User talk:Wikiman2718/Archive 1

Antidepressant
hey User:Wikiman2718, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article on antidepressants and I agree that its section on Effectiveness could be better. However, you removed a lot of information from the most comprehensive systematic reviews from recent years and left instead a detailed description of a >10 years old trial. I don't think this is an improvement really. I suggest for the time being we restore the old content until you suggest an improved Effectiveness section on the talk page (which would be very welcome as far as I'm concerned). Lucleon (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking over those studies, I see that many of them could be useful in expanding the section on effectiveness. I also agree that the one study I cited was not very good. However, the primary problem with that page is clutter: some sections (such as the one on efficacy) are just long lists of studies, and this is not appropriate form for a Wikipedia article. I doubt that any one of the ten-thousand daily readers of that page can read and understand much of it, so clearness and concision are important. Therefore, I would prefer to leave it the way it is and update it as we go (by incorporating the old material in paragraph form) than just revert to the way it was. I'm sorry that I haven't done that sooner since I haven't been on Wikipedia much the last few days.


 * Remember that this page used to be of GA quality, and now it is C-class. This may have to do with the changing views and new evidence available on antidepressants which has not been smoothly incorporated into the page. Lots of outdated viewpoints still remain, and lots on new evidence has been hastily pasted onto the page. Fixing that page will involve much bold deleting of low quality and low relevance material. I admit a may have gotten a little overenthusiastic in cutting down the section on effectiveness. If you have any changes you would like to make, go ahead and make them. Just make sure the studies are incorporated into the page in paragraph form.


 * Ok, I think we are basically on the same page. So, let's try to improve this article together, though, I won't have much time doing that in the next days or even weeks. Imho the biggest meta-analysis of antidepressants to date (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext); as well as the review on antidepressants in dementia which was updated last year (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003944.pub2/full) provide useful and up-to-date information on the effectiveness. Lucleon (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Unblinding) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Unblinding.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblinding: GA nomination
Ref #3 is same as #25. Ref #5 is same as #23. Consolidate. Personally, for GA articles, I prefer a ref format that links the title to the PubMed abstract rather than to the journal. Most of what is with this article are the latter. The article needs a section on unblinding a trial before it is completed to see if partial results demonstrate such a large superiority for the treatment arm that is would be unethical to continue the study (or less often, the treatment arm is doing worse than the control group). David notMD (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see some interest in my article. Thanks for the info on the references--I'll get that fixed up. As for the second criticism, I do believe that this situation is already covered. If the researchers decide to terminate the study early and unblind all participants, the unblinding still occurs upon conclusion of the study and is therefor an ordinary case of post-study unblinding. And while the researchers may peak at the data during interim analysis, this does not constitute unblinding because the researchers doing the peaking were never blinded to the data they are peaking at. Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interim unblinding deserves a section with examples of the consequences for the enrolled. If the treated were doing so much better than the control, are they switched over to treated, gratis, or just thanked for their sacrifice? Likewise, if the treated ended up doing worse, after treatment stopped, are they part of a post-study tracking to see if the ill-effects diminish after treatment was stopped? SELECT is an example of a prematurely stopped trial. https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/Consortia/members/select.html A term used was planned futility analysis. See also Pak K, Jacobus S, Uno H. Decision on performing interim analysis for comparative clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Aug 16;7:224-230. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.001. eCollection 2017 Sep. PubMed PMID: 29696190. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it. A google search tells me that interim analysis may or may not involve unblinding, depending on how its done. Optimally it should be done by a third party that never needed to be blinded to the data in the first place so as to avoid error. However, as it may involve unblinding (and the words interim unblinding are sometimes used) it should have a section. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you get a reviewer. I am too far removed from clinical trials and statistical analysis to take it on. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ref format
For med/health articles, I think the preference is for using https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi to auto-generate the ref in proper format by entering the PMID number, then paste it into the article. To get from what you have to getting a PMID number, go to PubMed and search on the title of a reference. This should yield the abstract page of the article. PMID number at the bottom. Copy the PMID number and type it into the ref generator. I did refs 1-6 and also got rid of the duplications. David notMD (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That helps a ton.

