Greetings, You replaced info that was/is NOT cited in the article, "The Causes of Poverty." Any info on Wikipedia, no matter what we personally feel about it, must be neutral and verifiable through reliable sources. MRSawesome33 ( talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Workplace harassment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to contribute by adding See Also sections, however, our policy for see also sections (see WP:See also ) focuses on only linking to a (i.e. 3-5) articles that would not otherwise be navigable from the article. Most of the see also sections you have been adding contain high-level articles, that should be linked in other ways in the article (using WP:Hatnotes like Template:Further or Template:Main) or WP:Navigational boxes which are designed to map a whole topic area (for example, this recent one I created about Rural areas: Template:Rural society ).
Huge see also sections don't actually help readers navigate much between articles because they don't know what to click on, and thus ignore the list. If they are not kept limited, they become less useful because its a bunch of uncontextualized links to topics, that doesn't help the reader decide on which ones to click on, and which ones to ignore. I recommend trying contributing to some of these other strategies (i.e. helping readers find related content within specific subsections of articles with links and notes at the top of the sections). Or, if you are intersted in doing this in topic areas Navigational templates are really helpful ways to effect many more articles.
Keep up the good work, and I hope that you find a good strategy for adding links: building the web is so important! Sadads ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
P.s. did you know that we have a bunch of WP:Orphaned articles that have no links to them at all -- this makes the article invisible to not only readers but search engines and other tools that use Wikipedia to map the relationship between topics). Sadads ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind. I'm certain people will use those more often when they're more complete. Lau737 ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Adolescence. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I have done so for you this time, but hope you will follow best practices yourself next time.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out! Lau737 ( talk) 10:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I see you've been adding primary and dated studies to support medical content; please have a look at Wikipedia's sourcing guideline for biomedical content, which typically prefers secondary and recent sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I think you violated WP copywrite policies - this was from a BBC story - also the causality issues make the study - a meta-analysis kinda challenging - I suspect there was a prior reason this was just not dropped in the article by others - it is from 2021. Clinically, I am uncertain this would prove causality - folks who are stressed and overworked - likely are also eating poor diets and not receiving great medical care - if you read the WHO article - I think you will see all the caveats on over-interpretation... BeingObjective ( talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This is again using dated non-MEDRS sources for biomedical content, and see also WP:CLOP on the need to rephrase in our own words. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I will try to use that format
@SandyGeorgia: For instance:
Studies have assessed that anywhere from 30 to 85 percent of patients suffering from chronic pain also suffer from depression. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
That huge variance isn't just due to different testing groups. Different studies measure depression in different ways. Depression is a hard to pin down and evolving concept, see also the need for two pages: /info/en/?search=Major_depressive_disorder & /info/en/?search=Depression_(mood). I'm not dedicated to any one particular definition of depression and I think the public also understands depression as something that's hard to pin down and evolving as a scientific concept. I do believe that the use of "clinical depression" or "major depressive disorder" qualifies as a biomedical statement.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
:9
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OK, what you are proposing there is problematic (and see also BeingObjective's response above) in many ways, but I will have to hold off on a longer answer until I home on a real computer. Short answer: yes, that is biomedical content, and your proposal would be using sources in non-compliant ways to advance original research. More later. Also, could you please remember to always sign your talk page posts, by adding four tildes after them ( ~~~~ ) ? I am editing from an iPad, and when your posts are unsigned, I can't use the reply-tool script, which facilitates editing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
First, to help you understand what is meant at MEDRS when it says:
If you click on Wikipedia:Biomedical information from that page, you find:
It's just that simple. As counterexamples of what is not biomedical information, you can see this section of that essay. In the context of human health relative to sourcing, it matters not if the topic is clinically defined major depression, or mood: the statements being sourced in this discussion are still about human health, regardless of any differences in how certain studies measure them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Before you edited, the content at chronic pain was:
All of that content was added by an IP last month. (That same IP was adding content like the McKinsey study to Women in the workforce – an article you have also edited, along with others you have both edited – so all of those IP edits need checking.) The sources used for that addition were:
After the IP edits, in this version, you added more sources. First, see WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; proper sourcing would be to use the most recent, highest quality available sources, rather than adding on a string of dubious sources. (So, for example, the medical news today source could be removed.) The added sources are:
Sheng is the best quality, but again, a better way to write the section is to search for newer sources and start over.
