User talk:Dustfreeworld

Archive 1

Biomedical content

Hi, Dustfreeworld. I see you are editing numerous articles with biomedical content, so wanted to give you some information regarding our sourcing guidelines in that area, and how to write citations for most medical articles (depending on WP:CITEVAR).

WP:MEDRS explains Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for biomedical content; typically, primary studies are avoided and secondary literature reviews are used.
- See also WP:MEDDATE.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches is a bit dated, but still provides a useful overview of important information about how to find the MEDRS-compliant sources
Once you have a PMID from Pubmed, you can plug that PMID in to this tool to get a correctly written citation.

Also, I see in your archive that someone alerted you in the past to the importance of discussing edits to gain consensus when editing a Featured article (eg schizophrenia and welding). You can propose and discuss additions on article talk when you see the bronze star in the top right corner of an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia. Thank you for the useful information about citation tool, and thanks for adding the three new sources you've found to the risk factors page.

Sorry if I have messed things up. I know that schizophrenia is a Featured article, so I've refrained from altering its main content or doing any substantial edits except adding some links. Those links were added because, I read about the relationship between lead exposure and schizophrenia a long time ago (20 years plus?) and is surprised that there's not even one word mentioning that in the schizophrenia page (and yes I overlooked the link to the risk factors page until you pointed me to it, and I believe most people do as well). As for the welding page, I do believe update and expansion is needed for its safety and health section, though I'm not going to do anything about it except two small edits (1138533051; 1144185763).

I understand that there are strict sourcing guidelines for biomedical content. However, the links I added to the schizophrenia page are not the "source" to support any biological information or claims. They are just information for further reading, and their interpretation is up to the readers.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the WP:MEDRS page did not state that primary sources should never be used. Though it did mention that "Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source..."

As for the links I added, this one seems to be an independent secondary review, while this one they mentioned they have conducted a meta-analysis. The second one may not be independent enough though. Please correct me if I was wrong.

I think it would be almost impossible for us to find very large scale research on the link between blood lead level and schizophrenia. Due to the special nature of the disease (risks that the sufferers may do harm to him/herself or others), usually patients will be given medication immediately upon diagnosis, especially in developed countries. And the drug used for schizophrenia is very effective nowadays, and FYI they do lower blood lead level by a very large percent too (I read about this information from some peer-reviewed journals long long time ago, but they can't be found anymore).

There won't be much studies for exposure during prenatal development either, since research would span over a very long period as one needs to wait and see if those infants wiil suffer from schizophrenia in their adulthood, not to mention that very high blood lead level (which indicates significant short-term exposure) is relatively rare nowadays in developed countries.

Therefore the instructions in WP:MEDDATE may need to be relaxed, as mentioned in the page: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published"

I do agree that we need to be very careful with information about new treatments or diagnosis. For the causes or risk factors of a disease, I believe there can be more flexibility. After all, telling people to avoid lead couldn't be a bad thing. Also, researchers may get their inspiration from the articles here at Wikipedia to determine the subject of their next paper. If the word "lead" never appear in the schizophrenia page, I think there still won't be much studies about the link between the two 20 years later.

Finally, I was able to find two recent secondary reviews on the subject and have posted them on the schizophrenia talk page. Please take a look. Thanks. Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Green wall, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I can see there's already been discussion on your page regarding issues with sourcing. Reverting my edits which were to remove unsourced content is not appropriate. Please read WP:REFB for a guide on how to properly add inline citations. Mr.weedle (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Mr.weedle (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.weedle. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the content you removed is SOURCED, which was added by User:Sharksa99 in 2019 and had stood there for over 4 years:

887326010

You can find the sources (general references) he used in the section "Sources". I had added the tag More footnotes needed to reflect this as well. As per the template,

This template indicates that the article cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, but uses an inappropriate combination of inline citations and general references. All material in articles must be verifiable, but outside of featured articles and good articles Wikipedia does not require the use of inline citations...

Please check again. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General references are not necessarily used to support giant paragraphs of information, but are used the support the general article itself. As the content has been removed it’s also considered challenged, so please review [[Wikipedia:MINREF]].

You should be striving to add content as if it was a GA. Paragraph after paragraph of no inline citations makes it impossible for readers to understand where each paragraph is sourced from. It’s highly uncustomary, and not in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve on this encyclopedia.

if every statement can be supported, please add the inline references. Mr.weedle (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to WP:MINREF. In the page it says: "If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation." Have you done that?

