User talk:Amousey/Archive-1

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the talk page of WPMED. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!


 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. MEDRS typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here.  Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.


 * discussion happens through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drug-induced amnesia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Substance use and Blackouts. 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) 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

May 2020
Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Doc James. I had been considering posting the same on your page. Clearly reverts aren't getting either of us anywhere. I posted on the talk page today to ask for advice and suggestions re: moving things forward. I want to include updated medical recommendions mostly on treatment. I have good sources for this. Actually mostly the same sources already used who have updated their websites and info. Clearly being BOLD was not the right approach.  What do I need to do differently? How can this be resolved? Amousey (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is a significant difference here: Doc James is a long-time trusted editor and administrator with over 300,000 edits to more than 50,000 pages - dwarfing my 130,000 edits. He's also a doctor and has been instrumental in defining content and sourcing policies around medical topics. You have, as of this moment, 368 edits, mostly to one topic.
 * Edit-warring your preferred content against vastly more experienced users is not a good look. Especially for someone with your limited and narrow history. Guy (help!) 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules do not give extra weight to editors based on their professions. This topic is frequently misunderstood and not within his specialty. I wish to have more focus on the sources. It appears that even directly quoting them in the article is getting missed. This appears to have an impact on the reverts going on. Amousey (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you seem very determined to miss the point. Doc James is not only an extremely experienced Wikipedian, he is also medically qualified (so an expert rather than a lay reader of medical sources) and has also been instrumental in forming the medical sourcing and related guidelines so understands them a lot better than some random dude who has just woken up after a year's hibernation to try to rewrite an article from a POV promoted by determined activists that we've been holding back for most of two decades.
 * Some animals genuinely are more equal than others. Guy (help!) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Skating on thin ice
Your diatribe of yesterday reads as a long-form attack on Professor Sir Simon Wessely, based on talking points that have already led to several people being banned from Wikipedia.

At this point I think you need to be open about any association with the ME Association or any other activist group. You are presenting yourself as a neutral third party, but with each successive statement you make that less and less plausible. Guy (help!) 11:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point out what I said that was not factual? Did I somehow describe him with adjectives that were unpleasant? I don't think I did. I did post a history of significant events in the illness and Wessely has some part in that in the past.
 * I am not a particular fan of the ME Association (not that that is any of your business). I mentioned them only because of their opposition to PACE being so prominent. They are the second largest UK charity. I left out that Charles Shepherd their scientific advisor wrote his own criteria because it's not notable in the history. It's barely used.
 * I don't have a "favorite" theory of the cause of the illness. I don't have a favorite idea about the pathogenesis - there's several interesting ones being researched. I don't have a favorite treatment / cure to promote. I do want the page to reflect current knowledge rather than that of 5 years ago.
 * I think you need to consider that you have repeatedly shown yourself to have negative opinions about ME patients and as such can't be seen as able to objectively review research. In particular deleting research links because you don't like the site that a PDF is on. You brought up Wessely immediately, but I was actually posting about the CDC. That's what I started off with on the page - updating treatment info as per CDC updates.
 * I don't get why there is a determination to replace new info with older info from the same sources. I don't get why my sources aren't being read. Amousey (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which patient group do you represent? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * None. User:Roxy the dog Amousey (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My spiderman suit has holes in the knees and elbows. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am sure you don't represent any of them. But the likelihood of a connection is, at this point, close to 100%, especially given your care in not actually saying that you are or are not associated with any group. Guy (help!) 12:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies
User:Trappist the monk apologies for accidentally clicking an archive thing on your page. Have uninstalled it to avoid doing this in future Amousey (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Idiopathic chronic fatigue has been accepted
 Idiopathic chronic fatigue, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Idiopathic_chronic_fatigue help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Sulfurboy (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)