User talk:Drjobrout/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expertise is welcome, but originality isn't

Hello. In a comment you deleted on this page, you mentioned "I don't know how this works".

In your edits to the article misophonia, you inserted a lot of words based on your personal expertise. That's fine as it goes, but your contribution won't last long if not accompanied by citations to verifiable and reliable sources. The editors who reverted your changes don't have your expertise, but they do have knowledge about Wikipedia's editorial policies, which among other things prohibit what we call Wikipedia:Original research.

It isn't sufficient that material on Wikipedia was written by an expert in the field. It is a requirement that, regardless of who contributes, that all material be cited to reliable sources. Your additions about history, who coined the the term, research that was done, etc. had no references whatsoever. Therefore, the words you wrote were not verifiable, because they cited no source. It is OK if the sources are not free or open literature, but they must be available to anyone with the ability to pay.

This has been frustrating to me also. A member of my family runs a successful winery. He is a great source of knowledge about winemaking. But I can't just contribute that knowledge to wine-related articles because I can't cite him personally. I must be able to site published information.

Particularly for medical subjects, the bar for reliable sources is quite high (see WP:MEDRS for guidance). Isolated studies are often not sufficient.

When a disagreement happens on Wikipedia, the best approach is not to engage in a revert war, but rather to start a new section on the article's talk page to explain the changes you want to make. Every article on Wikipedia has a talk page for the purpose of discussing improvements. Please use it.

I apologize for the experience you had, starting out in a contentious disagreement. Everyone involved is actually acting in good faith, even though it may not seem that way. Often enforcement of editorial policies conflict with the desire to correct things that seem wrong. Correcting them is fine, but it needs to be done in a way that complies with the policies here.

We welcome contributors with expertise. Experts know where to find the best sources, and know how to express statements about their topic with accuracy. But we can't rely on expertise alone, we must have reliable sources to cite. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I retract the legal threat. What is being done to me regarding this page is punitative in nature and against your own wiki policies. There is now way for a lay person not skilled in wiki to find chillum or any body else. You are all re-routed to other ipo's etc. I find the block to be liable to me and I want it removed. You can reach me at my gmail. You have it. You can find me and I can't find you to even have a conversation. What you are doing is worse than a legal threat. It's a dictatorial and unprofessional to say the least.

I find it really strange that I am talking to an anonymous person. NONE of the information that I added was original, nor based on my opinion. What I added was more accurate representations of the articles that were poorly represented by whomever wrote about them before, thus leaving the same reference. The only "new information" I added was a reference to an article by Joseph Ledoux, and I did add that reference. Do you understand that there was nothing I added that was NOT already referenced. I corrected what was inaccurately represented, and added some more information about the studies mentioned (again not requiring new references). Should I reference the references already referenced? True I don't know the nuances of wiki. However, whomever was continually playing the game of reverting the page back is clearly invested in co-opting this disorder. Who is this person? I'm planning on taking the wiki page as it stands to every person referenced and we will see what they have to say. How about that?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Please leave "I'm calling a lawyer" out of your edit summaries in the future. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Chillum 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to know something about Misophonia but not so much about collaborative crowd sourcing projects. To get things done requires learning about what sources you can and can't use. It isn't haphazard, there is some logic to our system. Threatening legal action, however, is a guaranteed instant block. It is simple really, if you are seeking legal remedies against a party, obviously you can't communicate with that party. That is what lawyers are for. So if you claim to be taking legal action against Wikipedia or anyone here, you can't participate, excepting this talk page. Instead of telling FreeRangeFrog you are going to sue him, you might next time try asking "What is wrong about them? What can I do to fix them?". Frog is an admin, like myself and Chillum (the gent who blocked you). Doesn't mean we are super experts, but we generally know how Wikipedia works, and if an admin tells you "don't do that", it is at least worth entering a discussion instead of threatening them. If you look above, you see the means to request an unblock, if you really do retract your legal claims, as indicated by your edit summary. You might also want to disclose any previous accounts, as your editing style and methods clearly indicate you aren't new, and that might be taken into account when considering an unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, Thank you so much for being the first person to talk to me like I am a human being. I am greatly appreciative and could use your help here if you are willing. I know nothing about how to work wiki. This entire process is terribly confusing to me. I don't even know if I am talking to robots or people. You are the first person who has actually spoken to me that seems to be "real". Please allow me to explain. I am a doctor (not a fake one, a real one). I have been an advocate for Misophonia before it even had a name (when it was studied under a related condition called Sensory Processing Disorder. I have a program at Duke University, a program at Fordham University and more. This is all verifiable on my website sensationandemotionnetwork.com For over 18 years I have advocated for conditions related to Misophonia.There is now a debate over what the name should be so this makes it more complicated. In any case, I'm 50 years old and have no idea how to work a complicated network of computer algorithms with hidden identities. I really don't. However, I do know what needs to be referenced in an article. The feedback I was getting in regard to why my changes were not acceptable were simply incorrect. I work with the very people who have written these peer reviewed articles, and I would be happy to get them in contact with you or any other of the administrators. In addition, wiki holds that information has to be verifiable (e.g. akin to an encyclopedia). What is on the misophonia page is simply not. As a doctoral level psychologist who has been studying this for over 18 years, this is horribly upsetting. As an advocate of those who suffer with this and similar conditions, I see continual mis-information being reported by the press. Unfortunately, the press is getting this information from the wiki page. It is a doctor's duty to "first do no harm", as you may know. This page, by giving false information is harming people who are already suffering with a very unbearable condition. I understand your administrators issues. However, there is nothing I entered that wasn't already referenced. I simply more accurately reported on these references. I assume there is some algorithm set up that I don't understand that weighs text and references. Clearly this got confused because I was adding information to already noted references. This is very difficult for a person who is not used to working like this. My attempts to get someone to speak to me, beside you, have been quite frankly dismissive (again as if I was being spoken to by a bot or something). I don't know what is going on here or how to fix this. However, the correct information needs to be on this page and it is not. I originally thought that the creators of this page, and possibly some people who have contributed a great deal to this page, who are not valid academic researchers might have also be on as administrators, or whomever else may be involved in making the rapid changes. You see, Dennis, when I went to make the changes, I was so rebuffed, it seemed personal. It would help to know if the people who were originally involved in undoing my changes before it got to the level of administration are people who are also involved with particular groups trying to profit off of this disorder and control the information going out to the public. I am a doctor and advocate who wants the best for the people who suffer. Please, Dennis, please help me to help these suffering people. This is not a joke. My legal threat is retracted. Will someone please work with me in order to fix this?

