User talk:Petergstrom - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 7 February 2017 (→Stuff: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:30, 7 February 2017 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→Stuff: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Petergstrom, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Milo (drink), have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Misplaced Pages:

The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
Contributing to Misplaced Pages
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Misplaced Pages! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Tuanminh01 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You do not have a right to revert well-sourced content. If you do not agree with something, you're welcome to bring fresher references to make the content more neutral, but you cannot remove it altogether. --Hyperforin (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well sourced my ass. You cited fringes work WP:OR There is plenty of work done on "Multiple chemical sensitivity" and on "psychopathy". Regardless, they are not accepted by major medical organizations or in the scientific community, so they are fringe works.

Huh. They are peer-reviewed review articles, and have also been well cited in turn. You claim of WP:OR is unfounded. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the research. At minimum, an adaptogenic PED refers to a class of stimulatory herbs that work by nontraditional stimulatory mechanisms. The bottomline is that they do work in practice.
At what point does something go from being fringe to being accepted? How is this demarcation defined?
--Hyperforin (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your articles are citing studies from the USSR, what are you doing? The term Adaptogen is not recognized in the scientific community.

It's not my job to study the chain of citations. For the most part, it is sufficient that I find PubMed indexed review references. The references I added are Swedish. There is no geographic prohibition on Misplaced Pages. If your scientific community is blind, that is your problem. --Hyperforin (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. There are only a limited number of exceptions to it, and this edit does not qualify. If you have concerns about the material, take it to the article's talk page, but do not revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because it is on pubmed that does NOT make something credible. It is your job to study the chain of citations. The fact is wether or not the study was published swedish, it was a meta-analysis that used studies from back in the USSR...that was 30 years ago in a totally different culture with different scientific standards. The study is not of good enough quality, and does not belong on wikipedia, and neither does the pseudoscientific term "adaptogen". It is something you find in three places 1. Homeopathic/naturopathic supplement websites along with methods to combat "adrenal fatigue" 2. Fringe research 3. "Health bloggers". The term does not belong on wikipedia

Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, have you personally tried these so called adaptogenic herbs? I have tried ginseng, and it very clearly does work. Millions of Chinese use ginseng regularly, similar to how Americans use tea and coffee. My friends have tried stronger ginseng extracts and other adaptogenic herbs, and found positive results. I am not sure why are not a bit more open minded. Granted, they don't quite work the same as amphetamine. Finally, I never referred to "adrenal fatigue" or health blogs or anything like that -- you're confusing things. --Hyperforin (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously biased by personal experiences. The point of the statement was that the term adaptogen is not accepted in the scientific community, it is a joke. Really, get rid of that section. Petergstrom (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it bias that led me to it too in the first place? No, it's the research. Anyway, ginseng is not even one of the noted herbs in the section. The point that something is accepted or not is irrelevant for the dissemination of scholarly ideas. For example, entropic gravity is not accepted as a theory for dark matter, but it is still a theory in its own right, deserving of an article. I understand your concern about the quality of the reference and I will examine it. --Hyperforin (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, both multiple chemical sensitivity and psychopathy have sound articles on Misplaced Pages. Your belief that they are fringe works is inconsequential. --Hyperforin (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? Did you just support the diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity and psychopathy? Do you also believe vaccines cause autism, because wikipedia has an article on it? This is some real fringe stuff. Adaptogens, MCS, psychopathy, all of them are researched, however they are not accepted in the general community. You cant add them to wikipedia WP:OR and WP:NPOV Petergstrom (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on MCS; it's not something I have studied. As for psychopaths (sociopaths), I have known some - they are real. Consider yourself lucky if you haven't known any. It is evident that your definition of "general community" is a closed inbreeding group that only sees and hears what fits its prior beliefs. --Hyperforin (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Performance-enhancing substance 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. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 01:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Performance-enhancing substance. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~Oshwah~ 01:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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) 01:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

formatting refs

Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most. It is how we can tell quickly if a ref is a primary or secondary source. When you are editing health content, please always use the PMID.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID.

It would be great if you could do this when editing about health at least. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You persist in adding content about health cited to refs without citing the PMID. Please include the PMID in citations. Please. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Chronic fatigue syndrome. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The content was sourced!! What are you talking about?

what about adding this source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939140/

have you read WP:MEDRS? at least read WP:MEDDEF. Please let me know if you have read and are engaging with this essential guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Chronic fatigue syndrome 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.

Editing Misplaced Pages

Every time you edit Misplaced Pages and click "save", you have already agreed to follow the Terms of Use. (if you reply, while you have the edit window open, look down, below "Watch this page" and above the "save changes" button. It says: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

If you read the Terms of Use, they say: ":The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."

If you read the WP policy on policies and guidelines, it explains the role that policies and guidelines play in the Misplaced Pages community.

WP:MEDRS is a crucial guideline.