So, one of the first problems with the section is dated sources; the next is that it's built with a hodgepodge of sources. But more importantly, we can't cobble together sources to draw a conclusion ("anywhere from 30 to 85 percent") that a secondary source hasn't already drawn; that's original research. If there are differences in methodology and population among various studies, it's not for us to do that analysis if secondary sources haven't done it. Wikipedia follows the sources, doesn't lead.
So, you'll see that Zefr considerably reduced the section (and also all the IP edits have to now be reviewed as well), to:
... preserving Sheng, BMA.org and Surah (which I wouldn't have used, but Zefr may have full journal access and know more about the source than I do). The suicide data was dated and specific to one country, the ranges of rates of depression were poorly sourced and not all verifiable, and based on the sources presented, all we really know is that depression and chronic pain have some comorbidity. To write more than that requires better sources, which means getting into a library and locating updated secondary reviews. The content is not optimal now, but at least it's not presenting any dubious information as fact to Wikipedia readers.
I hope this helps; please spend some time reading the pages I've given you here about how to find and use sources, and please inquire at WT:MED if you're unsure about a source. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I am iPAd/hotspot editing, but when I check your edits and see that you are still using laysources to cite biomedical content at 15:41-- even after my post at 14:35 and BeingObjective's at 15:19, I am compelled to ask that you stop editing biomedical content until a) I can get on a real computer to provide a fuller explanation of the problems, and b) you can develop a more thorough understanding of how to source biomedical content. A laypress summary of a primary study should not be used to cite biomedical content as in the link I provide here. I am at the hospital with my ill husband, and don't know how long we may be here, so will ask Sphilbrick and BeingObjective to look in until I can get back to this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. The statement SandyGeorgia is referring to is not biomedical content. If a study found that people of color receive far less pain medication than white people, that's more like a study on demographics than biomedical research. Based on the comments here I'm still not sure as what to do with the sources and future content. If you follow my reasoning that depression (symptoms of depression) and anxiety (symptoms of anxiety) do not not necessarily qualify as biomedical content, then I will upgrade the sources where they are biomedical content (clinical depression, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder), but leave the others under the general rules. Lau737 ( talk) 10:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the new form of the additions, which I intend to resubmit. All sources have been changed from primary to secondary. Also I've added a study that found the risk to be three times greater.
Research has found that unhappily married couples are at 3–25 times the risk of developing clinical depression. [1] [2] [3]
Just adding that I don't think the research is too old. I also don't consider Medical News Today to be an unreliable secondary source. Lau737 ( talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Whereas the evidence for a cross-sectional association between marital quality and depression seems robust, longitudinal research as well as research on mediator/moderator variables is less conclusive.
I have the Goldfarb article now (a secondary review that conforms with WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDRS overall).
So, we have from the secondary review that:
I would suggest this text and citation:
(Please note how I've written the citation; normally, I would not add that it was citing Weissman, but since Goldfarb mentions that Weissman was a seminal study, it is probably worth including.)