• I'm also 50, and my real name is Dennis Brown, but I'm more of a marketing and nerd guy. Let me oversimplify for a bit, forgive me for leaving out bits: Medical articles are really stringent about sourcing. Even if a source is wrong, but meets the criteria, it tends to get used because we are forced to trust the source, not our own opinions. The policy for sourcing med articles is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I'm not an expert on this policy, but I know that you REALLY need to read it before you start adding stuff. Next, since you are an expert, you have opinions. This is a double edged sword. I don't doubt the validity of your claims, but the rules for including are so strict, you are better off using the talk page for the article before making big changes. I do this all the time, it is considered standard operating procedure. Also, once you have been reverted (ie: your changes removed and the old version restored), you must go to the talk page, don't just put them back in. We have an essay, WP:BRD that covers this. Although an essay, most of us treat it like the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain. What ends up in the article isn't the Truth®, it is facts that we can references to sources everyone accepts here. Everything is done purely by consensus. This means your opinion has exactly the same value as mine, even though I'm a moron when it comes to this field. You have to be patient, be gentle, be persuasive. Major changes might takes days or weeks, or might not happen at all. You have to listen and work with others, including those who you KNOW are not as knowledgeable as you are. That is how a Wiki works. If you come over and work on articles I'm considered expert in, you have the same say as me, so it works for everyone and every article. It isn't perfect, but it actually works pretty well, given time. Now, you need to convince Chillum (or another admin) that you retract all legal claims (as you have done above and in a summary), get unblocked, STAY CALM.... and patiently work while you learn the system here. It isn't too hard, and if you have questions, ask before you act. Once you get in the grove, you will find most people here are very nice. A bit rushed, but very nice. A few are jerks, but that is true in the real world as well, no? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm willing to unblock; I assume Dennis Brown is having some deep-fried dessert at this moment. But before I do there's a few other things I must tell you.

  First, you were edit-warring; see WP:EW, and I'll tell you our unwritten law, "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". That's also a blockable offense, and if you simply reinstate your edit after being unblocked you'll just be blocked again.

  Second, there is indeed some original research (WP:OR) in your edit. Not all of it, but enough to warrant a revert. For instance, "Notably, this study has been criticized..." is commentary, yours I imagine, not clearly verified by a reliable source. It may well be true, but that's not the point--it's not verified. The same goes for the next "notably", and besides, "notably" is already a non-neutral word (WP:POV): using it requires citing a secondary source that proves some point or other is worth noting.

  This may all sound a bit pedantic, but the simple fact is that Wikipedia writing is encyclopedic writing, not the kind of academic (argumentative) writing you and I are used to doing professionally. It's unfortunate, but you wouldn't be the first academic to run into this. To look at it from another perspective, when you write and submit that article to a journal, your arguments and your rhetoric and your evidence must convince your readers. On Wikipedia, it should be--in the first place--the strength of the sources you cite, and those sources must of course meet certain requirements (WP:RS).

