User talk:Jg16540

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled a list of guidance for new editors:

1. Use high quality sources for medical content. This is described at WP:MEDRS. High quality sources include review articles (note this is not the same as peer reviewed), position statements from national and internationally recognized bodies (think CDC, WHO, NICE, FDA, etc), and major medical textbooks. Lower quality sources may be removed.
2. References go after, not before, punctuation (see WP:MOS).
3. We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
4. Do not use the url from the inside net of your university library. The rest of the world cannot see it.
5. If you use textbooks we need page numbers.
6. Please format your references as explained at WP:MEDHOW or like the ones already in the article. This is simple once you get the PMID / ISBN.
7. Every sentence can be referenced. We reference more densely than other sources.
8. Never "copy and paste" from sources. We run copy and paste detection software on new edits.
9. Section order typically follows the instructions here at WP:MEDMOS
10. Please talk to us. Wikipedia works by collaboration and this takes place on the talk pages of both articles and user.

Again welcome and thank you for joining us.

P.S. Please share this with fellow new editors.

James Heilman a.k.a User:Doc James
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine
University of British Columbia

and

The Team at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing yourself

Your only purpose here seems to be citing your own work. We do not encourage this. If you are active publishing in a specific field and want to suggest edits based on your work, you should propose them on the article talk pages. Please read WP:COI for more information on this. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I only feel comfortable editing what I am an expert in (e.g., topics I have researched thoroughly and/or have gotten published about in peer-review journals), therefore I often cite my articles and other relevant related topics to strengthen wiki pages. I read WP:COI which says:

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

I'm not sure what the problem and why you felt the need to delete my edit since it was relevant, conforms to WP:SELFPUB, is not excessive (I've only done a handful of edits compared to many people I see editing thousands of pages that they certainly cannot know much about), and I definitely did not call specific attention to my own work (in fact, I believe I always cited it along other relevant research).Guy (Help!) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (EST)

You are now reverting my removal of your self-citation. That is definitely not cool. If you want your work cited, do as I say and propose it on the talk pages, do not edit-war it into articles. You may not be aware of how things work here: I'm an admin and my job is to help protect the encyclopaedia and indeed you. There can be terrible damage done to reputations by appearing to spam this project. You say yu conform to wiki policies: no, you do not. You can safely assume that I know this a lot better than you since I have been here over a decade. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how it is any less cool than what you did. I have tried to help protect the postings on PTSD and psychiatric topers here (often they are stigmatizing to patients or lack important new findings in tretament which I try to fix). Please explain which policies, specifically I violated. I went through the words and do not see where. You have been here a decade, so please explain with specifics. Again, if you really think I self-promoted (I don't see how I did since I never mentioned my name in the text or focused lots of space on my own articles), than please do not haphazardly remove ALL the changes I made, just those that refer to my own work. That hundreds of thousands of bites and hours of work you removed of mine in one swoop has hurt these pages (particularly the PTSD page). I only ask that you justify with specifics and, if you really feel justified in what you did, than only remove the citations to me specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs)

What I did was to remove references you added to your research, which is something you should not do according to our policies. I also explained what you should do if you want your research cited here, which is to propose it on the Talk pages and let other editors decide whether it goes in or not. Removing problematic content is a thing that Wikipedia editors, and especially admins, do. It's not personal. We do it all the time. You don't need to explain to me about PTSD, as I have been through it. I am also a supporter of the UK's major charity for combat veterans with PTSD. I advise you to take my advice at face value: I am a ten year veteran admin, I know the rules here pretty well, and if you continue to push cites to your own work (whihc is pretty much all you've done here) then you're likely to find yourself blocked. Again, this is not personal, many academic researchers simply never understand that Wikipedia is not like academic publishing, self-citation is a big no-no here. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I get that you've had several of these similar conversations before and have been here 10 years. Please, please, read the policy (the policy you cited to me) and tell me which words specifically I violated:

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

As I read it, adding references I added to my research is "ALLOWED within reason, but only if it is RELEVANT..." Which part did I violate? It was relevant and not excessive. And, again, please respond to why you didn't just delete citations to my work. If selfpub is the issue, than delete the selfpubs but not all the other sentences and paragraphs that you are depriving patients and trainees of, and all the changes I made to fix the changes from other editors who used stigmatizing or erroneous information.