I'll return to your other questions above (in a bit). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Ok, that sounds more encouraging. So if you link to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2019.1610136 I can add the (up to) 25 times finding by Weissman. It is my understanding that peer-reviewed articles are recommended, but not mandated by the aforementioned pages. I have a secondary source for O'Leary et al. (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk of depression 10 times) : https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.1.33. I have a secondary source for Whisman, 1999 (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk 3 times): https://arammu.com/assets/research/MC%20Depression%20Outcomes.pdf
The following is a secondary source citing Posselt and Lipson (regarding depression and anxiety in a competitive environment): https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/35346
In regard to chronic pain and depression: I find the the term "lay press" for Medical News Today insulting, they are not laymen, and in their own words, their articles are fit for both physicians and ordinary people. But I do have an alternative secondary source stating that the risk of depression goes up 85%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494581/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/chronic-pain-depression. I have a secondary source stating that risk goes up between 40% to 60%. And I have a secondary source stating that the risk goes up 30%: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/6/depression-and-chronic-pain
Painaustralia may not qualify as a secondary source for reliable biomedical information, due to a conflict of interest and the issue of advocacy, no matter how well they explain it. I suggest the following secondary source for the Hooley et al. study (chronic pain increases the chance of death by suicide by two to three times): https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/suicide_prevention/docs/FSTP-Chronic-Pain.pdf
I've also found a more suitable example of people using "depression" in a way that I don't think qualifies as a biomedical statement: "for those who do not have other financial options or find themselves unable to get a job despite their best efforts, the eventual acceptance of welfare benefits often leads to self-hatred, shame, and depression. Sherman (2013): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334431470_The_social_stigma_of_unemployment_consequences_of_stigma_consciousness_on_job_search_attitudes_behaviour_and_success
What I'm proposing is that when I link biomedical content, I will minimally link them to secondary sources. But policy does not require me to link to peer-reviewed review articles, which may be difficult to find or simply not there. But I will favor them when I come across them.
I have another question: how long will the Overwork page remain under investigation for plagiarism? Lau737 ( talk) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
While editing Wikipedia:
If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ---- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 13:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hey, I noticed you have been copying the same two paragraphs of text from the article on populism into a bunch of other articles. I'm confused as to why you're doing this, as the text you have copied doesn't appear to have much to do with many of the articles you have pasted them into. What's your reasoning behind copying this same passage onto so many different pages? -- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I consider them to be excellent additions to the recipient pages. That is why! Lau737 ( talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Lau737, please have a look at
... which is the page that appears when you edit major depressive disorder, along with WP:MEDORDER and WP:MEDDATE. Featured articles have been vetted by a community review process, and must conform with certain criteria. This edit added a very dated study ( WP:MEDDATE) to repeat information already included in broader summary style in the preceding paragraph. We talked about this edit above, which also introduces primary studies and was added to the wrong place with a breach of WP:CITEVAR (I've moved and fixed the citation). MDD is an overview of a broad topic that uses summary style, and due weight has to be kept in mind. When editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper right hand corner), it is helpful to first discuss additions on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.
I have reverted some of your edits (e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4]) but there are too many of them. Undue POV pushing can be considered disruptive. Please consider amending or reverting some of the edits that you have made. Regards, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for improving this navigation template. Unfortunately most of the things you added under the heading of cognitive biases are not cognitive biases. They are psychological phenomena, or fallacies of reasoning. This will seem pedantic, but cognitive biases are not just any attitude: they have to be systematic errors of reasoning that arise in a particular way. If an article's sources describe it as a cognitive bias, then it can be put in the template, but if they don't, expect the link to be removed. Hope you understand, MartinPoulter ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lau737, I reverted several of your edits that appeared to be indiscriminately pasting the same content into several articles, thus adding information that is either irrelevant to the article's topic or where the relevance could only be established with original research (if at all). As a rule of thumb, if a source doesn't even mention an article's topic, citing it is likely violate WP:SYNTH (by combining the article's existing topic and coverage as supported by already cited sources with the new source into the implicit conclusion that the added material is relevant).
I see that several other editors, e.g. EMsmile [5], SandyGeorgia ( above), and MartinPoulter ( above), had already raised similar issues to you before and yet you continued with this kind of edits, dismissing such input. So I'm not sure if my own attempt to explain the problem to you will be successful, but you do need to be aware that prolonged failure to meaningfully address concerns by other editors might be considered as disruptive editing.
(PS: And that's not even touching the question whether the content you added, even if on-topic, would be considered relevant enough and not unduly weighted, and whether the references cited satisfies applicable sourcing criteria such as WP:MEDRS.)