  Sorry to be so long-winded, but a. we take those legal threats seriously (I've been summoned before, and it's no fun) and b. I am very much interested in keeping knowledgeable, professional, editors on board. Sincerely, Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • By all means Drmies, don't run off just yet. I think you can help him because you have a similar background, something I lack. I'm happy to offer basic guidance, but I think you can offer empathy and perhaps translate some of this WikiTalk into phrases he will relate with. We need experts, but experts often have a tough time at first here because it is so different than what they are used to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    • True dat. Except that my misophonia is only brought on by Taylor Swift and Meghan Traynor. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr.Mies and Dennis, You are both very kind, truly. Thank you for your time. I'm not going to take legal action. Please understand as a person who has advocated for children (and adults) with this and related disorders I have had to be tough. I'm not, by nature, a litigious person. I'm an advocate and psychologist! I just want to get the right information on the wiki page. Dr. Mies, the commentary "notably" about the study being criticized was not based on my own opinion but another article. Quite frankly, wiki is not "user-friendly" and I might have tried to put in the reference and missed it. In addition, I don't understand if what is reported on wiki is supposed to be "fact based" or opinion. My reason for going into the wiki page was to correct mis-information; information that is inaccurate. For example, studies that are reported on incorrectly. My reason for getting so angry is that anytime I went to make a change, my changes were "undone" for reasons such as "inaccurate information" and I had no way to explain to the anonymous people who were "talking to me" (that is until Dennis showed up, to whom I am very grateful). I pleaded with FreeRageFrog to just "talk to me" and I'm supposed to "plead my case to be unblocked" to Chillum. When I go to his page I can't post because I'm blocked. I feel as though I am in "Matrix" or fighting the "Borg" (excuse the Star Treck reference). The important issue is not that I'm blocked, and now "how to play the game of WIKI but how to get the RIGHT accurate information out to the general public so that people, people who are suffering from disorders, are not harmed. Please, Dr. Mies, I work full-time as I am sure you all do. I am not a computer programmer. I cannot do this, but someone has to. Someone has to make sure this page is correct because the media seeks info from this page, and as I say over and over again like a broken record, REAL people are being hurt in more ways than you can possibly imagine by this information. Please help these people. It's not about me. Chillum, who I cannot reach to "please my case" can leave me blocked throughout eternity. I don't care. I care about the people for whom I advocate, for whom I have advocated and founded research programs for over 18 years. Please help them. You don't understand the responsibility you hold in your hands. I'm sorry that your kindness in getting involved resulted in this. However, I suppose that is the price people pay for not hiding behind false identities. Thank you for being real humans and please help other real humans.

Dr.Mies and Dennis - I got a message in my gmail box but there was nothing on my page

I'm so sorry to bother you both. You've been so kind. Clearly this is just too confusing for me. Please unblock me and I will work with my colleagues to create the wiki pages. When we are all in agreement we will reach out to someone who knows how to do this. I will not be attempting to do myself again. I almost wrote "to myself" again. Dr. Meis, I see you did a little research on miso! Would you like to know more? I can send articles! LOL How is your dessert? I haven't even had dinner. Regardless, I have never been able to reach chillum and my son just informed me what a "chillum" is. Having said that, I think wiki is really for the youth. Kudos to you both for being able work this bizzaro world of "Alice in Wonderland-information-highway of 0's and 1's! Since, I can't reach Chillum please tell him I am not suing him and thanks to you two I'm going to go chill, though without a chillum, and read Joe LeDoux's new book called Anxiety, which comes out in July (which I will NOT be writing the wiki entry on). THANK YOU sincerely and I hope you get this somehow.

• Actually, you will find a good deal of editors and administrators who are much older than you and I. Doc Mies is a bit younger, but not enough to brag. For the record, I support an unblock if Drmies decides to do so. While the original block was perfectly valid, I think we have addressed the original points and retracted the original threat, so it is unlikely to happen again, thus making the block no longer preventative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You're unblocked. Chillum, the editor has retracted the claim--thank you for your vigilance. Drjobrout, please do read up on WP:OR. It won't take you much time, and it will help you understand why (well, one of the reasons why) your initial edit was reverted. Mind you, only parts of it were problematic. Consider this basic rule: everything one adds has to be verified. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Beware

Wikipedia is not academia. Adding your own research, or research with which you are intimately connected, is a conflict of interest. You should make suggestions on the Talk page, not edit the articles directly. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and advocacy on Wikipedia

Hi Jo

I work a lot on conflict of interest and advocacy issues here in Wikipedia, and the brouhaha here caught my eye.

You are here editing under your own name, and your messages above (and the links you include there) make it very, very clear that professionally, you are an advocate with regard to Misophonia and have founded academic programs about it, are involved in real world disputes it, and so on.

