User talk:Jytdog

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | Kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, Jytdog. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey on content curation & review Inspire Campaign[edit]

WPCube.png

Thanks for your participation in IdeaLab during the Inspire Campaign focused on improving content curation & review processes from February to March 2016. I'm interested in hearing your feedback about your participation during campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Immediate results of the campaign can be found here. Please feel free to review them and let me know if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Breitbart piece[edit]

Hello, if you can identify any of the inaccuracies you claim are in my piece, then feel to do so here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You have associated yourself with filth.
But to answer your question....
There was an original edit war over not using primary sources (me) or using them (others). I actually had no idea the google memo thing was involved at first - I just saw a bunch of old primary sources getting larded onto the article. (you can see it here in the 5 or so edits before my first one.)
As with most disputes in WP, actually doing the work of finding strong sources and making it much better usually resolves the first-level problem.
The three things you missed were my revision of the article to organize it better and put it on a stronger sourcing foundation (finished around 08:09, 10 August 2017 ) as well as Tosiaki!'s very high quality editing, and the resulting dropping of the effort of the effort to use old primary sources. @Jytdog: Wow! I did not look at the actual article for a day... and it now looks totally different. I just want to say a thank you for reformatting, as the article looks much better new.. (18:28, 10 August 2017)
but to go back to what really matters here...
but really, why the hell are you licking the toilet by writing for that "spawn of the rape of fox news by 4chan" as breitbart was aptly but crudely described on Wikipediocracy? What the hell is wrong with you? Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I am well aware that you stated you did not know of the Google memo connection. Did the article say otherwise? The IPs that showed up there were almost certainly responding to the memo. Also, I noted the nature of the disagreement over sources and how it was fixed. Didn't even cast judgment on that point, even though I personally think the MEDRS argument is weak. Tosiaki got credit with a diff and that conversation above is also linked in the article. The subject was the parts relevant to the memo, not the overall article itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You completely left out, that what the changed the dynamic was the rewrite I did overnight and that Tosiaki followed on and instead made it appear that Nanite was the one who first raised sourced quality when you wrote While various editors contested Jytdog’s argument, Nanite presented sources and material that actually met this higher standard, Nanite was reacting to what I did in the actual article. You incompetently summarized what happened. You are happy with what you did. Fine, you belong at Breitbart. Now stay the hell off my page. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The only relevant edit you made about sex differences, what the article is about, was erroneous and corrected by Tosiaki. Crediting you for "changing the dynamic" is interpreting the facts to suit you rather than dealing with what can be shown. First usable sources in the sex differences section to raise the quality there were proposed by Nanite and one was added before any of your edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The really pitiful thing, is you putting all this energy into gossip about the backoffice of Wikipedia (not to mention getting it wrong). The only thing more sad is that you are doing it for Breitbart. I am sorry that it has come to this.
I don't have time for any more of this. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As best I can tell, your claim about me getting it wrong boils down to you not getting credit for pushing for higher sourcing and being successful. Really, you are credited since I mention the dispute was over your argument the article should adhere to a higher standard of sourcing and someone then met your standard for that section. You can get upset that I didn't praise your other work on the article or give you enough credit for your liking, but the piece isn't inaccurate. By the way, you're welcome for the Berkley article (I didn't write that one obviously, but it was my info and I helped them get it more or less right).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not what I am saying. But hey, taking strands of reality and twisting them into ugly shit is what Breitbart does. Every step I take with you just gives you more words to fuck with. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it seems like a nitpick that doesn't fundamentally alter what was stated in the article. You weren't the one directly responsible for improving the sex differences section, but you did provide the impetus with your complaints and that is all reflected in the piece. I like how you don't contest the accuracy of you making six reverts in two days then trying to get someone blocked for two. That part makes you look far worse than the rest, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)