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Dustfreeworld has yet to respond to me. I don't agree with the issues raised. No original conclusions were reached.
Requiring that sources use a term as esoteric as "culture of poverty" before inclusion, is a policy that I have never heard of and does not exist on Wikipedia. As usual, users have simply reverted edits citing policy violations that do not exist, which I have more than made perfectly clear.
Expect undue reverts to be nullified in due course. Lau737 ( talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Lau737, to help resolve these concerns on talk without escalation, it would help to see collaborative discussion and that you are taking on board the concerns raised by HaeB, MartinPoulter, EMSmile, myself and others. HaeB explained why sources have to be related to the topic of the article to avoid original research, and I've done my best to help you understand how to use primary and secondary sources to cite biomedical content, yet am still uncertain you have taken that on board or understanding how to add or expand content relevant to a given topic. I'm seeing a number of indiscriminate additions in your edits to templates and See also sections. It seems you aren't understanding how wikilinks are best used (rather instead spreading information across multiple articles), or how items are best grouped in templates. I don't have the time to keep up with all these edits, but here are some examples:
Perhaps a read of MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:ALSO will help in this area. After a number of editors have tried to guide your editing, it's still unclear what value these kinds of edits are adding, while correcting them requires time from other editors. I'm also particularly concerned about the threatening tone of your post above, where you tell Martin Poulter to "be careful! Read", with a link to noisy investigation of Scientology. Please be aware when other editors are trying to guide you towards a better editing experience. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you've been editing some health-related articles recently. A bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and you'd be welcome to join us. It's a good place to ask questions about good sources for medical content and appropriate writing style. Please consider putting the page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work. If you have time you may want to put the navboxes on the articles you've added, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
state=collapsed
to each one.
Belbury (
talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
start out collapsed if there are two or more collapsible elements on the same page. Use as you see fit. Belbury ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Let's work together toward a consensus on the See Also links in the article on social rejection. The Wikipedia style manual suggests that See Also sections should be "relevant and limited to a reasonable number," that they "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body," and that if they are not clearly relevant there should be "brief annotations" to explain their relevance. I feel that this See Also section is long and confusing and is not adhering to these guidelines. I'm not interested in going back and forth on this, so if you could take a look another look at the links and see which ones you think might be removed or explained, I would appreciate it. Certainly some of them, like conformity and unemployment are very tangential indeed. Thanks! Jcbutler ( talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi Lau737,
Thanks for your edits on the article Ethnic Cleansing.
I just want to ask you why you reverted these changes? The content was not removed, it was simply moved to other sections of the article. We now have duplicated content within the article. Just something to think about. Have a good day :) Phantomette ( chat) 19:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries like this one are not indicative of the civility that's expected on Wikipedia. You seem surprised that your having an opinion or feeling that something belongs in an article is not enough to get it into the article. If you want to persuade the community to adopt your changes, you need to calmly set out reasoning. Threatening to make a change when you know there's no consensus is counterproductive. Some of your edits appear sensible while some others are utterly baffling. Most seem to be driven by the idea that if a link exists between two things in your mind, then the two Wikipedia articles about those things must be closely linked. That's not how we decide what goes in Wikipedia articles; please adjust to working with the community rather than against it. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy notification: please see Tang ping#See also links. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MRSawesome33 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Your "contributions" into numerous articles are pieces of wiki articles that you indiscriminately place into other articles. Much of what you place into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.
You have been warned numerous times by several people - but you don't seem to care to change or learn to do things right.
I am reporting your behavior to Wikipedia administration. 
This is notice I must serve to you prior reporting you. 
