User talk:89.188.111.129

Why were these edits removed. Clear evidence in numerous studies shows long-term outcomes are terrible with antipsychotics. Also clear evidence of brain volume reduction being dose and usage dependent.


 * WP:PRIMARY studies are WP:MEDRS violations. See also WP:MEDDATE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... the soure on antipsychotics was a systematic review from 2011 wasn't it ? Talpedia (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can grant that point if the IP drops the other point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Your recent editing history at Antipsychotic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Chlorpromazine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Antipsychotics
Hey 89.188.111.129, I think Tgeorgescu is being quite zealous with his position. My advice is to let the process play out on the talk page. I don't necessarily consider what you did on antipsyhotic edit warring. Revert, revert revert with reasons, re-revert with reason. This has just made that there is a disagreement clear, albeit through the means of reverts. However, I think at this point, since the conflict is clear, we should go through things on the talk page. You should have some faith that wikipedia as a whole is very interested in accurately representing the best sources on a topic above most other things. Talpedia (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm zealous, not absurd (irrational). I learned in my experience as a Wikipedian when I have to concede defeat and when I don't have to. And I don't need a lot of convincing to do so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)