User talk:Stoopormundi

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Stoopormundi. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stoopormundi, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Stoopormundi! 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 Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). 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 built-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. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, the page 'power abuse disorder' which I generated tody has been deleted. So how can I improve it? Can I resubmit an improved text with the same page title?

Please read the notice above about sourcing, which is the entire problem. See also below. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‎Power abuse disorder

I have deleted the article, because it consists of a copied summary of a scientific paper. In addition, it doesn't appear to be an established term, but one proposed by the paper itself, so without third-party references, it would fail the inclusion criteria - see the notability guidelines. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Power abuse disorder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Power abuse disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power abuse disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You seem to have been around a while, but are not aware of WP:MED or the policies/guidelines/norms that we follow when writing about health.

Please do have a look at the welcome message above, particularly the stuff about sourcing. Happy to discuss if you have any questions! Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I checked, I took wiki's "schizophrenia" page as sample, I have provided more detail. Is the text going in the right direction now? --Stoopormundi (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not paying mind to WP:MEDRS, at all. You seem somewhat conversant with the biomedical literature, so i would be surprised if you do not understand what a "secondary" source is, as defined in that guideline at WP:MEDDEF. So why are you ignoring this? That is not a rhetorical question - please answer... (it may be that you just never stopped to consider what it says, and what it means...) Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it...--Stoopormundi (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) ok then. 03:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you perhaps are not familiar with the fundamental policy WP:OR. I have a little run down of how all the policies and guidelines hang together -- here it is. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedic content that summarize accepted knowledge as a free knowledge and education resource for the world, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of, anonymously if they choose. That's the mission. A lot of people mistake Wikipedia as social media, or as some kind of directory or place to promote or denigrate people, companies, products, projects, religions, a political candidate, or some idea (like raw foodism or the paleo diet). That is not what we are about. This is described in WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

All we do here, is summarize sources that express accepted knowledge. We don't publish new ideas, or cutting edge research, or hypotheses. Just accepted knowledge.

In addition to the mission, the editing community (like every long-lasting community) has developed many norms for behavior and content over the past 16 years. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts).

One of the most fundamental norms, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in some specific discussion, but includes and builds on discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past discussions (especially discussions about key issues) are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents (that are just writings that reflect living consensus) all reside in "Wikipedia space".

This gets us a bit into navigating the site. Articles exist in "mainspace". That is what most everybody thinks of, when they think of Wikipedia. But there are other "spaces" used by the editing community. The policies and guidelines and various notice boards reside in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS (Wikipedia space) is different from Consensus (mainspace - this is the encyclopedia article about this concept). There are other "spaces" here, like draft space Draft:X, where draft articles reside, and user space, for sandboxes and other things -- this page is in my userspace, User:Jytdog/.... Lots of people have 'sandboxes' where they store stuff related to their work here - User:X/sandbox - please note that userspace cannot be hijacked to serve as personal webhost space - it it just for doing work here. There is also "help space" - all help starts at Help:Contents and takes off from there.

People have tried to define the governance structure of Wikipedia and have come up with all kinds of questions and claims - is it a democracy, an anarchy, or controlled by a secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and very important text about how this place works).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a directory, not a vehicle for promotion, etc) This mission is to be an encyclopedia. Think "Britannica" not "Facebook" and not even "New York Times". It is so important to focus on the mission! Anytime you edit, you can write anything. Please keep in mind what you should do to further our mission!
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!) Please note that writing content that interprets a source, and then citing the source you interpreted is not OK. Content in Wikipedia summarizes sources, it doesn't interpret sources. (this is discussed in WP:OR)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health.
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). (An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral.) If there are different perspectives about a topic, the one that is the most mainstream should get the most WEIGHT, and alternatives to that should get less WEIGHT. Stuff that is WP:FRINGE should get little to no WEIGHT at all. To work out what views about X are in the field, you need to do a lot of reading from high quality sources. Please be careful to select high quality sources and to listen to them. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is the guideline that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist in Wikipedia - it implements the WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE part of the NOT policy. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. This is a hard topic for the community, which is why this is a guideline and not a policy. There are several Notability essays about specific topics, like WP:PROF and WP:NJournals - we even have WP:LISTN.
WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice and focus on the work. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy. You also can't use WP to harass people in the real world - this use of WP also violates WP:BLP.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you have arrived at Wikipedia due to some external interest (for example - you want to create an article about your brother, or your boss told you to polish up the Wikipedia article about her or about the company, or you are a freelancer here for a client, or you are in litigation against someone and want to write about that), you have a conflict of interest. We ask you to declare your conflict of interest, and to not edit content directly where you have a COI, but rather post proposals on the article Talk page or put new articles through WP:AFC. Having a COI is not a bad thing, it just needs to be managed. Unmanaged COI is a bad thing. The PAID policy and COI guideline exist to preserve the integrity of WP and prevent behavioral problems that arise when conflicted editors push too hard for content that serves their external interest. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy. It is not OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for anything. (see WP:NOTADVOCACY, which is part of NOT)
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like a user talk page such as User talk:Jytdog, an article Talk page like Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid, or a community notice board like WP:RSN. On discussion pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the first place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources. Think New York Times not "some blog" and not the company website, and think New England Journal of Medicine, not Biology and Medicine. (The latter is published by OMICS Publishing Group which is the most often discussed predatory publisher . Be aware that predatory publishers exist, and don't use articles in journals they publish; you can check publishers at Beall's list.) Also beware of churnalism sources that look like they independent but are lightly edited press releases. Once you have seen a few of these they are very easy to spot.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Be mindful of the manual of style in all things (WP:MOS) but also go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other subject-specific style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography and for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines, for articles about health/medicine, there is WP:MEDMOS).
Create the blank article page following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles. (If you don't know how to create a new article directly.... maybe wait until you do, to try, and just rely on AfC for awhile :) )
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go. (See note about formatting citations below) Set up the References section and click "preview" plenty as you go, so you can see how it is going.
Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round (!) and add them back only as needed. Also write simply, in plain English. Not informally, but simply. Try to write so that anybody with a decent education can understand.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc (for external links, please be sure to follow WP:ELNO - we only do one "personal" external link, so don't include their own website and their facebook page and their twitter feed etc. Just one.)
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. (You can look at the Talk pages of articles on similar topics, to see what WikiProjects are involved in them). If you have a COI for the article, note it on the Talk page, too.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences); there should be no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
If you are using AFC, submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published. If you have created the page in mainspace, make sure you have previewed several times and that everything looks OK, and click save.

