User talk:Germanbrother

In response to your feedback
Are you sure that anything of yours was deleted? I cannot see anything like that. You can discuss this with the administrator that deleted the article you are concerned about. Or you can ask at the WP:REFUND page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

warning
Hello, Germanbrother. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting other editors
Your recent editing history at Major depressive disorder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.--McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bipolar disorder. ''You have been reverted several times by multiple editors at addiction, parkinson's disease, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism, and major depressive disorder ‎ and repeatedly notified that the content you're adding doesn't meet WP's sourcing criteria for medical articles: WP:MEDRS.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 10:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained'') 10:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Germanbrother. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''Your additions of ttext like "Newest noninvasive treatment for depression is a medical device that uses H-coil for deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (Deep TMS)." Come across as spam, especially when you are edit warring to get them to stay'' EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Major depressive disorder; promotional editing
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Major depressive disorder. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Per Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You've been inserting promotional material at several medical articles and have ignored complaints about this on your talk page. A new medical device may or may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you want it to be prominently placed in Wikipedia you will need agreement from others that it deserves such treatment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Spammy
Your edits are very spammy. It appears that you have a connection to the product in question. Please only discuss changes on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Prcc27 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=705217849 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F705217849%7CNationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries%5D%5D Ask for help])

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Germanbrother. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia as well as articles about health. I have noticed your editing for a while now, and you have an extensive history of adding unsourced or badly sourced, promotional content to articles pertaining to health. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Germanbrother. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection in the RW with topics you have edited - for example your edits today to antidepressant drugs, or with Brainsway? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking you again to please WP:DISCLOSE any connections you have with companies you edit about. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What is going on?
Why are you adding the following reference to so many articles?

Combination of Antidepressant Medications From Treatment Initiation for Major Depressive Disorder: A Double-Blind Randomized Study

Please tell me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Reuters poll
Hello. You're asking me to talk to Ryopus until we have an agreement. He hasn't responded to me in a week, so I would count him out. Other than that, please head over to the talk page and read what I have to say (I don't want to talk about it here). Please feel free to respond to me and I'll do my best to get back to you; I will clarify my reasoning for you. Nike4564 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=711512173 your edit] to Grigory Yavlinsky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * com/newspage/94902818/ Yeltsin survives impeachment PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE SUNDAY, MAY 16, 1999] The impeachment drive is largely a sideshow. Even if it clears the Duma, the effort is
 * *Transition to a Market Economy (500 Days Program) St.Martin’s Press, New York, 1991

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grigory Yavlinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HSE. 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) 11:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
Please review WP:MEDRS. We don't add unsourced content to medical articles (especially as Parkinson's disease is a Featured article), and sourced content you might add needs to conform to this guideline. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)