MRSawesome33 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Huliva 18:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Hello, I received an email from you. I have no idea who you are, nor do I have any idea how you came across me. While I wouldn't call it blatant canvassing, I was surprised to receive it, and wish to say that I have no intention to be dragged into whatever qualms you have with the editors mentioned in your letter. Please follow the unblock process if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, You replaced info that was/is NOT cited in the article, "The Causes of Poverty." Any info on Wikipedia, no matter what we personally feel about it, must be neutral and verifiable through reliable sources. MRSawesome33 ( talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Workplace harassment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to contribute by adding See Also sections, however, our policy for see also sections (see WP:See also ) focuses on only linking to a (i.e. 3-5) articles that would not otherwise be navigable from the article. Most of the see also sections you have been adding contain high-level articles, that should be linked in other ways in the article (using WP:Hatnotes like Template:Further or Template:Main) or WP:Navigational boxes which are designed to map a whole topic area (for example, this recent one I created about Rural areas: Template:Rural society ).
Huge see also sections don't actually help readers navigate much between articles because they don't know what to click on, and thus ignore the list. If they are not kept limited, they become less useful because its a bunch of uncontextualized links to topics, that doesn't help the reader decide on which ones to click on, and which ones to ignore. I recommend trying contributing to some of these other strategies (i.e. helping readers find related content within specific subsections of articles with links and notes at the top of the sections). Or, if you are intersted in doing this in topic areas Navigational templates are really helpful ways to effect many more articles.
Keep up the good work, and I hope that you find a good strategy for adding links: building the web is so important! Sadads ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
P.s. did you know that we have a bunch of WP:Orphaned articles that have no links to them at all -- this makes the article invisible to not only readers but search engines and other tools that use Wikipedia to map the relationship between topics). Sadads ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind. I'm certain people will use those more often when they're more complete. Lau737 ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Adolescence. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I have done so for you this time, but hope you will follow best practices yourself next time.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out! Lau737 ( talk) 10:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I see you've been adding primary and dated studies to support medical content; please have a look at Wikipedia's sourcing guideline for biomedical content, which typically prefers secondary and recent sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I think you violated WP copywrite policies - this was from a BBC story - also the causality issues make the study - a meta-analysis kinda challenging - I suspect there was a prior reason this was just not dropped in the article by others - it is from 2021. Clinically, I am uncertain this would prove causality - folks who are stressed and overworked - likely are also eating poor diets and not receiving great medical care - if you read the WHO article - I think you will see all the caveats on over-interpretation... BeingObjective ( talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This is again using dated non-MEDRS sources for biomedical content, and see also WP:CLOP on the need to rephrase in our own words. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I will try to use that format
@SandyGeorgia: For instance:
Studies have assessed that anywhere from 30 to 85 percent of patients suffering from chronic pain also suffer from depression. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
That huge variance isn't just due to different testing groups. Different studies measure depression in different ways. Depression is a hard to pin down and evolving concept, see also the need for two pages: /info/en/?search=Major_depressive_disorder & /info/en/?search=Depression_(mood). I'm not dedicated to any one particular definition of depression and I think the public also understands depression as something that's hard to pin down and evolving as a scientific concept. I do believe that the use of "clinical depression" or "major depressive disorder" qualifies as a biomedical statement.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
:9
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OK, what you are proposing there is problematic (and see also BeingObjective's response above) in many ways, but I will have to hold off on a longer answer until I home on a real computer. Short answer: yes, that is biomedical content, and your proposal would be using sources in non-compliant ways to advance original research. More later. Also, could you please remember to always sign your talk page posts, by adding four tildes after them ( ~~~~ ) ? I am editing from an iPad, and when your posts are unsigned, I can't use the reply-tool script, which facilitates editing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
First, to help you understand what is meant at MEDRS when it says:
If you click on Wikipedia:Biomedical information from that page, you find:
It's just that simple. As counterexamples of what is not biomedical information, you can see this section of that essay. In the context of human health relative to sourcing, it matters not if the topic is clinically defined major depression, or mood: the statements being sourced in this discussion are still about human health, regardless of any differences in how certain studies measure them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Before you edited, the content at chronic pain was:
All of that content was added by an IP last month. (That same IP was adding content like the McKinsey study to Women in the workforce – an article you have also edited, along with others you have both edited – so all of those IP edits need checking.) The sources used for that addition were:
After the IP edits, in this version, you added more sources. First, see WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; proper sourcing would be to use the most recent, highest quality available sources, rather than adding on a string of dubious sources. (So, for example, the medical news today source could be removed.) The added sources are:
Sheng is the best quality, but again, a better way to write the section is to search for newer sources and start over.