Unbiquadium
Wikiman2718, I'm not sure if you received my ping, but I finished implementing the changes you suggested at Talk:Unbiquadium/GA1. Please take a look whenever you have a chance. ComplexRational (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I've been a bit distracted lately. I'll get back to your article by tomorrow. Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Inverse problem
Hello Thank you for your interest in this page.

In the introduction, just after "It is called an inverse problem because it starts with the effects and then calculates the causes. It is the inverse of a forward problem, which starts with the causes and then calculates the effects. The mathematicians Adams and Le Verrier, whose calculations, from the perturbed trajectory of Uranus, led to the discovery of Neptune, did not know they were actually solving an inverse problem.", you felt the need for a citation.

I doubt such a citation exists : the claim is mine. However, the calculations of Adams and Le Verrier obviously attempted to find the cause of the strange trajectory of Uranus. Therefore these mathematicians addressed an inverse problem according to the definition given in the first sentence. They ignored they were solving an inverse problem if we admit that this topic was formally initiated in the 20th century, as said (by another contributor) in the History section. Therefore my statement appears as nothing but an obvious conclusion... Shelyak64 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * u|shelyak64: While that claim may have merit, it does unfortunately violate Wikipedia's no original research policy. It will need to be rephrased to accommodate the policy. You might try something like this:
 * "Inverse problems have arisen in mathematics for centuries (cite source 1). However, a formal study of inverse problems was not initiated until the 20th century (cite source 2)."
 * This allows the reader to get your point without violating the no original research policy. It does toe the line on syntheses, but I think it will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your advices. I have modified the page (preamble and history section) trying to fit your remarks. Should a concern remain, do not hesitate to let me know.Shelyak64 (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

List of biases in scientific literature moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of biases in scientific literature, isstill incomplete, and does not have enough sources to remain published. . I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article  is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Science
Wikiman2718, don't forget to sign your posts! RockMagnetist(talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Clinical trial registration into List of clinical trial registries. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Diannaa: Thank you for that information. I'll be sure to do that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metascience (research), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Replication ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Metascience_%28research%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Metascience_%28research%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Hi Wikiman2718. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Research Integrity and Peer Review


The article Research Integrity and Peer Review has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Metascience merge
Five daysis insufficient time to gather views on a possible article merge. I have rrestored the original contents.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 (1)
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Autism Speaks, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have sourced the material. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As creator of the Benjamin Alexander article, I support its deletion.
Most of his sources are primary, and I didn't know back then that FC is a pseudoscience. Ylevental (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I have nominated the pages of all FC users for deletion, and you may be interested in participating in the discussions. By the way, I like the new Temple Grandin template. It is better to have a person who is confirmed to be autistic on the template. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That definitely makes more sense. Ylevental (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Benjamin Alexander (writer), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a misunderstanding here. I have removed the content per the discussion Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am reverting your edit per WP:GRAPEVINE. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion does not entitle you to gut the article and then nominate it for deletion. I will revert once more. If you revert again, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GRAPEVINE entitles my to "gut the article." I strongly suggest that you revert your edit. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What living person(s) are being libelled by all the material in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article. He is purported to communicate by the scientifically discredited technique of facilitated communication. None of the words attributed to him are actually his. Use of this technique is a form of identity theft and has been called an abuse of human rights. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely absurd. You're free to continue your rather unusual discussion at ANI but don't blank the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify exactly what it is that you think is absurd? WP:MED sourcing finds that FC is not a valid communication technique. Therefore, all mainstream news sources that assume it is are unreliable. Per WP:GRAPEVINE, this information must be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And I do think that the FC issue is absurd. If you like this sort of stuff, you may enjoy the article List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Disputed content was agreed to be a BLP violation. Article was deleted for lack of reliable sources. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed incomplete Sue Rubin deletion nomination
If you wish to delete the Sue Rubin article, you have to also create the talkpage. Ylevental (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Further note: your Benjamin Alexander nomination was also removed due to improper creation. Ylevental (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am addressing the issue. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but just to let you know, your deletion nominations of Sue Rubin and Benjamin Alexander were removed again due to improper formatting. Ylevental (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You may have seen them already, but if not, the steps are listed at WP:AFDHOW.  Some people also prefer to use a tool like Twinkle (WP:TWINK).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I’m having some computer troubles at the moment and currently working from Mobil. I would like to carry these deletion nominations forward, I am running into some technical difficulties. If others are interested in pushing for these deletions I would encourage them to do so. Otherwise I will figure it out when I get my computer back. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will nominate them myself. Check for the nominations. Ylevental (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Important message
As the message specifies, I'm not posting the alert to imply that you need to stop editing in the area, it's a standard notice for those editing in the field, so they know to be particularly careful, especially when an article's talk page includes a special warning (some are subject to WP:1RR for instance). — Paleo Neonate  – 00:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Amy Sequenzia supposedly addressed the Florida Legislature on issues relating to health and people with disabilities.
Found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Sequenzia and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/33007760/. How likely do you think this is true? Ylevental (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The clip read “Amy Sequenzia said...”. This looks like the words of a facilitator. I wouldn’t doubt that she went before legislature, but I still see no evidence that those are her words. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