It's a conflict of interest.Guy (Help!) 06:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says ("Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason"). Shouldn't editing based on the knowledge you have and what you have recently required (i.e., through research) be encouraged?--Jg16540 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is to propose the changes on Talk and let someone independent make the call. That is how we do it.Guy (Help!) 06:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is based only on what you say rather than what the policy says. That is why I want an appeal/independent review. It's looking more and more like that will not happen. It seems as though administrators have absolute authority here to just carte blanche delete without thorough review, and justify actions based on subjective whims rather than objective policies.--Jg16540 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept this, and your single-minded determination to include your own work, is now looking like an abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion. You probably ought to stop that now. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you don't read or respond to my actual words (that is why I am now responing point-by-point to you and hope you do the same), and continue to display your own single-minded determination to keep citing your authority rather than Wipipedia policy, and refuse to answer my question about just deleting the selfpubs but restoring the myriad of other sentences/paragraphs which I edited (citing numerous other publications which you threw out with the bathwater). My determination is not based on self-promotion (again, if you actually read what I have said, you would see I am fine with eliminating all my selfpubs but please restore everything else). My determination is based on the injustice of hastily removing virtually all my edits in the matter of 20 minutes (which is not enough time to read through, decide what may or may not constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy, and only delete what violates) without ever answering my points. Why do you keep threatening rather than answering/communicating? I do not think I have ever been rude; instead, I continue to repeatedly ask the same questions again and again hoping you will finally respond (just go back and look at the my posts -- each says essentially the same thing in different words, hoping I will finally communicate in a way that you can receive and undertand). Is there no opportunity for redress or at the very least response? I saw what you wrote on the Talk:Addiction page: "I have no opinion on its merits, only that it should not be added by a co-author." Your statement flies in the face of not only the policy ("Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason" -- in other words, the merits determine if it violates policy or not) but in the face of the whole point of Wikipedia (to collect and disseminate accurate information -- in other words, the merits determine if it is useful or not).--Jg16540 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So here it is again for you.

1. Don't cite yourself. That's a WP:COI and also has the potential to reflect very badly on you in the real world. If you think your work should be cited, propose an edit on the Talk page and let other people make the call. It's a really simple rule, it works well for all circumstances. I don't care about your interpretation of other rules: Wikipedia's rule base is fluid and occasionally contradictory, what matters is current community consensus. You can ask at WP:COIN if you like but I think you will not find many admins or other experienced users who would disagree with me.

1. If a citation is removed, text based on it may (and generally should) also be removed, per WP:V/WP:RS. Your main beef here seems on the face of it to be that not only did I remove your citations, I also removed your opinions. That is a good inidication that I did something right. See WP:NOR.

1. Wikipedia is not academic publishing. We have this problem all the time: in academia, you are allowed to cite yourself, and you are allowed to state your conclusions as fact based on references. That is not the case here. Most academics get that pretty quickly, and contribute valuable material. Some do not, and a few argue so vociferously that it becomes apparent they are here mainly to advance their personal theories and/or boost their careers. You do not want to get yourself filed under that heading. You really don't.

Now, you can go off and quote-mine the rules all you like, in the end it's admins like me who will enforce policy and from my substantial experience I can say with fair confidence that continuing as you are will not go well for you. As I say, you can ask for a second opinion at WP:COIN, but I do not think you will get a different answer. Don't cite yourself, propose edits on Talk. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1) "Don't cite yourself" is not written in the codified Wikipedia policy. If that is the de facto policy, than I recommend you change the official written policy.

2) I will try to explain this again: You did not just remove my selfpubs or my opinions, you also removed numerous sentences that were based on scholarly articles that I did not publish. That has nothing to do with selfpub, nothing to do with COI, and nothing to do with opinions.

3) That's fine, clearly that is the de facto policy on Wikipedia. Again, I recommend 1) you edit the official Wikipedia policy to reflect that (especially if this keeps happening "all the time") and 2) restore all the non-selfpub sentences I wrote based on non-selfpub references. Otherwise, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.--2602:306:3589:DAB0:C18C:7D7D:3448:8720 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

AE

Please note AE is not a place for admins to "decide" on content disputes. Instead, it's to enforce existing sanctions imposed by Wikipedia's WP:Arbitration Committee. Your submission wasn't appropriate for that venue and so it's been removed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lord Roem, where is the appropriate venue to have an administrator's actions reviewed/appealed when they are not acting to the letter of Wikipedia policies?--Jg16540 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the unfortunate saga you are involved in over the last few days, and it reminded me of my own inauspicious start here. I didn't come back for almost two years.

