User talk:Unbekannterweise

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 11) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 12) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
 * 13) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 14) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Ciprofloxacin 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Advocacy in Wikipedia
It is becoming fairly obvious that you have some to ax to grind here, as you are resolutely refusing to follow MEDRS. This ref and each fails MEDRS and obviously so.

So please explain what is driving this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why am I flagged to be engaged in an edit war after adding sources to FDA and Nature that were just mentioned to be a good sources. If it were an edit war I would try to add my previous paragraph again which I obviously didnt. If the references to nature and oxford journal are objected there is still no reason to remove my complete edit as most was referred to the FDA sourceUnbekannterweise (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The two refs I cited are not even close to OK. You are not interested in following Wikipedia's guidelines. What is driving this behavior? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in an edit war, just to inform readers properly about scientific evidence. I leave it up to you to add the information I tried to convey. The nature article is a summary of recent research, it is not a primary source of research where one author conducts research. The only primary source of review was the oxford journal link. So in summary it would have been sufficient to remove the oxford link, not the entire edit.Unbekannterweise (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. The Nature News piece is absolutely not MEDRS.  Again, what is driving your advocacy here? Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am asking this, so I can help you manage it. If you continue editing and behaving badly, you are doing to end up blocked or topic banned. Please discuss your behavior here. What is driving it? Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am new to this stuff and as Nature has a ImpactFactor of 40 and the article was a literature review (cite Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? : scientists write reviews from time to time, which are dramatically more reliable than primary sources), I assumed its one of the most reliable sources there are. I did not expect it to be an unrealiable source. Is there an easy way to test if a source is MEDRS ? I mean is there a blacklist/whitelist or similar ? I understand that governmental organizations are in general considered reliable. "I can help you manage it" - thank you, that would be great, as I do not want my account to get locked up.Unbekannterweise (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a Nature News piece. It is not a literature review.  If you want me to help you, please explain why you are so focused on this and are so impatient that you are not carefully reading what has already been explained to you several times. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will - after you explain to me if the following examples are primary sources or not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21190921 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18067688 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3490468 Unbekannterweise (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You should disclose what is driving you to edit about this one thing. If you want to ask how sourcing works here that is understandable, but horse-trading for disclosure is despicable. I will not reply here again.Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)