User talk:Qwertyasdf99

Qwertyasdf99, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Qwertyasdf99! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and a quibbly note

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Danger. I've been editing for quite a bit and I'm happy to see that you're doing well with your sandbox. I have just a minor comment about something that's not obvious. When you copy material from one Wikipedia page to another, you actually have to make some sort of note, usually with something like "this material copied from [[Cat]]" in the edit summary. Some legal thing to do with copyright. I thought I'd let you know right away, because I didn't realize this for years and had to spend something like 15 hours correcting my old copies. Anyhow, no big deal right now. If you have any questions about this or anything else, you can always ask me on my talk page or at the Teahouse above. And welcome! Danger! ^{High voltage!} 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do this. Do I have to reference something I copy into my sandbox even if I don't use the material in my final edited page?

So right now, you should make an edit to your sandbox that, like, adds a space (this is called a dummy edit, because it doesn't really change anything on the page) and in the summary to that "edit", say something like "material copied from <list of pages you've copied from>". I'll make an edit on your sandbox as an example. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm thinking that the "copying" that I found were all false positives. Dang. Well, carry on! Sorry for the trouble. I'm impressed with your work. You might want to check out Wikiproject Medicine; there always seems to be a lot of activity on the psychiatry/neuropsychology front there. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a question. On the page, under the heading "mechanism of action", previous editors have written some material totally unrelated to the heading. I would have removed some of it because it was mostly irrelevant, not well written, not referenced, and really did not have anything to do with the heading. If I would have removed some of the not-so-good stuff, would my head be cut off? I'm I stepping on someone toes, or egos?

Well, if some of the material is relevant to other parts of the article, you could move it. But generally, if it's not relevant and not referenced, you can go ahead and remove it. The wiki-ethos, if you will, does encourage improvement of others' work where that's possible, but taking out the trash is also improvement, I think. It is very unlikely that your head will be cut off given the difficulty of finding Wikipedians' real life locations. :-) It is possible that someone will object, but if you use an informative edit summary (something like "removing unsourced material" or "removing material out of article scope", depending on why the stuff has to go), you're unlikely to be bothered. So I say go for it.

It looks like a lot of that stuff spilled over from Major depressive disorder, so you might want to leave a note there if you remove something that might be useful to that article. (This is one of the rare cases when I would not suggest just going ahead and copying the material over; "Major depressive disorder" is a featured article, so a lot of people have spent a lot of time polishing it and may have strong opinions on how the article should be arranged.) Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Qwertyasdf99. You have new messages at Danger's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antidepressant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nervousness and Anorexia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antidepressant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dependence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFC

Its hard to read them from the user sandbox, as our review tools do not work there. Next time could you resubmit through the Article Wizard at WP:AFC? Also, as it contains examples that are 'made up' and it seems to be using some clever original research I'll have to decline it for now. The subject is notable and valuable, but as it is medical related WP:MEDICINE is a good place to ask about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEDMOS

Hiya. I see that you have made some major changes to some articles, particularly the benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome article. Unfortunately your changes to the article structure have went against WP:MEDMOS. MEDMOS is a style guide for how to structure articles and name specific sections. Some of your changes have been quite productive. I am awfully sorry but I am going to need to revert your edits to get the article back to being comparable with MEDMOS. You have made so many changes to the article I find it difficult from the page history to determine what to keep. I know this may be frustrating but this is what newcomers to wikipedia often face, as they do not know guidelines and policies. I hope this does not put you off editing here. If you need any help or advice then let me know.--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were needed, the article was so convoluted and repetitive. I can work within the format of the MEDMOS and take it from there. It might be easier that way than reverting the article. What do you think? Qwertyasdf99 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your changes were good, which made me feel guilty for reverting you. I think that the revert was necessary because I couldn't work out all the changes as you were doing extensive changes in one edit. Sometimes it is better to do lots of small changes, which show up in the history more clearly. Also I noticed you were deleting some content, claiming that it was redundant, as it already existed in the lead/introduction - the first few paragraphs of an article on wikipedia summarises or is meant to summarise the article body, so there will be repetitiveness in that regard. Of course redundancy within the main body of text should be fixed. Is it too difficult for you to manually read back in the valuable changes you want to make to the article one by one? Again, I am sorry for this. I know how annoying this all can be.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I answer you here or on your page?

