I suggest this new page on Meta Wiki? Good place to collect existing statements and discussions, IMO. meta:Revolution of 2016 -Pete (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia's head of state

I've struck out my concerns/protests at Travelmite's page. The WP:POLITICS rfc concerning Australia's head of state topic, can get frustrating for some. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

as you will. maybe there was some basis for this email claim thing, but nyytend only referenced travelmite's behavior, which was not good. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

spa

[8]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite

See my note to GoodDay; Skyring asked me to look into something with Travelmite, but the block was for unrelated issues. I wasn't comfortable levying any sanctions (or recommending that anyone else do it) based on the evidence in the email, but while investigating what he said in his email, I found the statements that prompted me to make the block. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

makes sense, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing Sanders RfC

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? With something like 60 participants, I don't think that would go over well, especially as Malik's conduct is currently under the microscope. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

yep, i do! the RfC is a zero-sum game that so, so did not have to exist - the yes/no is what is driving the acrimony in my view. and all i' am doing is asking. malik is the one who has to decide to do it or not, and would take the heat, unfortunately. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, when people inevitably object, don't say I didn't warn you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fine taking some blowback. I appreciate your concern for me. I do! 02:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Still not ok -- psychology edit

Hi, would you mind letting me know what you meant by "Still not ok" when you removed the section on Genes and Environment on the Psychology page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrie0006 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I already left a note on the article Talk page, explaining it. btw discussions about article editing should go on the article talk page, as that is where everyone who cares about the article can see it, and participate. These user talk pages are for talking about stuff not specific to an article. see you over there! Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your cleanup at SierraSil and I award this barnstar to you because it seems as if you are always turning up in my watchlist, trimming articles of poorly sourced claims and various promotional content. Deli nk (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! and i must say i see the same in your editing. Thanks for all you do. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A gem of a user

		A Gem of Wikipedia
		I present you with this award in recognition of your unique contributions to Wikipedia. Your work with COI editors and dedication to helping all users join this project is truly remarkable. You are an indispensable asset to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No barnstar was sufficient to recognize your contributions so I went and made this. I hope to use it more, but gems—users whose work of so unique and so needed and so far beyond expectations—are rare. Anywho, thank you for your work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

so pretty!! thank you so much. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

El (deity)

I have started a discussion on the talk page of El (deity). Israell (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia-talk namespace usage guidelines

Maybe we should duplicate the part about Wikipedia-talk namespace given in Wikipedia:What is an article?#Namespace also in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I mean, the part about "Meta-discussions about editing belong in Wikipedia-talk space or User-talk space, not Article-talk." After all, the former is a member of just Category:Wikipedia FAQ, while the latter holds a stronger membership in Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If you actually read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages it is clear. Note the title of the section, the text in italics at the top, and relevant to our discussion, the second bullet there. The confusion you had about what an "article" is, is not common. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe clear for the initiated. I've added a bullet making your point explicit. Please improve wording if necessary. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnievinski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I've started a discussion about your recent edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. Dialectric (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)