And you are clearly off to a very difficult start here. This is not at all unusual for advocates, when they first come to Wikipedia.

I want to let you know that you have two choices, really. (And you really have a choice here - you do)

• You can slow down - stop actually - and figure this place out, and try to become a Wikipedian first and foremost when you log in here. Or
• You can continue to try to use Wikipedia as a platform for your advocacy work.

I can tell you that if you choose the latter, you are going to have a very stormy, and very brief time here. You will either get angry and leave, bitterly, or you will lose editing privileges. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but is a privilege. Privileges can be curtailed (we sometimes "topic ban" people who turn out to be unable to control themselves when it comes to certain topics), people get temporary blocks during which they cannot edit at all, and people get blocks of indefinite length.

I said "continue to try to use Wikipedia as a platform for your advocacy work", because Wikipedia, by policy, cannot be used for advocacy. (Please see WP:SOAPBOX).

To help you make your decision, I am offering here an explanation to you of what Wikipedia is, and how it works. This duplicates a lot of the information in the Welcome message I put at the top of this page, but this makes it more narrative. That also means it is kind of long, Sorry about that. Here goes...

How Wikipedia works

If you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones.

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our essay on advocacy is here: WP:ADVOCACY not here Advocacy). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.

With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!) I have tailored this list for you, Jo.

• WP:NOT - this is a policy and a pillar, as important as it gets. It defines what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. (WP:SOAPBOX is part of this)
• WP:EXPERT - an essay for experts, to help them get oriented. Please pay special attention to the last bullet
• WP:ADVOCACY - a widely cited essay about advocacy in Wikipedia
• WP:COI - this is our conflict of interest guideline. Please especially read the part about writing about your work
• Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) - an essay about COI particularly for those who work in a medical field - some things here will surprise you. COI is different in Wikipedia than in academic publishing, for several reasons that I can discuss with you if you like.
• WP:OR - a key content policy. No original research is allowed here -instead...
• WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content). Personal expertise means pretty much nothing here. What are authoritative, are sources.
• WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is a really important guideline that you will need to mind
• WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT.
• WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine or therapy. We are very conservative in that regard!

• WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. So please talk - please never edit war.

Really important part: If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to. Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection. If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

Anyway, good luck! Happy to answer any questions you have. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Links and policies and rules, oh my!

I know a lot of the above seems onerous, but I wanted to add this: We want you here. You have something to offer Wikipedia that is rare. We just so happen to have a lot of rules that apply to everyone equally. Here, we are all equal, which has advantages and disadvantages. Please read Randy in Boise for a smile, it is very, very short and should be taken tongue in cheek, but it does outline some of the flaws. Don't let all these links scare you, very quickly you will get the underlying principles and it will all makes sense. Sort of. After a while, you will even be very glad that some of the rules are there, even if you think it's a bit much today. Check out the WP:Teahouse for help, and remember, most people here aren't experts or professors, etc, so they tend to explain things down a bit. Don't take that personal. You'll get there soon, trust me. :) Oh, and have fun. What is the point if you can't enjoy the journey? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you all for your support and help, Dennis, Dr. Mies, Jytdog, Chillum. I must say that I have no idea how to be a wikapedian and I don't think I'm going to be efficient at learning this. It's just so complicated technically and otherwise. My goal is simply to get the right information onto the page, not to advocate on the page. I never added information that was original, although it may have seemed that way. My advocacy for the disorder did cause me to get emotional. Yet, I certainly don't want to use the page as a place to advocate. Nor do I feel I have a conflict of interest. I am adept at report facts based on research, which is what I thought one is supposed to do when reporting on a medical or developmental disorder. I thought wiki was supposed to have facts verifiable by an encyclopedia and that was all I was trying to do. It is important to me that the information on the page is correct because as I explained before, the press comes here, as do researchers now, for info (as well as sufferers of the disorder and their families). If incorrect info gets out, as I keep saying (and I know I sound like a broken record), people really get hurt. Maybe there should be different rules for disorders and medical information. I don't know. It's not for me to say or figure out. On the one hand, I am the most firm believer in freedom of speech and i don't care for institutionalized medicine, which is why I am an advocate for this disorder. On the other hand all I want to do is get the right information on the page and how do I do that without someone who knows if the info is right overseeing it? It's very confusing to me. However, with that being said, I appreciate your lifting the ban and my plan is to try to work with others involved in research and advocating for misophonia and to hire or hopefully find somebody perhaps willing to donate some time who is more suited to actually to work on the wiki page t(at least for now)! I don't think I can become a wikiapedian at this stage in my life! Maybe if I get the hang of it, I'll stick to small changes, at some point so again, I appreciate the ban lift. Becoming a wikepedian seems to be much more time consuming and difficult than I realized, and I naively thought anyone could go on and just put in the "right information". I supposed I thought you had some committee of "fact checkers". I don't know what I thought! I didn't realize this system was so complicated and beyond my grasp. I think I would need to go back to school and get a new doctorate in Wiki! I'm not being sarcastic. I truly find this too difficult, and I thought I was an intelligent person. Yet, this is a kind of intellect that I simply don't have. So, If you have any suggestions as to how I can find a person who might be able to do that on behalf of Misophonia I would appreciate direction. Otherwise, quite simply those who are skilled at the way wiki works will control the output of information about this disorder. Wiki is very powerful. Knowledge is power. The wrong knowledge when you are dealing with people with mental health disorders sets off a trajectory of damage that one could only know if one experience it first hand. Having said that, I thank you all, each of you, for your patience and time and again any leads you could give me to someone who is a wikiipedian who might be interested in helping out would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so very much.