AfD
Just noting so you can revert your WP:!VOTE yourself: WP:AFD: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." — Paleo Neonate  – 18:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’ll do that. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Chris3991m (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP has already been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussions
Please don't edit your talk page posts after they have been responded to, as you did here. It makes discussion difficult to follow, and is contrary to talk page guidelines per WP:REDACT. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Amy Sequenzia article on the French Wikipedia is also nominated for deletion
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Sequenzia

If you wish to support its deletion, go to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Amy_Sequenzia/Suppression and under the section "Supprimer", type your reason and sign with four tildes. Use translate.google.com if you need to translate into French (they will still accept it). 35.8.88.120 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you'd like me to assist/translate/proofread/correct your text before you post it, you could post it here below (I know French). — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blinded experiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Observer effect ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Blinded_experiment check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Blinded_experiment?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing to get those articles removed. FC should never be promoted.
I just got nervous and tried to report your actions because I was nervous. I'm glad you stood up. Just remember to be somewhat more careful in your edits in the future. I wrote about the deletion here https://corticalchauvinism.com/2019/06/26/a-triple-victory-three-wikipedia-articles-promoting-facilitated-communication-are-deleted/ Ylevental (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I liked your article. I expect that you learned your lesson about socking, and I hope we can get along better in the future. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Also, consider improving the Rapid prompting method article, as it is also a form of pseudoscience. Ylevental (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Just making sure you are aware. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Lucy Blackman is nominated for deletion, for the same reason the others were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Blackman Ylevental (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Birger Sellin is nominated for deletion.
Similar reasons to the others. If you are to participate in the discussion, also check German sources to see whether his controversy around FC is notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birger_Sellin Ylevental (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the RPM template
I also edited it to add more alternative medicine templates, similar to what is found on FC. Ylevental (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. You've done some nice work cleaning up these articles on RPM and FC. Who would have thought that there'd be so many, right? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics article
You make some very good observations on the fringe status / 'pseudoscience' of cryonics thanks Theodorus75 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * : No problem. It must be a little disconcerting to show up on Wikipedia and immediately find yourself in the middle of a fringe debate with little to no knowledge of guidelines. In this particular case, truth appears to be losing to verifiability. There is lots to do on Wikipedia. I hope you stick around. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Autism rights movement
You should stop POV pushing and deleting sourced material. Amazonz (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Amazonz (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: OP banned as sock. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cupping therapy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have sought consensus on the talk page. I do not intend to edit war or to violate 3RR, only to removed unsources material as discussed on the talk page and in my edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a democracy: If any source is supplied, I will happily stop reverting. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so you are aware of WP:EW policy. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope that you are also aware of WP:EW policy. I see that you have returned the category without sourcing, without an edit summary, and without additional discussion on the talk page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Err what? Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I incorrectly reverted an edit, leaving the category on the page. Then you edited the page, and I saw that the category was still there. I mistakenly thought that you had added it back. Regardless, we should both be able to agree at this time that the category is unsourced. Since you added the category back most recently, I would appreciate if you would remove it again until such time as proper sourcing is located. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see how consensus pans out. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus is needed to remove unsourced content. I'm not going to let myself be stonewalled. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think any discussion of content would be better off at the article Talk page, where everyone can see it. It's clear others disagree with your assessment of the situation. Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you well know, it doesn't matter how many editors favor the inclusion of unverifiable material. It is still proper to remove that material. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Annie's Coming Out
Hey, Wikiman. I noticed in your nomination of Annie's Coming Out at AFD, you referred to Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia. But I think you probably meant to refer to Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination), the one you started yourself. As the closer of the second nomination pointed out, the first nomination was closed as Speedy keep by an involved editor. The nominator, closer, and one of the two voters are now indefinitely blocked. It wasn't a proper AFD at all, to put it mildly. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you. I have now fixed the link. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Will you nominate the Anne McDonald article for deletion? It has not been merged yet.
