User talk:Ex-nimh-researcher

September 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 21:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychosis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Hello, Ex-nimh-researcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Quick introduction to Wikipedia
How to write a great article
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-site canvassing, edit warring, and other bad behavior

Hello Ex-nimh-researcher, I am a Wikipedia administrator. In this edit you appear to confirm what was stated in this edit regarding the comments made at the Mad in America website about editing Wikipedia. So I am not stating any information on Wikipedia that you haven't already supplied yourself in noting that you are the author at this article and the following comments.

I need to inform you that Wikipedia has policies against several of the things you are doing. Specifically, you are engaging in edit-warring, which is repeatedly reverted your preferred content changes back into the article without significant discussion or attempts to come to consensus with the other editors who have raised reasonable objections. You also appear to be engaging in off-Wiki canvassing, or directing others to support you in edit-warring behavior. These things are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Because of this, I had full-protected the article for three days, but I am now extending the full-protection of the Psychosis article to a week, and will keep extending it for as long as I reasonably expect that the protection is preventing disruptive behavior.

What does work on Wikipedia is bringing authoritative, high-quality sourcing and working collaboratively with other editors to represent that sourcing accurately. I don't mean to discourage well-educated professionals from editing Wikipedia, but the editing must be done collaboratively, using authoritative, high-quality sources, and within Wikipedia's behavior guidelines.

Thanks... Zad68 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: So sorry about this overzealous behavior on my part. It was based on ignoranceI have read the talk page on psychosis and understand the respectful tone there. I will inform the MIA readers of this and always go for consensus. Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, sincerely! Don't forget that "consensus" on Wikipedia must be built on the best argument supported by content policy and excellent sourcing. Two things that might be relevant: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the Neutral point of view policy (see especially the guidelines regrading fringe views vs. mainstream). Thanks and looking forward to your contributions... Zad68 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this at the mad in America Website to discourage meat puppeting. ( lot of new words to learn...)In my enthusiasm it may seem like I have encouraged readers to engage in edit wars on Wikipedia. This is completely against the philosophy of Wikipedia.

The other editors are usually very respectful, but they want consensus. This is actually quite a good thing.
So do like this:
1. Act on your own behalf, don’t gang up!
2. Read the Talk page for the theme (up to the left) and see how things have been discussed. This is very interesting!!
3. Submit changes you want on the talk page before you go in and do an edit.
4. Be respectful, assume good faith and go for consensus.
5.When it comes to references, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources,, summaries of resarch, not individual original articles. That means that Anatomy of an Epidemic would be better than the individual articles. Review articles, Cochrane and other meta studies are considered ideal references.Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying Wikipedia policy to your audience. :-) Everyone makes mistakes when they first begin editing. So no worries. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machine read audio files

Hey Ex. Am actually interested in seeing if we can do this widely. We first need to get consensus for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this on the schizophrenia file. Just the exact copy of the current text. See if you like it.Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should go in the external links section not in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the example on the MDD article to the EL section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will see it there! The point is to let people decide for themselves, but then they have to be aware that it is there. It is not disturbing the text it is just under the picture! Please move it back!

Started a discussion here - please join Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Computer-generated_audio_files_of_articles Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to have this automatically done for all Wikipedia pages rather than just single pages. It would also be good to have it built so that it skips certain terms that really do not need reading out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Zad68 00:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-nimh-researcher, you need to understand: you cannot repeatedly revert your changes back into articles, you must discuss challenged changes and you must abide by the consensus formed, even if it doesn't go your way. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where the last man standing in a revert-war wins. Zad68 00:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have unblocked after discussion with blocking admin so user can comment here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was nice. I have added the files to the general medical sound file section. You may revert if you think that is objectionable also. I saw that the terms that have a soundfile has a very discrete loudspeaker icon up to the right. This would be ideal, very discrete, but I haven't found out how to do that code for that. An alternative could be to put "Have the article read for you" as a link at the end of the topic list and then place all the files at the external links section. I think soundfiles could make Wikipedia much more user friendly for many people. I actually listen to the archives for the Schizophrenia talk file for entertainment while I drive. It is very interesting!Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean on Commons?

Here is an example of how sound files are usually presented Alzheimer's_disease. Not exactly sure how that is done either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file is stored on commons but linked from the small loudspeaker. I think this is a good idea. How can we get to know how it is done?Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This little bit of text does it {{Spoken Wikipedia|XXXX.ogg|2008-09-12}} One puts it in the external links section. Only handles one file. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hi, this is in response to your post on my user talk page.

I did not remove anything from the psychosis article, so please do your research when you look at who is doing edits on the page. It was not I who changed anything. I just alerted staff to what you were doing.108.198.225.14 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]