• You could start a conversation on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. A couple of admin are med/psych doctors as well. I know that Casliber, Basalisk and Doc James are, and there are many other editors and admin who are doctors here. You might even consider sticking around there at Wikiproject Medicine for a while, you may find the atmosphere more comfortable to start with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a lotta talk going on here and my ears were burning....will look at the contributions to see what this is all about later today...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you. Wikiproject for Medicine. Thank you so much for that suggestion Dennis. Dennis had you not arrived here I can't imagine what would have happened. I would have just been in complete despair about this. You too Dr. Mies. You could have so easily ignored me. Hello to Casiliber. I'm sorry for all the fuss. Am I the only person who has this much trouble with wiki? I feel as though maybe I should return my doctorate. Why is this so hard? Well, you don't have to answer that. I really just wanted to say thank you again.

Many have problems first adapting, but it isn't about "smart", it is that Wikipedia is not very intuitive for many academic specialists, but it is for novices. I started a project called WP:WikiProject Editor Retention for the purpose of looking at these and other retention issues. As I said earlier, we want you here, the key is finding a way for you to warm up to what we do and how we do it. It isn't as hard as it looks, I promise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has some step by step instructions for editing WP:MEDHOW. Basically everything you add needs to be back up by a recent high quality secondary source. It took all of us some time to figure out how to edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Dr Brout I am not sure what is going on with you now. You are going from article to article making kind of frantic remarks that are not appropriate in Wikipedia. You are going to end up blocked again. Would you please tell me what you are concerned about?

There is a lot of activity going on around you now in Wikipedia, due to the activities of User:Imperceptions, who says he or she is working on your behalf. They have done a lot of bad editing, and the community is reacting as it does to bad editing.... Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of Imperceptions, who is not acting on my behalf, but acting on her own volition do you understand that I was sent an email that if "I" changed the misophonia page that a certain person would "use her network of people inside wiki" to make sure that I was not to change the page. Of course I didn't change the page, Imperceptions did and as for her editing, I made an attempt to edit and fix citations as you did in June and was blocked for doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jtydog, if you like I can send you the history of the threats that were made against me, and from what I understand it is not the community that is upset but instead a predetermined "network" of sorts as described by this person who mistakenly thought I did something to discredit her work and then seemed to "alert her network" in order to make a fuss around me. In other words, the person who threatened me (and I believe you saw those threats as I showed them to you) has seemingly succeeded in doing what she set out to do.

I wouldn't know about an email you received. I would be interested to see it, if you want to forward it to me. my email is jytdog @ gmail.com. I don't recall seeing threats from a prior time. Did you email them to me before? That is weird. This is all weird.

As for Imperceptions, that person is being pretty clear that they are working in consultation with you. Here she says that she co-runs the magazine with you that she created an article about (in violation of the COI guideline) and here she makes it even more clear that she works closely with you. She also mentions this emailed threat business, which I have not had a chance to address with her yet.