So, one of the first problems with the section is dated sources; the next is that it's built with a hodgepodge of sources. But more importantly, we can't cobble together sources to draw a conclusion ("anywhere from 30 to 85 percent") that a secondary source hasn't already drawn; that's original research. If there are differences in methodology and population among various studies, it's not for us to do that analysis if secondary sources haven't done it. Wikipedia follows the sources, doesn't lead.
So, you'll see that Zefr considerably reduced the section (and also all the IP edits have to now be reviewed as well), to:
... preserving Sheng, BMA.org and Surah (which I wouldn't have used, but Zefr may have full journal access and know more about the source than I do). The suicide data was dated and specific to one country, the ranges of rates of depression were poorly sourced and not all verifiable, and based on the sources presented, all we really know is that depression and chronic pain have some comorbidity. To write more than that requires better sources, which means getting into a library and locating updated secondary reviews. The content is not optimal now, but at least it's not presenting any dubious information as fact to Wikipedia readers.
I hope this helps; please spend some time reading the pages I've given you here about how to find and use sources, and please inquire at WT:MED if you're unsure about a source. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I am iPAd/hotspot editing, but when I check your edits and see that you are still using laysources to cite biomedical content at 15:41-- even after my post at 14:35 and BeingObjective's at 15:19, I am compelled to ask that you stop editing biomedical content until a) I can get on a real computer to provide a fuller explanation of the problems, and b) you can develop a more thorough understanding of how to source biomedical content. A laypress summary of a primary study should not be used to cite biomedical content as in the link I provide here. I am at the hospital with my ill husband, and don't know how long we may be here, so will ask Sphilbrick and BeingObjective to look in until I can get back to this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. The statement SandyGeorgia is referring to is not biomedical content. If a study found that people of color receive far less pain medication than white people, that's more like a study on demographics than biomedical research. Based on the comments here I'm still not sure as what to do with the sources and future content. If you follow my reasoning that depression (symptoms of depression) and anxiety (symptoms of anxiety) do not not necessarily qualify as biomedical content, then I will upgrade the sources where they are biomedical content (clinical depression, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder), but leave the others under the general rules. Lau737 ( talk) 10:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the new form of the additions, which I intend to resubmit. All sources have been changed from primary to secondary. Also I've added a study that found the risk to be three times greater.
Research has found that unhappily married couples are at 3–25 times the risk of developing clinical depression. [1] [2] [3]
Just adding that I don't think the research is too old. I also don't consider Medical News Today to be an unreliable secondary source. Lau737 ( talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Whereas the evidence for a cross-sectional association between marital quality and depression seems robust, longitudinal research as well as research on mediator/moderator variables is less conclusive.
I have the Goldfarb article now (a secondary review that conforms with WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDRS overall).
So, we have from the secondary review that:
I would suggest this text and citation:
(Please note how I've written the citation; normally, I would not add that it was citing Weissman, but since Goldfarb mentions that Weissman was a seminal study, it is probably worth including.)
