User talk:MomwithaPhD

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Hello,

Thank you for your recent contributions to the article Alex Berenson. While your contributions are heavily-cited, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia as they have been presented for several reasons.

You heavily cite primary sources and draw conclusions from these sources, which is not in line with Wikipedia's policies against original research. Wikipedia exists primarily to compile the conclusions drawn by reliable sources and authors, typically from secondary sources, such as journalism. It is not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors to draw conclusions, but to present the conclusions of others as they are explicitly stated. This is best done through the use of secondary sources. For example, you use original research to argue the validity of a set of scientific studies and a conclusion drawn by an individual, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Additionally, you draw conclusions about the intentions of the individual about whom the article is written without citing reliable secondary sources that provide these conclusions. This is again a violation of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research.

Finally, Amazon reviews are not a reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE. In the future, please consider the following questions before including information: Am I drawing my own conclusion based on the evidence as I understand it? Or am I merely paraphrasing a conclusion as it has been drawn by a reliable secondary source? If the answer to the first question is yes, or the answer to the second question is no, then the content is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you read the article as it existed before your edits, you will notice virtually all sources cited are secondary sources. If your information can be presented in a way that does not involve drawing your own conclusions from the evidence as you interpret it, but rather paraphrases conclusions drawn by reliable secondary sources, feel free to include it in the article. I recommend perusing the many Wikipedia articles describing what constitutes an appropriate source and what constitutes original research to ensure your future edits are in line with Wikipedia's content policies. Matt18224 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am a neuroscientist, and I am quite familiar with the science presented on Wikipedia pages, much of which involves sources for scientific themes presented on the page. In as much as any educational point made on Wikipedia requires listing references to back up that assertion, you will be forcing Wikipedia out of the realm of science education if you are not more careful about how you construct your rules for posting. The Amazon link was specified as anecdotal in nature, no more or less accurate than letters to the editor which are not fact checked by newspapers. Please advise how I should proceed. This is an issue that could be elevated to a higher level with scientific ethics boards if you like.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alex Berenson, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Please take the time to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and what constitutes valid content. Simply throwing in a citation here and there to your original content does not change the major Wikipedia policy violations presented by it. Continuing to add this content without addressing these issues is considered vandalism and may result in your account and IP address being banned. Please familiarize yourself with appropriate formatting and content style before adding the content again. Note that Wikipedia has a WP:3RR 3 reversion rule. If you continue to reinclude this content without addressing the issues that have been comprehensively explained to you, you may be banned from editing Wikipedia altogether. Matt18224 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I will find equivalent Wikipedia pages to the style in which I posted on Alex Berenson's Wikipedia page, I can guarantee you. Wikipedia is treating this topic as if it is not science, and that is an error on your part that I will strive to correct by proper means. A larger community is watching this behavior, and we will not be silenced.

Response: One suggestion is for Wikipedia to convert Alex Berenson's page to contain a pro-con subsection in regards to Tell Your Children. Please indicate to me why that would not be suitable.

To be frank, your profession is irrelevant. In order for content to be considered appropriate for a Wikipedia article, it must follow the style and content guidelines clearly laid out on the website. Your content is not being excluded for the message it seeks to convey, but because of the manner in which it is being presented. Please read WP:OR. While directly citing scientific studies is not problematic per se, using them to justify your own conclusions certainly is. In your content, you argue in support of the validity of those studies and why they should be believed. This is not a valid way to present content on Wikipedia. You also make your own conclusions by tying together conclusions presented by those studies individually. That is considered original research. Like I said in my previous explanation, reliable secondary sources are the gold standard on Wikipedia. If you can present the conclusions of these studies that have been tied together by a reliable author published by a reliable secondary source and can present them in the style required by Wikipedia, then they may qualify for inclusion in the article.

Wikipedia has no subservience to "scientific ethics boards." Threatening to continue disruptive editing and indicating you have a group willing to support your disruptive efforts when it has been made clear to you how you can correct the content you wish to add makes it significantly more likely that you will be permanently banned. Wikipedia exists as a collaborative effort to create well-cited and informative articles accessible to everyone. Your edits and your responses presented on this talk page make it clear your content was designed to push a narrative instead of presenting factual, properly-cited information in a neutral point of view. I have made it clear to you what resources you may study if you wish to include this information properly. The reason there is no "pros and cons" style section on that article is because the overwhelming response to the book by the scientific and medical communities has been critical. If you can create properly-cited material for inclusion in the article demonstrating an alternative point of view, it can be included, but the information as you have presented it does not constitute properly-cited material. Please look at the article as it stands and examples of good and featured articles and how information is cited in them for a better understanding of the proper way to include information. Like I've said, drawing your own conclusions from scientific studies is not appropriate for inclusion, and your contributions have consisted almost entirely of this kind of original research.Matt18224 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Do I understand you correctly that because you personally have judged the overwhelming response by the scientific medical communities to the book as being negative, that the scientific and medical communities that I am part of and who happen to think the book is based on existing science, do not have a voice on what should be the unfiltered Wikipedia stage? Particularly when our perspective are backed up by science published in highly rated journals? I will read your publishing guidelines and take some time mulling this over. You have chosen to accept the edits of someone who has likely read virtually none of the science I cited. Think about the public who access the Alex Berenson Wiki page that should have the freedom to access that science, and to use it to evaluate Berenson's book, forming their own opinion. You are denying them that opportunity, and there are some among them who will be harmed by their lack of knowledge.