Importantly - about your block. You were blocked for making legal threats. Just look up this page, at the yellow box. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Drjobrout - you have written a few places (above, and here) that you think there is some weird network operating against you. What you are seeing here, is that Imperceptions dumped a bunch of really bad content into Wikipedia, and the community is reacting as it should. Two of the articles that Imperceptions created have been speedy deleted because they were, frankly, promotional and badly written. The article created by Imperceptions about you has not been deleted yet - we go a bit more slowly with articles about people due to WP:BLP. There is no conspiracy. Period. There was a bunch of promotional badly written content dumped into Wikipedia. Well intentioned for sure, but promotional and badly written. I understand you received some weird email, but I don't see anything strange going on. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jtydog, Thank you for you consideration. I never said that I thought there was a conspiracy against me. I said (as was stated in the email you told me to send you) that someone with a vested interest in keeping the misophonia page the way that it was before told me that they had a "network" in regard to wiki that they were going to use in order to keep the misophonia page as it was. I know why I was originally blocked. I did not understand how wiki worked and that was all resolved. As for Imperceptions, she was not acting on my behalf. I'm sure if you looked through everybody working on the Misophonia page you would see that they are all connected to the Misophona. One of your editors "Guy" who you can see was involved in my being blocked seems to be GuyFitzmaurize from the UK who started the page and runs a very big Misophonia support group in the UK. Tom Dozier, who you have banned for continual self promotion had several "socks" as someone on some page I accidentally fell into last night. I was able to extropolate that a "sock" is someone working on someone else's behalf. This certainly provides evidence that your own editors assume that there is some "network" of people within the misophonia community Jtydog, I don't care what you delete from my page or any of the other ones, I merely want the Misophonia page to be medically correct without "socks" for Judith as she claims in her email (which I will include below) since you have now seen it anyway, having asked me to email it to you. I'm really not sure how wiki works and don't understand this, nor do I have time to understand this. I am simply coming from a place of medical ethics in which one does everything one can do to see that the public has information that is truthful. Below is the email you asked me to send you on gmail, so that it is here for the record. I sent you references for the Misophonia Page. I feel that the best thing to do in regard to this situation is for you to assign someone like yourself (if you do not have time to do this work) who has your medical experience who can truly monitor this page. I would be happy to submit all changes through that person, and frankly I think it would serve the suffering community well if you were to look through all of the people involved making major edits and find out if they, themselves have conflicts of interest and if so, please ask them to also edit through you or another editor. I am not concerned with imperceptions' bad edits. She is simply another person, like myself, trying to do good work in the world. Again, after having looked at your list of people with potential conflicts, I can recognize half the names. We all know each other because we are all sufferers and/or academic researchers, etc. I see Arjan Schroder from Amersterdam had his citation removed because he was trying to include it himself. While I don't particularly care for his work, he is a legitimate researcher within an esteemed of OC and Related Disorders and again while I do not personally like the direction he is taking misophonia, as a neutral professional, at least some of his studies should be included on the misophonia page (as should some from the list I sent you). So, my suggestion for a resolution to this problem and in fact it is a proposal is that you assign an editor to help this page. As you may or may not know Misophonia is a disorder that has taken off on the internet and as such the cart has been put before the horse regarding research. While there is basic science and other bodies of research that apply and may even account for the symptoms of this "disorder" (such as SPD "auditory over-responsivity") that go back 50 years that we are trying to integrate into the research, this has yet to be done. This leaves the public in a precarious position, vulnerable to treatments that are not tested properly and even believing in research that is done by laypersons who frankly, are either not properly trained to research, report upon research, etc.

If people who are expert in the field cannot contribute to the Misophonia page because it is a conflict, then who exactly are we relying upon to make sure that this page is accurate in order to protect the public? The page sat there from June to Feb with none of your editors changing anything, after I made my attempt to make some changes. You went in and changed the entire page to reflect mostly the jastreboff's work and Moller's one book, which is a start. However, I believe that it is your editors responsibility to the public to ensure accurate information. If you saw in real-life the adverse effects that people have suffered via the information on the Miso Wiki Page (getting treatments that do not work and are sometimes harmful, reading articles they thought were from peer reviewed journals which were not, trying medications that were suggested on the page, etc.). Again, I'm not interested in becoming a wikipedian. It's not in my wheel-house and my brain just doesn't work this way. I'm 51 years old and I'm not going to be able to learn this highly technical world. Yet, I am voicing my great concern for the Misophonia page. Again, I don't care if you take down my page or the IMRN page (although I think taking down the IMRN page would be a disservice to the community, as it is a resource for sufferers to get involved with research at esteemed universities, presenting a new paradigm for sufferers and doctors to ban together toward the understanding and remediation of a condition that is clearly widespread and life-impairing for many people. However, if wiki feels that it is "a non-entity" or whatever it is that you guys call it, than so be it. However, I am very hopeful that you will do your very best amongst your wiki editors to solve the on-going problem is the misophonia page. See the email below that you requested I send you. I would prefer that I not be deemed as some one charged imagining a conspiracy and not have the reasoning behind it on record.