I'll return to your other questions above (in a bit). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Ok, that sounds more encouraging. So if you link to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2019.1610136 I can add the (up to) 25 times finding by Weissman. It is my understanding that peer-reviewed articles are recommended, but not mandated by the aforementioned pages. I have a secondary source for O'Leary et al. (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk of depression 10 times) : https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.1.33. I have a secondary source for Whisman, 1999 (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk 3 times): https://arammu.com/assets/research/MC%20Depression%20Outcomes.pdf
The following is a secondary source citing Posselt and Lipson (regarding depression and anxiety in a competitive environment): https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/35346
In regard to chronic pain and depression: I find the the term "lay press" for Medical News Today insulting, they are not laymen, and in their own words, their articles are fit for both physicians and ordinary people. But I do have an alternative secondary source stating that the risk of depression goes up 85%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494581/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/chronic-pain-depression. I have a secondary source stating that risk goes up between 40% to 60%. And I have a secondary source stating that the risk goes up 30%: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/6/depression-and-chronic-pain
Painaustralia may not qualify as a secondary source for reliable biomedical information, due to a conflict of interest and the issue of advocacy, no matter how well they explain it. I suggest the following secondary source for the Hooley et al. study (chronic pain increases the chance of death by suicide by two to three times): https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/suicide_prevention/docs/FSTP-Chronic-Pain.pdf
I've also found a more suitable example of people using "depression" in a way that I don't think qualifies as a biomedical statement: "for those who do not have other financial options or find themselves unable to get a job despite their best efforts, the eventual acceptance of welfare benefits often leads to self-hatred, shame, and depression. Sherman (2013): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334431470_The_social_stigma_of_unemployment_consequences_of_stigma_consciousness_on_job_search_attitudes_behaviour_and_success
What I'm proposing is that when I link biomedical content, I will minimally link them to secondary sources. But policy does not require me to link to peer-reviewed review articles, which may be difficult to find or simply not there. But I will favor them when I come across them.
I have another question: how long will the Overwork page remain under investigation for plagiarism? Lau737 ( talk) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
While editing Wikipedia:
If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ---- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 13:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hey, I noticed you have been copying the same two paragraphs of text from the article on populism into a bunch of other articles. I'm confused as to why you're doing this, as the text you have copied doesn't appear to have much to do with many of the articles you have pasted them into. What's your reasoning behind copying this same passage onto so many different pages? -- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I consider them to be excellent additions to the recipient pages. That is why! Lau737 ( talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Lau737, please have a look at
... which is the page that appears when you edit major depressive disorder, along with WP:MEDORDER and WP:MEDDATE. Featured articles have been vetted by a community review process, and must conform with certain criteria. This edit added a very dated study ( WP:MEDDATE) to repeat information already included in broader summary style in the preceding paragraph. We talked about this edit above, which also introduces primary studies and was added to the wrong place with a breach of WP:CITEVAR (I've moved and fixed the citation). MDD is an overview of a broad topic that uses summary style, and due weight has to be kept in mind. When editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper right hand corner), it is helpful to first discuss additions on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.
I have reverted some of your edits (e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4]) but there are too many of them. Undue POV pushing can be considered disruptive. Please consider amending or reverting some of the edits that you have made. Regards, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for improving this navigation template. Unfortunately most of the things you added under the heading of cognitive biases are not cognitive biases. They are psychological phenomena, or fallacies of reasoning. This will seem pedantic, but cognitive biases are not just any attitude: they have to be systematic errors of reasoning that arise in a particular way. If an article's sources describe it as a cognitive bias, then it can be put in the template, but if they don't, expect the link to be removed. Hope you understand, MartinPoulter ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lau737, I reverted several of your edits that appeared to be indiscriminately pasting the same content into several articles, thus adding information that is either irrelevant to the article's topic or where the relevance could only be established with original research (if at all). As a rule of thumb, if a source doesn't even mention an article's topic, citing it is likely violate WP:SYNTH (by combining the article's existing topic and coverage as supported by already cited sources with the new source into the implicit conclusion that the added material is relevant).
I see that several other editors, e.g. EMsmile [5], SandyGeorgia ( above), and MartinPoulter ( above), had already raised similar issues to you before and yet you continued with this kind of edits, dismissing such input. So I'm not sure if my own attempt to explain the problem to you will be successful, but you do need to be aware that prolonged failure to meaningfully address concerns by other editors might be considered as disruptive editing.
(PS: And that's not even touching the question whether the content you added, even if on-topic, would be considered relevant enough and not unduly weighted, and whether the references cited satisfies applicable sourcing criteria such as WP:MEDRS.)