I can do the edits one by one, but some of the changes were pretty major, so that at some point, paragraph by paragraph might be a better idea. The thing is, the article was mostly unchanged in context, but it really is pretty Helter Skelter, and I wanted to add flow. So I grouped all similar idea, and once I did that, the same message was repeated 3 or more times. It was then easy to concatenate them all and keep the references. I also added flow. I placed the process of withdrawal in one section so that there would be continuity of idea in chronological order, first taper, then appearance of withdrawal symptoms, then acute withdrawal, the post acute withdrawal, then protracted, then prognosis. Then I separated the symptoms in their own category. I removed the "doctors and patients " bits mostly, but I had to keep a few, because I wanted to check the references before making any more changes, to ensure that any edits maintained the essence of the citations.

I think the article does not really follow the MEDMOS format as it is. For example under prognosis, you don't really have a prognosis. I wanted to make it follow the format but could not do it because the article was too convoluted. The plan was to start by cleaning it up a little then work in the proper format.

If you think I should do a little at time, I can do that, but I fear that the article may get worse before it gets better by doing it that way, because I might have to add redundancy before I can remove some of it later in the edit. Nevertheless, I can try if you think that is a better way.Qwertyasdf99 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph by paragraph is fine. It is just when there are major changes throughout multiple sections in a single edit it becomes difficult to follow and decider what has changed. A lot of your edits were good and if you want to make major changes to the article please feel welcome to do so. Just try to follow MEDMOS please and yes you are right the article as it is is not fully MEDMOS compliant and needs more work. It doesn't really matter which page you reply on as I have your talk page watch listed. If I miss a message to me on your talk page you can send me a message in my talk page.--MrADHD | T@1k? 08:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benzodiazepine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benzodiazepine dependence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tolerance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS

Hi, thank you for your continuing work on wikipedia articles. I am not sure if you have read this guideline, WP:MEDRS but if you haven't I suggest that you read it as it will help you with sourcing your edits. I have noticed that you have been using old and primary sources excessively which led to some of your edits being reverted on the main benzodiazepine article, (see the history tab on that article). Ideal sources are secondary sources (reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis's as well as academic text books). Also references should aim to be within the past 5 years if possible, if not possible then the more recent the better. You can select your searches for example on PubMed by filtering by age of academic papers as well as by category of peer reviewed paper i.e. reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis's etc. :) You can filter by age of publication on google books as well I believe in advanced search options. Old and primary sources can be used and are used on wikipedia but they should generally be used as a last resort and not a first resort and used cautiously.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, the old sources are still of value particularly when they are fundamental research. In some instances they are still the best resources available. I've tried to source statements which were unsourced even if the source is old, it gives me a starting point to see what is sourced and what is not. I agree that meta analysis are great when they are available, but they are mostly used when a topic is researched extensively, like antidepressants, antipsychotics, and the likes. When a topic such as deprendence and withdrawal is not funded by industry, and the medications are off-patent, the research is more difficult to come by and meta analysis are not always available. I appreciate your suggestions and will look into MEDRS. Again, this is a work in progress, and will replace old citations with new ones when I come across them, but some are old resources are fundamental research, like GABAa receptor sites for benzo activity from the Journal Nature. Still, I want to start by sourcing the statements, and as always, revert if you think the citations are inappropriate.

Thanks for looking in, it saves me from further having to redo large chucks if I mess up. Qwertyasdf99 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. You seem like a fast learner and seem to be getting to grips with wikipedia quicker than most. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

I noticed some content was moved in the lede/intro of the article but references were not added. If you are moving theft about, like chopping some text out of a referenced paragraph and moving it then you need to add references to the text after you move it, using 'ref name' to show that it is referenced. Ref name is a method of referencing multiple pieces of text without having to use the full reference template over and over again in the same article. See this diff for an example of how ref name can be used. Thanks for your work.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr ADHD, thanks for looking into the revisions. I've very concious of the possibility of loosing references, and I'm being very careful, but I think that a lot of the text is unsourced, or sourced incorrectly. If the material added was not added with sources, there probably was no source originally. I've done very little in the way of editing, just moving with sources. Some paragraphs have sources that pertain on only a small part of the paragraph, and those are the ones that I've chopped (I think). Still, I've probably lost one reference or two. Once I'm done untangling the text, I will work on adding good quality sources and revising the text to make it more MEDMOS positive. I have been naming references as you suggested, so that I don't loose the sources when I chop a paragraph in two when appropriate. As always, thanks! (Happy new year!) Qwertyasdf99 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing journals

I saw some of your work on the Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. It was good to see that you added references. I would just like to let you know that you could make use of the Cite journal template available at the top of the edit box. Filling in the PMID and searching with it will automatically fill in the details of the other fields. If you know this anyway, its definitely ok but I thought it could be useful.Diptanshu ^Talk 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip !

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Liquid titration (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Titration instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Liquid titration and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]