User talk:Riffstilde

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, pursuing the mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

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!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.

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. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. 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!
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, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia!

--Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes and phage stuff

Based on your message to me here, you were responding to this message I left at the IP 89.87.69.146's page.

So -- working in Wikipedia is something strange; please try not to take anything for granted here -- Wikipedia has its own manual of style, and more-or-less required sourcing, and even its own approach to content generation.

Please have a read of User:Jytdog/How, which provides a high level overview of this whole place -- our mission, and how we realize it, and importantly -- why we do things the way we do them.

Please do review the welcome message above carefully, and please be sure that you read and understand WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDHOW.

With regard to the content you had generated about phage, the issues arose from your passion for this topic on the one hand, and your being new here, and on the other, not really understanding what we do and how we do it and why.

I am assuming now that you have taken the time to read the stuff above, which is a lot, I know! But the better grounded you are, the more smoothly all this will go.

So -please have a read of Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), which includes issues where are driven by passion as well as financial interests (they both drive people to violate many of our policies and guidelines, most importantly sourcing and the WP:NPOV policy.

This is a lot to take on; please read all the above and the links as a student of Wikipedia, trying to run up the learning curve. After you have read all this stuff, if you have any questions please reply here and let me know if you have any questions about any of that general stuff. Then after a bit more, we can turn and look back on the issues around the content you had generated. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote here that you have read all this stuff. You may have glanced over it, but your editing and behavior shows that you have not absorbed it. There is a great deal that you clearly do not understand. I cannot help you if you don't engage with the material you have been provided. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause

Please pause your editing until you are oriented in what we do and how we do it. Please. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause your editing until you are better oriented. Please. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory journals

Would you please stop using predatory journals like MDPI. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Based on your aggressive editing and aggressive talk page behavior, it is starting to appear like you may have a financial conflict of interest.

You are behaving exactly like people do, who have a financial conflict of interest.

So let's get that clarified.

Hello Riffstilde. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Riffstilde. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Riffstilde|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog,

I have no financial interest, either present or future. I am not paid by anyone to do my edits. I am wondering why you behave in a way that I perceive as aggressive and contrary to Wikipedia spirit. I am the one who got his edits reverted with about no clear justification and you say I am aggressive! The least politeness would be to explain what is wrong in an edit, instead of referring vaguely to Wikipedia guidelines.

I would like as well you to justify what my "aggressive talk page behavior" is.

Thank you. Riffstilde (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying that you are not being paid. So your editing is driven by a desire to "get the word out" - by passion. This is also not OK.

You are being aggressive in editing (edit warring), and you are being aggressive on talk pages. Just above if your reply, you claim to understand the "Wikipedia spirit" but you do not. How could you? You just got here.

People have given specific reasons for removing your edits, in their edit notes. You keep demanding reasons, but they already been provided.

If you don't understand any of those reasons that have already been provided, please ask a specific question.

People are happy to help, but you have to do the work of trying to understand what we do here, and why. Please do take the time to read the edits notes when people have reverted you, and please do take some time and actually study the guidance provided above. I suggest that you start with user:Jytdog/How. Everything does make sense here. It takes time and effort to understand. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose any connection you have with any group developing to selling phage therapies. Please answer that question; your answer about "no financial interest" does not address this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riffstilde, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Riffstilde! 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 experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I see where some of your edits have been reverted and you wonder why. Wikipedia is an open and friendly community but there are rules and policies to follow. Certain editors protect areas of their own expertise. If you know something is true and add it to an article, someone will delete it as original research. Everything has to be sourced to a reliable secondary reference with a footnote. That allows the Wiki community to verify any edits. People try very hard to help new editors but you have to be able to listen and take advice. I like the film area. I watch a movie and then want to edit that movie article. If I add something I just saw and know it to be true, I can not add it because my knowledge is original research. The rules require I be able to cite a secondary source. So then I check IMDb and cite it as verification. I soon learned that IMDb is not a reliable source. A rule I needed to learn if I am going to work in the film area. I am not sure but I think you have a medical background. Your personal knowledge can not be added to Wikipedia. Also what you add has to be notable and generally accepted. You must write in a neutral tone without any personal view. The toughest thing I learned to accept was another editor who I didn't know could delete anything I added. You should listen to Doc James and Jytdog because they know the medical area and truly want to help new editors. Feel free to listen to my advice or learn by doing. There is a Manuel of Style (MOS) and lots of help articles to read.Eschoryii (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. How did you find me? My feeling as a newbee here is that I do not get help: I get smashed without knowing why. Basically all of my edits have been reverted though I tried to follow the rules. There is always something wrong. All the rules are so numerous and sometimes contradictory or interpretable that anyone familiar to the system can probably use them as a pretext to accept or ban anything depending on whether or not they personally agree with the content. Wikipedia elsewhere is a family; here it's a sect.

They keep reproaching you not to follow the rules but they do not even start the resolution procedure which is to discuss on the talk page where you did your edit. Riffstilde (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You are edit warring on an essential, broadly used guideline that you do not understand.

Please stop.

Please read WP:PGCHANGE before making further edits to that guideline.

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, Can you please stop accusing me of edit warring when I am not. I always post things in good faith. Aggressively reversing is not a way leading to dialogue. Riffstilde (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:BRD - when you you do BRRD you are edit warring. Try a change once, and if it doesn't fly please discuss. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jitdog : I did not know this BRD stuff but I realize I already applied it out of politeness. Actually I did try to take into account what you expressed before reediting. On the other side I haven't seen most of your posts show that you understand and even more consider the edits I suggest. Instead you post big red warning signs on my page ... So why don't we try now a real dialog where you address my edits by exploring the purpose they carry. My edits are not perfect but they try to address real issues. Riffstilde (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Your points about clearly defining biomedical information were spot on IMHO, even though their (your) reception was not particularly warm and welcoming. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]