It also says: "Editors are expected to use good judgment when determining whether material has been challenged. For example, section blanking may be considered vandalism, rather than a demand for inline citations". Not just section blanking but removing some sections completely (-3,128 bytes), what you have done here (May 1) may be considered vandalism rather than a challenge according to WP:MINREF. Please don't try to confuse people that I'm vandalizing by "adding uncited content enmass". Those sourced content was added by User: Sharksa99 four years ago. I noticed that you removed a large amount of sourced content (3,128 bytes), which wasn't challenged and had remained in the page for over 4 years (an action which may be considered vandalism per WP:MINREF), and so I undid your action (May 6). That's it. Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also review WP: PRESERVE, WP:3RR, WP: ROLLBACK and inline cleanup tags and consider undoing your last edit at Green wall. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced content in considered a valid reason for 3RR (which I don’t think was violated, please read it closely). As adding uncited content enmass is considered to be vandalizing the encyclopedia, rollback use is also justified.

If we had to go and manually cleanup poor edits, we’d be outpaced 10:1 with edits and vandals. I’m sorry if you feel this is personal, I promise it is not, it’s just a fact of this being on the open internet and run by volunteers. We have limited resources, and keeping the encyclopedia in check can be a constant, fast paced struggle. Mr.weedle (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On May 1 2023, you performed four reverts[1][2][3][4] on the Green wall page (history), reverting good faith edits made by other users (not by me). According to WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". Yes there are exemptions to the 3RR rule:

4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

But I don't think the exemptions apply to the reverts you made.

On May 6 2023, I noticed that you had removed a large amount of sourced content from the page (May 1) and so I undid your edit and added a tag to ask for more inline citations. And these edits were reverted by you using rollback later on the same day (May 6). As per WP: ROLLBACK

Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.

I didn't go into details about all these in my previous posts because I appreciate your work in fighting true vandalism and I hope those are just careless mistakes or mistakes caused by misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. IMHO, we all make mistakes, and leaders are those who will admit it when they've made a mistake, correct it, learn from it, and move on. Lastly, I believe retaining good faith editors and preserving their efforts are as important as fighting vandalism. Again, please review WP: PRESERVE, WP:3RR, WP: ROLLBACK and WP:MINREF and consider undoing your last edit at Green wall. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sick building syndrome, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

Hi User:Dustfreeworld. You recently reverted a change I made to keep safety within a section about characteristics of of the construction industry. You assert "Safety is not a “characteristic” of the industry. It’s a big problem caused by and also affecting the construction industry."

Previous edits of the construction article have created a logical hierarchy of four main headings: History, Sectors, Processes, Scale and characteristics. The latter's subsections included Economic activity, Employment, Sustainability, and (until you removed it) Safety. I do not share your view that this should be added to a main section of its own. Indeed, arguably, (a lack of) sustainability is an even greater problem with causes by and impacts upon the construction sector. I think the change you made warrants further discussion on the construction Talk page with other editors to establish a consensus for your move. You clearly have a strong interest in air and dust pollution-related matters, but, in my view, your focus on these areas is potentially skewing the construction article by making safety more prominent than other issues (WP:Undue).

I propose to revert the change and invite you to discuss it there on the article Talk page (I have left a message there). If there is a consensus for a separate section, all well and good, but if not, safety should remain within the Scale and characteristics section. Thank you for reading. Paul W (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vacosea (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comments

Just a word of friendly advice, an administrator has already commented on ANI saying that you did nothing sanctionable and no case should have been brought against you at ANI. Just stop posting there, the only way any sanction can be taken against you is by you talking yourself into trouble. You aren't being at all careful with your words, which is understandable as this situation has obviously got under your skin, but you need to stop using such emotive language. Just take a breather, and maybe strike out the Goebbels stuff and the sentences where you use the word "liar".

All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just about to strike out some of that. I’m not really that angry, although what they have done are in fact more than what’s been pointed out at ANI. Yes you are right I should be more careful with my words. I’m really too new there. And English level and cultural backgrounds (and I really don’t know much about that G.. .) maybe problems too. Thanks so much for the friendly advice :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson’s

I presume you saw the talk page discussion? Doug Weller talk 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

See WP:COPYVIO. You recent addition to Wildfire appears to be copied directly from the article. Please summarize the relevant info in your own words, or if neccesary, use quotations. Crescent77 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]