Guy has already told you where to ask for help in this area, the Conflict of interest noticeboard, but imho, you will get the same response there as you have already had from Guy, you shouldn't spam your own work as citations in wiki articles as you have been doing. Self citing en masse is just not acceptable here. Your interpretation of the guidelines and policy concerned is just wrong.

I make no judgement on the edits or citations themselves, but you do appear to be certain that an independant editor without COI may find them acceptable. I bet if you asked at COIN somebody would advise you what to do. I reckon it's probably a question of suggesting your edits on the articles concerned Talk page for inclusion. Just dont do it yourself, and save yourself a lot of hassle. Best -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I would argue that the codified Wikipedia policy (i.e., "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant," "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources") needs to be changed to reflect what is the de facto policy (i.e., all selfpubs must be discussed on the Talk page first, or whatever any single administrator wants). It amazes me that the poorly written, poorly sourced, and often factually inaccurate or biased material I have read on Wikipedia medical-related pages (which can result in harm to patients if recommended treatments are not the standard of care) is not policed as strongly as selfpub citations. However, as I said multiple times above and elsewhere, if Wikipedia determines that why I did was self-promoting, than I am wrong about selfpubs, but JzG shouldn't have deleted everything I ever edited. Only a minuscule portion of my edits were cited to my own work (although every page I ever edited was related to the topics of my research interests, since I am only comfortable editing what I know about -- I see how bungled things get when users edit things they know nothing about and inevitably misuse jargon or use stigmatizing language, in medical pages anyways). If he had spent any time actually reading my edits (which are more than just a few bites linking to a selfpub, as below) and assessing their merits (he spent only 21 minutes removing edits from 18 pages), he would have seen that and, I imagine, would have only deleted the selfpubs rather than every sentence/paragraph I added based on dozens of citations to works that I had no personal stake in. I'm not sure why you came back. I certainly won't waste my time (I apparently wasted hours of it over the last year -- hours that were deleted in 21 minutes without chance of appeal) trying to improve Wikipedia psychiatric pages anymore.

From JzG User Contributions:

19:20, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-380)‎ . . Benzodiazepine ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:16, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,439)‎ . . Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:14, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-345)‎ . . Anxiety disorder ‎ (cleanup) (current)

19:13, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-432)‎ . . Depression (mood) ‎ (cleanup) (current)

19:13, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,372)‎ . . Posttraumatic stress disorder ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:11, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-497)‎ . . Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:10, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-595)‎ . . Effects of long-term benzodiazepine use ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:10, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-496)‎ . . Anxiety disorder ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:09, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-617)‎ . . Mood disorder ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:09, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-509)‎ . . Insomnia ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:08, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-637)‎ . . Anxiety ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:08, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-776)‎ . . Hypnotic ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:07, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-444)‎ . . Depression (mood) ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:07, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-2,513)‎ . . Posttraumatic stress disorder ‎ (rm. self-promotion)

19:05, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-807)‎ . . Sedative ‎ (rm. self-promotion) (current)

19:02, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+404)‎ . . User talk:Jg16540 ‎ (→‎Citing yourself: new section)

19:00, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-939)‎ . . Child abuse ‎ (Reverted to revision 733307730 by Charlotte135 (talk): Rv. apparent self-promotion. (TW))

18:59, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,153)‎ . . Juvenile delinquency ‎ (Reverted to revision 732395307 by J 1982 (talk): Rv. apparent self-promotion. (TW))

18:59, 17 August 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,702)‎ . . Addiction ‎ (Reverted to revision 734514867 by Seppi333 (talk): Reverting apparent self-promotion. (TW))

I would like to help you. Do you want me to? -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. However, it does not fix the problem that administrators should have a philosophy/practice of helping users make Wikipedia great, not just discard all their work with little justification and no attempt to help the user help Wikipedia (again, not referring to selfpubs but all the other citations I added).