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Dustfreeworld has yet to respond to me. I don't agree with the issues raised. No original conclusions were reached.
Requiring that sources use a term as esoteric as "culture of poverty" before inclusion, is a policy that I have never heard of and does not exist on Wikipedia. As usual, users have simply reverted edits citing policy violations that do not exist, which I have more than made perfectly clear.
Expect undue reverts to be nullified in due course. Lau737 ( talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Lau737, to help resolve these concerns on talk without escalation, it would help to see collaborative discussion and that you are taking on board the concerns raised by HaeB, MartinPoulter, EMSmile, myself and others. HaeB explained why sources have to be related to the topic of the article to avoid original research, and I've done my best to help you understand how to use primary and secondary sources to cite biomedical content, yet am still uncertain you have taken that on board or understanding how to add or expand content relevant to a given topic. I'm seeing a number of indiscriminate additions in your edits to templates and See also sections. It seems you aren't understanding how wikilinks are best used (rather instead spreading information across multiple articles), or how items are best grouped in templates. I don't have the time to keep up with all these edits, but here are some examples:
Perhaps a read of MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:ALSO will help in this area. After a number of editors have tried to guide your editing, it's still unclear what value these kinds of edits are adding, while correcting them requires time from other editors. I'm also particularly concerned about the threatening tone of your post above, where you tell Martin Poulter to "be careful! Read", with a link to noisy investigation of Scientology. Please be aware when other editors are trying to guide you towards a better editing experience. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you've been editing some health-related articles recently. A bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and you'd be welcome to join us. It's a good place to ask questions about good sources for medical content and appropriate writing style. Please consider putting the page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work. If you have time you may want to put the navboxes on the articles you've added, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
state=collapsed
to each one.
Belbury (
talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
start out collapsed if there are two or more collapsible elements on the same page. Use as you see fit. Belbury ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Let's work together toward a consensus on the See Also links in the article on social rejection. The Wikipedia style manual suggests that See Also sections should be "relevant and limited to a reasonable number," that they "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body," and that if they are not clearly relevant there should be "brief annotations" to explain their relevance. I feel that this See Also section is long and confusing and is not adhering to these guidelines. I'm not interested in going back and forth on this, so if you could take a look another look at the links and see which ones you think might be removed or explained, I would appreciate it. Certainly some of them, like conformity and unemployment are very tangential indeed. Thanks! Jcbutler ( talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi Lau737,
Thanks for your edits on the article Ethnic Cleansing.
I just want to ask you why you reverted these changes? The content was not removed, it was simply moved to other sections of the article. We now have duplicated content within the article. Just something to think about. Have a good day :) Phantomette ( chat) 19:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries like this one are not indicative of the civility that's expected on Wikipedia. You seem surprised that your having an opinion or feeling that something belongs in an article is not enough to get it into the article. If you want to persuade the community to adopt your changes, you need to calmly set out reasoning. Threatening to make a change when you know there's no consensus is counterproductive. Some of your edits appear sensible while some others are utterly baffling. Most seem to be driven by the idea that if a link exists between two things in your mind, then the two Wikipedia articles about those things must be closely linked. That's not how we decide what goes in Wikipedia articles; please adjust to working with the community rather than against it. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy notification: please see Tang ping#See also links. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MRSawesome33 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Your "contributions" into numerous articles are pieces of wiki articles that you indiscriminately place into other articles. Much of what you place into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.
You have been warned numerous times by several people - but you don't seem to care to change or learn to do things right.
I am reporting your behavior to Wikipedia administration. 
This is notice I must serve to you prior reporting you. 
MRSawesome33 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Huliva 18:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Hello, I received an email from you. I have no idea who you are, nor do I have any idea how you came across me. While I wouldn't call it blatant canvassing, I was surprised to receive it, and wish to say that I have no intention to be dragged into whatever qualms you have with the editors mentioned in your letter. Please follow the unblock process if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)