Jennifer Brout <jbrout@gmail.com> Attachments12:37 PM (4 hours ago)

to jtydog Dear jtydog,

Two days ago, despite the fact that I have not been on Wiki since this past summer I received this email in my FB PM. I had no idea what this was about until I went to Wiki and started to see what was going on. I hope this will make more sense to you now. I have no desire to utilize "wiki" for any untoward purpose and never have. My interest has always and only been to disseminate accurate and non-biased information about Misophonia (a condition that I have been studying, advocating for and involved with for many years). Just to be clear, I do not do research. I start research programs. You are welcome to look at my website see that this is precisely my purpose regarding the disorder. Following are the threats I received when Ms. Judith Krauthamer erroneously decided I had done something to "insult her work". Here is my website information misophonia-research.com​

I appreciate your help in this matter. However, the Misophonia page is still incorrect. It is missing essential citations, and gives the wrong impression of the disorder. There is a lot of controversy in regard to this disorder, which I cannot possibly explain in an email. Maybe my website will help you to understand. Following Judith's emails to me, I have also attached a list of peer reviewed references regarding misophonia.  I have not separated them out regarding single subject design, etc. Since it is a newly termed disorder, that is first being researched under the name "misophonia", those of us doing the literature review all agree that we have to make some exceptions. If you would like to speak to anyone at my affiliated programs in order to get a better idea of the issues related to Misophonia, and what has gone on I would be happy to connect you. 

There is a serious problem getting information out to the public that has not been written by the lay public and positioned as "expert information". As a result of the wiki page and other portals for information that has not been correctly monitored, unfortunately many people have been exploited by people who are non-credentialed and offering "treatments" for which there is no evidence. My organization and its affiliates are doing what we can to avoid this, and to institute research that will lead to real treatment (as well as better classification and understanding of this disorder).

I do not understand why someone with expertise in the disorder cannot contribute to the wiki page. On my talk page, I was originally told that "expertise is welcome but originality was not". Apparently, I cannot contribute to the wiki page now because of the actions of others of which I had nothing to do with. Everyone in the "misophonia community" knows one and other. It is a small community that has banned together for the purpose of advocacy for this disorder. I doubt there will be anyone contributing to the wiki page who does not have a COI with someone or with the subject itself.

As such, because the wiki entry is the first place that both the press and most people come to read about this disorder, I'm afraid that the well-being of this community is now in your hands. I am assuming you are a doctor and I hope you will take the hippocratic oath more seriously than the wiki rules, and remember to "do no harm".

I hope you will find this helpful. Thank you again

Inline image 1

Oh it wont post the images. So, here is a link when I can figure out how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is way too much to read. I have not received an email from you. The "Guy" you mention is not who you think it is. You can't seem to acknowledge that you made a legal threat back in June, and that is why you were blocked.

I don't know what I can do to help you further - you are too busy making bad assumptions and arguing, and I don't any see openness to learning Wikipedia's norms, much less following them. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

About emails you are getting

Drjobrout. I think I just figured out ~some~ of what is going on, with you receiving emails. Like many sites, in Wikipedia you can control the "notifications" that you are sent when things happen. If you look way up above and toward the right, you will see:

Drjobrout [red or grey rectangle] [red or grey rectangle] Talk Sandbox Preferences Beta Watchlist Contributions Log out

Way at the top. If you go into "preferences" you will see a "Notifications" tab. The direct link to it is here. The top part of that is "Email options". there is a pulldown menu, and I suggest you change that to "Do not send me any email notifications." Below that is a list of things you can be notified of. I bet you will find that a bunch of boxes in the "email" column are checked. I suggest you uncheck them too.

I think this is where many of the mysterious emails you are getting, are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

archiving

I just set up a "bot" to archive discussions on this page, as it has gotten crazy long. The bot will cut comments that are older than 2 months and will stick them an archive (a separate page). They will still be accessible - they just won't be in the way. If you don't want this, let me know and I will remove it. It is very common to do this here, just so you know. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Hi Jtydog,