I remember you said "If the article stays unmerged, I will nominate it for deletion." at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anne_McDonald#External_links_modified_2 Ylevental (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do a bit more research to see if it can't be salvaged with some scepticism. If it can't, I'll nominate it for deletion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, since the person is dead, BLP guidelines don't apply. I'll see if there is still valid deletion criteria. There may also be guidelines that recommend a merge rather than a standalone article in such a case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good. Ylevental (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Parkinsons
Since dopamine agonists are an evidence-based treatment for Parkinson's, hw did the authors control for that? I can't see any evidence they did. This looks like they did a thing that is known to produce small amounts of short-term dopamine agonsist,and found an effect consistent with dopamine agonists. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the studies was that placebos cause the brain to release dopamine. Therefore the placebo works in the same way as the active drugs-- by raising dopamine levels in certain parts of the brain. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding. Expectation causes the brain to release dopamine. It's a white coat effect, not a placebo effect as such. You have to be very careful witht his, as quacks use the purported power of placebos as a way to insulate their proven inert treatments from refutation. Especially true of acupucturists, and especially true of Kaptchuk. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the paper says. And expectation is part of the placebo effect. We can argue about why placebo pills produces improvements in Parkinson's, but it is well-verified that they do. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "placebo effect" is mainly bias. Repeated attempts to show any objectively measurable effect have failed. This is an interesting edge case in that the administration of placebo might trigger a known non-treatment effect, but it does not rebut the large volume of literature showing that the "placebo effect" is subjective, not objective. At best we may have a case for "in this one instance the subjective nature of the "placebo effect" may result in a change in symptoms, not just the perception of symptoms", but you also need to remember that we've had quackery shills knocking on the ddoor of that article for years trying to reframe the placebo effet as real and powerful. In as much as you can generalise, the placebo effect is not real. Not real with one or two specific exceptions? Possibly. One or two specifics suddenly make it real? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed on the article's page, there is a lot of data to show that the placebo effect is real for pain and Parkinson's. There is also good evidence in the cases of anxiety and depression. These cases are more obvious, as perceived improvement is likely to result in real improvement; if a person thinks there is a cure for their depression they are likely to feel less depressed. I need to look at the literature a bit more, but I'm starting to see a pretty clear picture emerge. The placebo effect always results in self-reported improvement, but in some cases there is real improvement as well. That doesn't necessarily mean that placebos should be used in clinical practice. This point is a matter of controversy. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Block vs. ban
I noticed that here you claimed that Bbb23 "threatened" to ban you. That is not true, as the warning he left on your talk page says "you may be blocked from editing". A block and a ban are two very different things, and bans are much more serious than blocks. You can read about the differences here. - ZLEA T\C 01:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will make the correction. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw your recent activity on Bbb23's talk page, and I suggest that you Let it go to avoid getting blocked for disruptive edits. I'm not picking sides, but I've seen similar situations on the talk page before and I know what to expect. - ZLEA T\C 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I value your advice, and I admit I could have been more civil on his talk page, I fail to see how this is anything less that the a clear-cut case of admin abuse. Even if all is as you say, I have to try as a matter of principle because I have self-respect. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted talkpage diffs
''Hi, Wikiman2718. Here's the dialogue from the deleted Talk:Amy Sequenzia that you asked me for:


 * The current pruning has been criticized and is indeed radical; if the article survives deletion it will need expansion. Improving it is also allowed during the discussion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Pruning" - now there's a nice word. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As the last to perform major surgery here, I'd say that PN's observations above make sense. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 23:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe that this version was unduly reductive and dismissive of the subject, especially since the wikipedia lede shows up prominently in the side-bar for Google searches. I have reworked it for now keeping in mind valid concerns about ascribing authorship to Sequenzia and even while I have recommended deletion of the article at the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh, it was gutted. What about this version before the gutting?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

''It contains the only two comments by Bbb23 on the page. The diffs for those comments are and  — you can't read the diffs, but admins can. I don't see how any of it could be useful for your purpose, though; maybe you were thinking of some other page. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC).