I have not judged anything. I'm merely explaining to you why the content of the article is as it is. It was built through consensus and is based on reliable, secondary sources as I have already explained. You're right, you do not have a voice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place where editors express their beliefs, whether backed by science or not. It is a place where information, backed by reliable secondary sources, is aggregated. I am not denying the inclusion of any science whatsoever. I have already explained to you that information presented on Wikipedia is typically based on secondary sources. This includes information based on well-respected books, well-respected publications, and sources of that nature. Including your own opinion and citing scientific studies is not appropriate material for an article. The majority of reliable publications that have conducted fact-checking and interviews with experts have expressed the views of those experts that the book is alarmist and misrepresentative of the science. If you are able to find reliable secondary sources that indicate otherwise, then material presented by those secondary sources may be appropriate for inclusion.

Additionally, the information you seek to include is not particularly relevant per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons. The message you are trying to convey is already covered in the article Long-term effects of cannabis. The talk page on that article would be a more appropriate location for you to have this discussion. A biography is not an appropriate place to include information about the long-term effects of cannabis use. Matt18224 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Yet the original poster of reviews critical of the cannabis-psychosis connection was free to expound on that viewpoint, citing non-scientific references, i.e. newspaper reports of what scientists had to say, rather than peer-reviewed publications.

This is the last time I'm going to say this, because I've tried and tried and you don't seem to be getting it. Secondary sources are the whole point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal. It's based on secondary sources. Good examples are reliable news publications. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed publication where every bit of non-novel information needs to be cited to another peer-reviewed publication. Wikipedia does not have novel information, but aggregates information presented by secondary sources such as reliable news publications. That's how it works. Feel free to write a peer-reviewed article and have it published in the journal of your choice if you want to express a constructed viewpoint derived from other peer-reviewed literature. That's not what Wikipedia is for. I've given you a plethora of links to Wikipedia policies that explain exactly what Wikipedia is and how it works. If you choose not to read those, you're free to do so, but your edits on Wikipedia are going to continue to be reverted by myself and other editors until it's clear you understand what it is and how information is supposed to be presented here by following Wikipedia's content guidelines. Matt18224 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I use Wiki pages for biochemicals important to my work all the time because the graphics are so great, all the info is in one spot about melting T, SMILES code, etc. and I can guarantee you that the sources for those pages are not reliable news outlets.

New Edits on Alex Berenson

Hi MomwithaPhD,

Thanks for taking the time to familiarize yourself with proper Wikipedia style. It's clear to me that you did work to understand how information should be appropriately included in an article. Another editor reverted part of your edits, primarily because biographies on Wikipedia are supposed to be about that person and not discuss tangential topics. For example, a biography isn't the place to elaborate on scientific views about the safety/dangers of cannabis consumption. Your edit indicating that other reviews have been less critical is entirely welcome and appropriate because it pertains to critical reception of the subject of the article's book. Information about what the Surgeon General has said about cannabis consumption belongs in an article that's more relevant to that topic.

I also wanted to let you know that external links, like a direct link to the Department of Health and Human Services website, are best avoided for two reasons: external links inside article content are strongly discouraged because they increase the risk of unsuspecting readers clicking on a link to a malicious website, and they also tend to be primary sources, which are also discouraged because primary sources lend themselves to bias since the primary source has an incentive to promote its content. They can be included in another part of the article, typically at the end in a section called "External links" which you may see on some articles, particularly articles categorized as good and featured. Citing a secondary source that discusses what the primary source claims, such as a news article discussing the new information put out by HHS, is often a better approach than citing the primary source itself.

Finally, if you wish to respond to comments on your talk page, conventional formatting involves starting your paragraphs with a colon (:) for each new comment which will indent them to indicate a "reply to" structure.

For example, this is a top level comment.

This is nested one level and begins with one colon.

This is nested two levels and begins with two colons.

This is nested three levels and begins with three colons. And so on.

Again, thanks for reworking the content you sought to include and I hope you will continue to be a constructive Wikipedia editor. Matt18224 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest editing on Wikipedia

Your recent edits on Alex Berenson suggest to me that you may have a Conflict of Interest.

Please read and aware of Wikipedia's policy on Conflict of Interest here: WP:COI.

Thanks! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from MomwithaPhD: HACKING IS NOT OK

I have no conflict of interest. As a well-published scientist, I am well aware of conflict of interest rules in science publishing, in online blogs, and in newspapers. In addition, I have not violated the conflict of interest rules listed by Wikipedia.

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

qedk (t 桜 c) 07:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]