User talk:Rmlewinson

Research
While there is no cure for schizophrenia, research to learn more about the causes, progression, and treatment of the disease is ongoing. Current research directions include genetic association studies, discoveries of new animal models of the disease, and new drug development to treat the disease. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is currently recruiting for many human clinical trials involving patients with schizophrenia. Additionally, large organizations like the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), and the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) are working with both government and private institutions to recruit and fund talented researchers studying schizophrenia and related mental illnesses.

In the last two decades, more than 50,000 studies on schizophrenia have been published. In 2005, 12 schizophrenia researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Veteran's Administration compiled the findings from these articles to determine what fundamental facts were discovered from which scientific theories can be built today. Their work, published in the Schizophrenia Bulletin, summarizes what we now know about schizophrenia from research, and where more thought and data could have the greatest impact in our future understanding the disease.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Miguel R. Forbes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Schizophrenia, 3RR
After removing text from the schizophrenia article that does not comply with our medical editing guidelines (WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS), I noticed that you have added that or similar text four times this year and that other editors have removed the text and explained to you several times on talk why the text shouldn't be added. A review of the medical editing guidelines may be helpful; please take care to gain consensus before re-adding text and take care to understand edit warring (see WP:3RR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk, regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk again, best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bipolar (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) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing
Hello Rmlewinson. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rmlewinson. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing this information. I was not aware of the requirement to disclose payment and have just added this disclosure to my Talk page. Rmlewinson (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This template is meant to be placed on your user page, User:Rmlewinson, and not your talk page. I will move it as a courtesy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Other accounts
You also appear to have edited under three other accounts: as well as  and  which was called "GF Revunami" until its last edit, which was a request for a username change. Please confirm. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. I have never used the Gnusworthy or Sesame Stick accounts nor do I know to whom they belong. I may have used Rlewinson years ago and forgotten the password, but this Rmlewinson account is my current account. Rmlewinson (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not believable. I suggest you reconsider your response, as the coordination among these accounts is obvious. Extremely obvious. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to be aware that there is a very negative history between PR companies and the editing community. The editing community tolerates paid editing; it does not love it. You have already caused a big drain on the time of the volunteer community and there is  more time that is going to spent cleaning up after you. Please don't waste more of our time by making this difficult.
 * There is a clear and very narrow path to make things right here. That path is available. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * just fwiw to watchers; i am emailing with this person and more information will be forthcoming. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)