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance! I have cleaned up the page, only ONE original reference left, ie the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Is that OK? I wanted to give the reader quick access to the original questionnaire, because there are so many altered versions around.Stoopormundi (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I have now removed all primary sources. With respect to CONSENSUS and NOTABILITY, please be aware that the Zernig (Medical University Innsbruck) and Hiemke (University Mainz) review ALREADY represents the CONSENSUS of two independent groups that also represent two different methodologic approaches to the topic covered. Please let me know if there are any more major changes I could do before you come to a decision. Thank you very much again for your time! Stoopormundi (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WP:CONSENSUS is something that happens here, in Wikipedia.

I am afraid you are not grasping what we do here. There is only one source in the article that describes PAD; the editorial. No other source cited in the article even mentions it. The entire page has nothing to do, with what we do here in Wikipedia. Here is the most important thing from the big swath of text above:

Every sentence in Wikipedia just summarizes what is already published in a reliable source, and that source needs to be cited.

Most of what you have written, are things you have made up, and then stuck a "citation" stuck behind it. For example, the Cochrane review does not say that aripiprazole can maybe be used to treat PAD. It doesn't mention PAD. It is not a source for the content.

Do you understand? Jytdog (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I think I understand. 1) However, in the example you give (the Cochrane review), you are misrepresenting what I did. This is my text "Power abuse disordered individuals may therefore benefit not only from psychotherapy, but also from partial dopamine D2/D3 agonists like aripiprazole, a medication that was initially only used in schizophrenia as an antipsychotic[5], but is currently also used to treat mania[6] and bipolar disorder[7]. However, the efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of PAD has not been evaluated in controlled clinical trials yet." So I did NOT say that the cochrane review mentions PAD, but I DID say that aripiprazole has been used in MANIA (and given the Cochrane ref)." Whenever I "make something up", I say "MAY". 2) You criticize the length of the article. Would you be willing to shorten it to the statements you deem worthy for wiki? Or do you think that the article should be deleted as a whole? Please advise. Stoopormundi (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misrepresent what you did. A source needs to support what proceeds it. (really - when I look at an article in Wikipedia, I read the source, and see if everything in the sentence it is supporting, and anything that is not in the source, comes out. We are really strict this way, especially with content about health) This is why "citation needed" is a meme, per this.

In Wikipedia, you cannot add anything that is not in a reliable source. Doing so is what we call original research which is not allowed here. The article cannot say that "apriprozole may be useful to treat PAD" unless there is a source that is OK per WP:MEDRS that says this. There is no such source. There is no MEDRS source that says "However, the efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of PAD has not been evaluated in controlled clinical trials yet".

This is true of every sentence on that page.

I looked for MEDRS sources that discuss PAD and there aren't any. That is why I nominated it for deletion.

Everything in WP starts with reliable sources. This is what makes Wikipedia possible. Jytdog (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, when you write "::This is true of EVERY (emphasis by stoopormundi) sentence on that page." (above) you are wrong. The sentence "Power abuse disordered (PADed) individuals may currently often receive the zeitgeist diagnosis 'burnout'[3]." was correctly referenced. Also, in the aripiprazole argument I have clearly separated who (ie, which secondary source) stated what exactly. I have now followed your demand that every single argument be backed up by a secondary source and went over the page again. Please let me just state that the policy of allowing only secondary sources carries the risk of lowering the quality of a page.Stoopormundi (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stoopormundi. I think it would be useful to say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power abuse disorder that you have now backed up every single argument by a secondary source. Roberttherambler (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roberttherambler, thank you very much for your editing and for your encouraging comment. Hello Jytdog, thank you very much for your editing.Stoopormundi (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]