Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Sertraline , please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..
The source you used is considered unreliable on wikipedia.
Materialscientist (
talk)
23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be stepping on your toes there. If I'm annoying you, tell me to go away until you're finished. (It's bed time here, so I won't be doing any more for a bit.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several problems with Ami's edits. First, they are tendentious, e.g. changing wording to make antidepressants look bad. Second, Amy has to read the article before requesting citations in the lead. Lead is a summary and citations are not necessary in the lead, if the main text has them. Third, Kirsch meta-analysis applies to the sum of all SSRIs, but not necessarily to sertraline. Besides, Kirsch meta-analysis is flawed, there are later, better balanced meta-analyses. The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 02:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi AmiLynch. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's antidepressant coverage? Do you know if we do a generally good job of conveying antidepressants' efficacy? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmiLynch. Your account appears to be a WP:SPA (please read that) and SPA accounts often have a conflict of interest. Hence the notice I am provided here.
Hello, AmiLynch. 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:
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.
Please clarify if you have a conflict with regard to the content you are editing. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
here you asked if I am a "Wikipedia employee". Wikipedia has no employees. I am not sure what you were asking about? If it is about "authority", that is a kind of complicated thing to talk about in Wikipedia, but is perhaps addressed by this very short, but important essay: WP:CLUE. If you want to ask a more nuanced question or discuss this further, you can reply here.
I replied here instead of at the article talk page, because article talk pages are strictly for discussing article content. (See WP:TPG) Jytdog ( talk) 23:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Sertraline , please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..
The source you used is considered unreliable on wikipedia.
Materialscientist (
talk)
23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be stepping on your toes there. If I'm annoying you, tell me to go away until you're finished. (It's bed time here, so I won't be doing any more for a bit.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several problems with Ami's edits. First, they are tendentious, e.g. changing wording to make antidepressants look bad. Second, Amy has to read the article before requesting citations in the lead. Lead is a summary and citations are not necessary in the lead, if the main text has them. Third, Kirsch meta-analysis applies to the sum of all SSRIs, but not necessarily to sertraline. Besides, Kirsch meta-analysis is flawed, there are later, better balanced meta-analyses. The Sceptical Chymist ( talk) 02:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi AmiLynch. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's antidepressant coverage? Do you know if we do a generally good job of conveying antidepressants' efficacy? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmiLynch. Your account appears to be a WP:SPA (please read that) and SPA accounts often have a conflict of interest. Hence the notice I am provided here.
Hello, AmiLynch. 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:
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.
Please clarify if you have a conflict with regard to the content you are editing. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
here you asked if I am a "Wikipedia employee". Wikipedia has no employees. I am not sure what you were asking about? If it is about "authority", that is a kind of complicated thing to talk about in Wikipedia, but is perhaps addressed by this very short, but important essay: WP:CLUE. If you want to ask a more nuanced question or discuss this further, you can reply here.
I replied here instead of at the article talk page, because article talk pages are strictly for discussing article content. (See WP:TPG) Jytdog ( talk) 23:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)