 * PS, oh crap, I have probably now pinged everybody whose sig is in that excerpt. Sorry, everybody! Unintentional! Bishonen &#124; talk 10:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

More unwanted advice
@Wikiman2718: I saw the posts at Bishonen's talk. Please drop the matter to save yourself wasted time and pain. Facilitated communication is discredited but an admin offering advice about how matters are routinely conducted at Wikipedia says nothing about their attitude to the topic. You would have got the same advice regardless of the subject. Even if the admin were wrong (they weren't), people are allowed to be wrong at Wikipedia and you will only waste time and get stressed by pursuing it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. However, I would urge you to defer judgement until I have had a chance to make my case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ivar Lovaas shouts at autistic boy.png
Thank you for uploading File:Ivar Lovaas shouts at autistic boy.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:
 * File:Researcher Bernard Perloff strikes an autistic boy.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ivar Lovaas shouts at autistic boy.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ivar Lovaas shouts at autistic boy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Researcher Bernard Perloff strikes an autistic boy.png
Thanks for uploading File:Researcher Bernard Perloff strikes an autistic boy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. It was you that deleted my comment. I will assume that this was just a mistake. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You posted a nearly identical comment to that of Zefr, with just a few figures and a few words changed. That's pure trolling, and it's no wonder it confused Zefr. Further trolling may get you blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
 * I was making a point. I don't understand how it is proper to revert another person's comment without discussion. That is refactoring another person's comment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Making wp:points at Wikipedia is a very bad idea. - DVdm (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone bothered to read the comment that was reverted-- Zefr is trying to refute WP:MEDRS sources with three sources that do not even address the point he is trying to refute. Is this acceptable? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously you were trying to make a point. Don't use such methods for it. As for Zefr reverting your comment, it looks to me like that was because the way you commented was confusing to them. (=They thought it was their own comment, only altered.) There, now I've said it twice, see "it's no wonder it confused Zefr" above. I hope it's quite clear now. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
 * I do think that it is quite clear. It was my assumption that he was confused and was acting in good faith. However, my comment violated no guidelines. We are supposed to make points about sources. Zefr's reversion of my comment was in violation of the guideline against refactoring the comments of others. Therefore I would like him to undo it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I have returned the comment myself. I hope that we all learned a valuable lesson about victim-blaming. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A good source about metascience
Hello, here's a source maybe you don't have that I recently found, and found very interesting It's a quite dense and long review: Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., & Stanley, H. E. (2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714, 1-73. --21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For Journalology, here are some interesting reads (but not RS for WP, but maybe the sources they use can fit?): - also the review paper above partially covers journalology too. --Signimu (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. Those are definitely some interesting reads-- on my to-do list. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of biases in scientific literature concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of biases in scientific literature, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of biases in scientific literature


Hello, Wikiman2718. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of biases in scientific literature".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Graduated Electronic Decelerator


Hello, Wikiman2718. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Graduated Electronic Decelerator".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Evidence-based education
Hi Wikiman2718, I hope you are well in these challenging time.

Since you have contributed so much to this page, I want to alert you to my plan, in collaboration of course, to do some significant editing to this page. For example, I would add more descriptive general information at the top, and move the specific teaching techniques towards the bottom of the page. The chart on What Works Clearinghouse is very impressive; however, because information is constantly changing, in my view it is too difficult to keep current (none of us have that much free time, even with Covid-19.). I suggest we give our readers enough guidance that they can use the WWC website to find the information they need. And, also help them to understand such terms as "Effectiveness Rating" and "Improvement Index". And, I would give only general information on "The Coalition For Evidence-Based Policy" since it is no longer effective; and add information about Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Are you OK with me doing this, and do you have any suggestions? Best regards, John (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI
You are mentioned at WP:AIN. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am, but as I mentioned there, going to an IP to avoid harassment is a non-abusive use of multiple accounts. Since I went to IP I have only used this account only to upload images (which IPs are not allowed to do). --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