You are confusing janitors with counsellors. You are very clearly promoting yoru own views and work. That is almost all you have ever done here. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's funny: I've had both of those jobs. In both cases I always kept the big picture in mind: as a janitor, I cleaned spills off the floor but didn't rip up the whole flooring to do it; as a counselor, I help patients change unhealthy thoughts and behaviors (e.g., smoking, impulsivity, malignant narcissism to cover up feelings of inferiority) but do not try to change everything about them (e.g., strengths, smarts, the drive to do what they think is right). If you believe that I was self-promoting merely by citing my own work or that it violates policies, I wish you would have just removed that "spill" and not reverted which removed everything else (e.g., in Addiction you removed an entire paragraph with 5 references, only 1 of which was mine). In both jobs, when I did something that someone else disagreed with, I also took the time to explain my reasoning rather than just keep ignoring their points and attacking them (even if they were/are ignorant or have less experience than me, I have the philosophy of listening, understanding, and explaining -- not dismissing and threatening). "Almost all [I] have ever done" is edit about things I know about. I would never presume to edit the quantum physics or interior decorating pages. What I know about I have often published about (I have never made any money on any publications by the way, not that it matters). If you thought my article was rubish or my claim outlandish, I would understand removing it. Notwithstanding, if it is wrong for users to cite their own work under any circumstance, I strongly suggest you amend the written Wikipedia policy because the current codified policy does not reflect what you are saying even if what you are saying reflects the de facto policy and a potentially widely-accepted practice. It may make it more clear for us dumb acamedics who "do this all the time." If you don't change it, I can only presume you like the drama.--Jg16540 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I support Guys actions with regard to what has happened here, and you are not helping yourself by your belligerence, which I believe is caused by you not understanding the process. Guy has no obligation to do any more than clean up the mess that he spotted on his janitorial rounds. Lets see if we can do something to see if the community feel that your 'proposed' edits have merit. We will either open a discussion at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard, or at the Talk page of one of the articles you have edited, and see what watchers think. You do need to drop the stick with regard to Guy though, and I have other things to do tonight. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you still want my help, OK? -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the thing: on Wikipedia, you're not required to be a subject matter expert in order to make an edit. If you find an edit supported by a source that should not have been added (either due to COI as here or because it's predatory open access or whatever), you remove it, and if there's a statement it supports which would otherwise need a {{citation needed}} then you remove it or tag it. That is how Wikipedia works. Especially where research has been added by the author, because in science there are many people who have views that are out in the long tail. Consider, for example, how we should react if Rupert Sheldrake cited his own research in an article. Now, I have no way of knowing if you are a crank, like Sheldrake. I have no reaosn to think you are, but it's not my place to judge. So I removced the cites and the text. And now, as I do keep having to remind you, all you need to do is go to the article talk page and propose the edit. You have wasted a vast amount of time arguing the toss over something where, I think it's safe to say, I know a hell of a lot more than you do, namely Wikipedia practices. You could have used that time more productively by engaging with other editors about the content. Get it? This is a janitorial assignment. I don't care if the poster you put on the wall is advertising a great movie or a cesspool like Vaxxed, I just remove the poster because it should not be there. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I've not communicated well if anyone detected belligerence through this medium. I was in no way being belligerent (unless you count the persistence, to which I am guilty) and my guess is my self-deprication (I am the "ignorant" and "dumb" one compared to the seasoned administrator of the decade) was mistaken as being directed at JzG(it wasn't). Thank you for the offer, Roxy the dog™ but the amount of work it would take to go through everything you stated for each incident would not be worth it to me, especially knowing how quickly all I had done before was wiped away without warning or opportunity to adjust. Even if the talk pages were on my side, it would take a long time to reconstruct everything that was wiped away. I do not think that would be worth it. I do hope my discussion with JzG was not a waste, it won't be if he takes a little more time in his cleanups in the future, is a little more reflective and communicative with us ignorant users, and if the written policy is changed so it is clear to users what is expected by administrators (currently it is not clear). I happened to have a couple days off work, some of which I spent screwing around on the interent, but I will not be dealing with this going forward (I can't imagine being a Wikipedia administrator and dealing with these issues on a regularly basis).--Jg16540 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Roxy the dog™ bark 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)