Whatever you feel is the right thing to do is fine. I would ask kindly that you read through my messages, despite their length and try to understand my concerns about what has gone on with Misophonia page. Again, I am not concerned about my page but mostly concerned about the Misophonia page. Certainly you can set up archives if you like as long as everything is still there. As you know I feel this page (meaning the misophonia page) has been mismanaged and really needs further assistance in order to reflect accurate factual information as an encyclopedia should. Is there someone from the medical community (perhaps Dr. Meis) who was so helpful before who might be willing to do this? He seemed quickly able to understand the disorder.We really need an editor at wiki who can closely monitor this page for the sake of public safety. I hate to sound dramatic. However, this is I'm afraid what we need. The page has been full of misinformation for way too long and seemingly nobody is able to make changes. So, please ask Dr. Meis who helped before, or someone else from the medical group, if they would be willing to do this. I think once the page is set up properly, there will not be many changes. Unfortunately, the research isn't moving that fast. I thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Your messages here have no value, because they do not take into account how we actually do things here. You have wasted an incredible amount of your time and mine. Wasted. Due to the tremendous pressure being put on that article by you and others, I have alerted the other medical editors here. They will be watching the page, believe me. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume that was a threat jtydog? My message have no value and medical editors will be watching me. Ok Jtydog. I am sorry I am not skilled at the way wiki works. You are denying telling me to send an email that you know you told me to send and I have it in my sent box. It can be traced. Everything on this page has been saved via screen-shot. What you've done is medically unethical. Whatever happens in result to the misophonia page, which you have deemed unimportant IS ON YOUR HEAD. I will be watching that very closely as I will now monitor within the miso community who goes to the page and what impressions they get because of your refusal to even have someone work with me to get this right. I may not be technically inclined but I am not stupid. This is a disgrace. It really is. Leave the misophonia page as it is. Keep the big read marker on my page. Interfere with Tim Sommer's page and do what ever you want. After all, that is the position you are in, isn't it? I really thought you were a person who had some ethics being in the medical community. However, apparently you don't seeing as you continue to rant at me about WIKI rules rather than considering the safety of the public. That's on your head jtydog. Oh by the way jtydog, whomever you are, I'm taking my screenshots to the NIH because something needs to be done about this problem. So, I'm giving you one last chance to simply fix this situation. Your power comes from your lack of identification and ability to control information. Citizens don't like that. We all want access to medical information that is accurate and if you can't supply that on wiki then that is a real problem. And you jtydog are at the center of this problem now, unfortunately. Again, I have been nothing but reasonable (despite my inability to use wiki the right way, being that my concern has been to get correct medical information out). I asked for HELP from a medical editor and instead I get continually berated by you for not following wiki rules, as though you have no concern for the medical content itself.

Shameful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made no threats. Please show the very minimal nod to how Wikipedia works, by signing your posts. Everything you are doing, is showing disdain for Wikipedia. I have been trying to teach you, and you are not interested in learning. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Notes

Oh interesting, we just got in touch with a very big journalist who explained that someone tampered with his page and he unable to go in and fix it because your editors stopped him. He said "wiki" is a place of revenge. Interesting I am not the only person who gets that feeling. I suggest you fix Tim Sommer's page who had nothing to do with this. In addition, I will be taking all of this to connections I have in the press. You're out of bounds and since you KNOW I would never make a legal threat - especially a class action one - I wont. Ban me, take me page down - do whatever you want rather than straighten out something for the safety of the public. I would imagine your identify could be summoned. I hold you personally accountable, as well as the rest of wiki and apparently so do many people.

Defamation of character. Mis information to the public about a health disorder. Allowing a page to sit for years with absurd citations on it, and thus influencing and harming the public. Threatening citizens that "they will be watched". Big Brother, I'm a woman who takes up causes and I have a new one now. :) Have a nice night. "Ill be watching you". You know those lyrics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, you have made something pretty close to a legal threat here, as you did before. That got you blocked before. I will give you some time to strike before I seek administrative action. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How interesting. I just tried to make an edit or comment perhaps to this page and it isn't appearing. Good thing I have it saved and time stamped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about this page, but you removed sourced content in this dif from the Misophonia article on a basis that is not valid in Wikipedia, and I reverted in this dif, telling you that you cannot remove sourced content on that basis. Things called edit conflicts do happen here sometimes when two people are making changes at the same time - it may be from that. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Sorry for my slow response. I was away from the computer. Thank you for you note. Thank you for distinguishing between the conceptual and the technical. Once you did that, I was much better able to make sense of wiki, and what was going on here. I did go to the link you provided and now it makes perfect sense to me why primary sources should not be included. In fact, I completely see the logic in this since so many primary sources are biased. I think what confused me is that I see so many primary sources all over wiki but I understand that is something the wiki medical community is trying to correct. So, now I do understand what kinds of sources should drive misophonia page. Unfortunately, we don't have many good ones and I think there are still some problems with the ones that are there now, however, I believe I should address that directly on the misophonia page. See, I think I'm getting this! I truly appreciate your patience and for your diligence in helping me to understand this. I will keep trying because of course the misophonia page means a great deal to me, and I will do so via making suggestions rather than direct changes. Now I just have to review how to do that and hope it works. So, thanks again for all of your hard work. Oh, I hope I wrote this in the right place. Drjobrout (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please - for just a second - try to imagine: if every person who came to Wikipedia was as fierce as you, and as completely unconcerned with what you call the "wiki rules", as you are, what this place would be like.

I can tell you - it would be a complete hellhole. It would be. Each person claiming that their authority, or their issue, or whatever, was The Most Important Thing. A mad max world.

The policies and guidelines that the community itself has put in place over the past 15 years, are what allows this place to function. They guide content, and they guide editor behavior. They are essential. Every community has norms, and these are Wikipedia's.

You are not dealing with the reality of that, at all. And the harder you push, the more likely it is that you will be indefinitely blocked. Again. So please, look at where you are - see Wikipedia for what it is, and look at what you are doing. Please. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)