User talk:Exert yourself
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
- The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
collapsing old edit warring notices and unblock discussions
|
|---|
July 2019[edit] Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Need page number[edit]"Memantine can add benefit to people already receiving donepezil.[1]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Medication doses[edit]Per WP:PHARMMOS we do not generally include medication doses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Not a review[edit]You added "A review published in 2019 showed the treatment efficacy in ADHD especially those who are not well-responded to the generally indicated pharmacotherapy.[1]" This is NOT a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
References
July 2019[edit]Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Unblock request[edit] Exert yourself (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This makes me so sad. Please state which Diff by me is a breach of WP:RMEDS????? @EdJohnston: There were only one or two votes. You call it "There is no visible support for the changes by User:Exert yourself on either Talk:Donezepil or Talk:Memantine." Is Wikipedia a place to vote?? Doc James didn't obey WP:RMEDS and I corrected him and I got blocked in the end?? Exert yourself (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Decline reason: You are blocked for edit warring but haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. @Yamla: Ref: I cited material from Elbe, Dean (2019). Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Hogrefe. p. 366-369. ISBN 978-1-61676-550-7. OCLC 1063705924.. User:Doc James insisted it's not a reliable medical source and moved it to research section despite the title of the medical textbook is Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. I was protecting Wikipedia and now I got blocked. This is completely wrong. I didn't intend to start edit warring but protecting Wikipedia!! --Exert yourself (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions:
Exert yourself (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. I already explained that in the edit summary. [Ref]Exert yourself (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Decline reason: The edits you were reverting were no way vandalism. Please read WP:GAB if you plan on making another appeal. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. How about Doc James?? Why isn't he blocked for involving in edit warring?? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC) I carefully make sure if I don't use the wrong source (User_talk:Doc_James#Primary_source?) Why Doc James started edit-warring even though I cited medical textbook and he is still fine now? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Why was Doc James allowed to censor the medical textbook published by reliable publisher?? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Was Doc James' behaviour not WP:Disruption? I strongly protest for the double standard here. --Exert yourself (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) @Flyer22 Reborn: I know what you mean, but it can wait for several decades for RCTs for that to come! We, patients, have a limited lifetime. Now the experts decided not to wait and just go ahead. Why Doc James can defy the decision made by a broad of experts in pediatrics despite himself is devoted in an emergency department rather than the pediatric psychiatry/neurology?? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC) @Flyer22 Reborn: When it comes to discussion, Doc James and me already discussed over the issues here in my talk page. I did participate in discussion. --Exert yourself (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Also I don't get why he reverted to the version he liked and asked me to discussion based on his liked version?? My version is supported by medical textbook!! Just because Doc James doesn't like it so we should start the discussion based on his liked version? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC) @Ponyo: Sorry, Just one question, why is Doc James currently fine?? We both actively discussed the issues. --Exert yourself (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
|
July 2019
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC) |
：Hey Sir, I just wanted to start over. You misunderstood. -Exert yourself (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Exert yourself (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The guideline is too long to read at once. I just wanted to start over. Why it can still result in indefinite block?? But fine. Now, where I am from is revealed. And my contribution history is revealed. I told some people I am busy and now they know I am busy contributing to Wikipedia. I didn't use two accounts to engage in any edit war. How could Wikipedia still reveal my privacy? Exert yourself (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per the talk page discussion this is a check user block. User appears to be accepting a standard offer and we will see them back at or after January 26, 2020. Users courtesy under trying circumstances is noted. However, further note is also made that this started out as a block for edit warring. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This account is not a legitimate use of WP:CLEANSTART. There's substantial overlap in editing between the two accounts. You did not stop using the old account. This was a clear case of attempting to evade scrutiny, rather than of a clean start. I'll note that you immediately ran into substantial problems with this account, too. I will leave your unblock request to another admin, but I would be within my rights to decline the above unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I only use the old account when editing stuff regarding Taiwan. I used the old account to edit Calcium channel blocker toxicity several months ago. Also, I don't want to let people who know me see stuff I wrote on this User Page. I tried not to appear like there is the same person behind the two accounts. And I think I did it. Today is probably the worst day in my life. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there's substantial overlap in your edits. It's not just Taiwan, and it's not just several months ago. See this page, showing an almost complete overlap in edits, with only hours or days between edits via each account. Look, I get that you are having a bad day. But I'll politely point out this is because of your actions. Regardless, there is still a path to being unblocked. If the above unblock request is denied, WP:SO would still apply. That would require you step back from Wikipedia for a while, then come back and convince us your future edits would be significantly different from your current edits with both accounts. That's tough, but it's achievable. And it's not your only path forward. You may be able to convince an admin to unblock you sooner than that. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla: Thank you so much for your warm reply! Yes, I think I need to calm down for a while. I will be right back probably tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. (By the way, the overlaps were probably because I logged in one on my tablet and the other on the computer and the two accounts served for the same purpose-- making Wikipedia better.) Goodnight from Taiwan. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Sorry, I hope our relation can remain good despite today's disagreement. I will be right back to discuss the matter with you. I believe we edit for the same purpose. I gonna take a break now. Thanks for the time. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The user would have to convince a CU to unblock them. I should add that the master account has a history of blocks at zh.wiki, and was blocked (I believe today) until November 30, 2019. Even with machine translation, I have trouble figuring out the bases for the blocks. Exert yourself has also edited at zh.wiki but has not yet been blocked. I'm considering requesting global locks for both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: That's an article ban since May, 2019. And the reason of the ban is somehow sensitive, not suitable to talk on Wikipedia. (The reason for the article ban in ZHWIKI can look formal to people not familiar with ZHWIKI. Best.) --Exert yourself (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- You have made so many misreprentations, it's hard to have confidence in anything you say, but even assuming you're correct that the block is for a violation of an "article ban" (no clue why you claim it's "sensitive" - it's a public block), how is that not disruptive? And what are the other blocks for?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Regarding the ZHWIKI contribution. Because I found myself trapped in the "discussion jam" at that time. Every time I logged in ZHWIKI, I had to join the discussion there first. And that made me want to breathe some fresh air. It's that simple. Anyway, After the discussion regarding donepezil, memantine, and cholinesterase inhibitor with User:Doc James. I goona do a standard restart on EN WIKI. Finally, you may find some clues about you're asking on It's gonna be awesome's talk page. Thank you so much!! --Exert yourself (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- First, you're not going to have any discussion with Doc James because you're blocked. Second, what do you mean by "I goona do a standard restart on EN WIKI"? Third, don't be coy about "clues". I have no interest in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Firstly, I plan to propose an unblock request after I read the instruction. I believe Doc James and I are editing for good intention. Secondly, I didn't use two accounts to do the wrong things. Really! So I am shocked that there exits the definition of Wikipedia's starting over. Thirdly, it's easy to spot the clues on It's gonna be awesome's talk page. I don't directly to point out because of some reasons. But I called "admins" on that talk page only two times. They are where I refer to. Thank you! --Exert yourself (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I warned you that you could not have a discussion with Doc James while blocked, and you initiated one anyway. I have therefore revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)