 * OP banned as sock. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Atdevel
Since CheckUser wasn't conclusive and Atdevel denied being ATC, it's probably best to leave it unless more behavioral evidence surfaces, in which case I suggest filing a WP:SPI case in the future if it's still a concern... — Paleo Neonate  – 02:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the advice. I value your opinion as an experienced user. I kind of did file a complaint here, but I'm not sure if that's the same as filing an SPI complaint against him or not. I thought there was a ton of behavioral evidence. What more do I need, a confession? Your advice on the matter is much appreciated. As I'm sure you can see, I'm having a bit of difficulty navigating this by myself. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what already resulted in a CheckUser being run so I don't think a SPI report is necessary at current time. It's not even certain that user will keep editing considering the long hiatus...  If you see another apparent sock soon then if filing a report for it, a mention of this suspect (or others if any) in that report could be included, in case CU results link them.  Behavioral evidence alone can be enough, but it requires a certain level of evidence, like restoring or deleting content what previous socks also did and possibly other factors like writing style, articles edited, etc.  There also are tools like  that sometimes help.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the tool. I'll check it out. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: User:Atdevel banned as sock. ATC was not the master. I have apologized for falsely accusing him. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Time to stop
Wikiman, please drop the line of inquiry you're pursuing on AN/I. Do not post anything else about it on Wikipedia, including no "meta discussion", and preferably do not email anyone about it either. See Harassment and WP:OUTING. SarahSV (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not suggested that we "out" anyone. I am suggesting that a checkuser evaluate the off-wiki evidence as they often in socking cases. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked your account for 24 hours, because it seems that otherwise you'll continue to discuss this. I'm willing to unblock if you guarantee you won't mention it again on Wikipedia. If a functionary really is looking into this, you can leave it to them. You'll have to email me that request, as I've removed talk-page access.
 * If you do email, please only request an unblock, along with your promise not to mention the issue again. I don't want to become involved in examining any further details. SarahSV (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SlimVirgin: According to my block log, you blocked me for harassment and making personal attacks. The harassment guideline you have accuse me of violating is WP:Outing. Having reviewed WP:Outing, I am confident that sending off-wiki evidence to a checkuser is not a violation of WP:Outing, and that I violated that policy nowhere else on the wiki as evidenced by the lack of redaction. The personal attack you have accused me of making was an unsubstantiated accusation of socking. I was attempting to substantiate this claim by sending evidence to a checkuser before you explicitly prohibited me from doing so, which makes the rational for your block at very least a bit circular. You have also closed the thread and prevented any further investigation into the matter. Given your thirteen year relationship with the accused, I am concerned. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikiman, I don't like blocking people, especially not editors who are doing good work, as I believe you are. But I am telling you now for the very last time that you must not mention this again on Wikipedia. You posted a couple of things that crossed the line. I did not stop you from contacting a checkuser; I deliberately did not cut off your access to Wikipedia email. And I do not have a 13-year relationship, or one of any other length, with the editor you're discussing.
 * Also, a word to the wise: when we contact checkusers in situations like this, we're supposed to supply the minimum amount of off-wiki information necessary to resolve the issue. If a checkuser gets a sense of unjustified wiki-sleuthing, you could face an indefinite block.
 * In your shoes, I would drop this and forget about it. It was a minor issue, annoying, yes, but these things happen on Wikipedia. But in any event, no more mention of it onwiki. Thank you, SarahSV (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did interpret the terms of your block as prohibiting such an email from being sent, though of course, I could have interpreted wrong. I also interpreted the block as possibly being so broad as to prohibit investigation into the block, but I am also glad to see that this is also not true. One way or another, I did enjoy my 24 hour break from Wikipeida. It gave me time to relax an cool off, though I do object to the note on my block log. Given my recently developed autoimmune condition, I may be requesting medical blocks in the future. Would it be alright if I got those from you? I don't need one right now, but I'm just asking. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the break; that's good to know. I prefer not to do self-requested blocks, although I will if you can't find anyone else. These admins will do it. There is also WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer if you can figure out how to use it. SarahSV (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. That’s exactly what I needed to know. You have been a big help. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)