You cannot just keep ignoring it. Please read and follow it. If you don't understand it, please ask, and I will be happy to explain it.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.

The refs are not valid per MEDRS. This is just not some "rule" somebody pulled out of their butt. The community developed it for very good reasons and we apply it consistently for very good reasons. If you don't understand why the community developed MEDRS please ask. Please. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes we need secondary sources such as review articles not primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't say that secondary or tertiary sources are necessary, there is a section on wording primary sources. It says that they generally should not be used. Generally.

Reference errors on 25 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Antidepressant page, your edit caused a PMID error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal

If you intentionally remove a MEDRS compliant reference and the associated text from any article again, you will have to be reported to an admin for disruption. You're welcome to discuss the content in question, but bear in mind that Misplaced Pages requirements for adding content do not have anything to do with your personal beliefs or assertions on the matter. --Hyperforin (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop with all this fringe "medicine" Just stop. Petergstrom (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Fringe" or not, it actually works. That's all that matters to me. Why should I care what others think? --Hyperforin (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Adaptogen page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning- and broader warning

I asked you above if you understand why MEDRS was developed and you didn't respond.

I will tell you. There are a lot of reasons, but the primary one, was to deal exactly with articles like CFS and autism, where there are strong online communities of advocates who have always tried to force POV content into articles. how do they do that? By doing exactly what you are doing here. Adding content supported by some primary sources that were selected to fit whatever content it was, that they wanted to add.

It took a lot of people a lot of work to get MEDRS in place, and it is the foundation of almost all WP:MED's work. It has broad support in the WP community.

If you keep editing this way, ignoring MEDRS, I will seek to have you topic banned from editing any medical topic. You must take MEDRS seriously. This is not optional.

MEDRS doesn't specific that primary sources have to be avoided. I have justification for the use of the primary sources, it is not my POV that is being forced onto the page.Petergstrom (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is that we use secondary sources for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So...follow MEDRS religiously until you don't agree with it? Petergstrom (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

pasting content here that was left on my talk page in this dif, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS says what we should do; when policies and guidelines say "should" they mean "should" - you need a good reason to do something different, and you have refused to justify your blowing off the guideline. It actually is OK to use primary sources from time to time (rarely) and you do need to justify when you do it. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And more importantly, if the community allows you to pick some random primary sources and add content based on them, we have to let everyone do that. We have to let the autism advocate and the salesperson from Pfizer and the person who believes in Powerful Herbs do it too - in other words, all kinds of garbage content comes streaming into WP. That is what you are arguing for. Why would you do that? That is a real question. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do answer the question above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because primary sources are used, doesn't mean low quality alternative medicine ideas can be brought inPetergstrom (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Everything in WP starts with sources. Not my opinion or yours about what is good science or not. There are so, so many arguments we avoid by excluding content due to the sources it was based on. We would waste an incredible amount of dealing with shitty content if we allowed people to use primary sources freely. Again, this was the reason MEDRS was developed. It saves us from so many horrible arguments with advocates of all kinds. When you have been around a while this will become more clear to you. Jytdog (talk)

Sounds good dad.Petergstrom (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's exactly what it means, because "low quality alternative medicine ideas" show up in lots of primary sources, but don't appear in the high quality secondary sources that MEDRS requires (other than to be debunked). Here are the ideas you want inserted into CFS:

"altered cytokines early in the course of the disease compared to those with longer term disease" - sourced to a single 2015 study;
"altered cytokine levels that differed between severe and moderate CFS patients" - sourced to a a single 2015 study;

Why should those specific ideas override the present article text? "Elevated levels of cytokines involved in generating sickness behavior have been found in those with CFS, however the results have not been consistent." - sourced to a 2008 systematic review, and affirming that results have been found to vary from one study to another. Once you accept what the secondary source is saying about inconsistent results, you can see that there's no point in trying to cite individual studies because you have no basis to assume that these are not outliers. Now do you understand? --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

yeeeee. I actually think that I put that sentence in there. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&type=revision&diff=750134833&oldid=749952834

so we have this discussion, and then you do this. Please consider this a last warning. Either start following MEDRS of I will seek to have you topic banned from editing about health. There is way too much work to be done here for us to constantly clean up after you. Your editing is becoming a time sink for the rest of us. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine dad. Here is a secondary source that mentions trauma:

References

Dell'Osso, Liliana; Bazzichi, Laura; Baroni, Stefano; Falaschi, Valentina; Conversano, Ciro; Carmassi, Claudia; Marazziti, Donatella (1 March 2015). "The inflammatory hypothesis of mood spectrum broadened to fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome". ResearchGate. 33 Suppl 88 (1). ISSN 0392-856X.

You can take what I am saying lightly if you want. You shouldn't. It seems that you could be a good contributor but I mean it; we have too few committed editors and you are wasting their time cleaning up after you. I will seek a topic ban the next time you add content about health based on a primary source without getting consensus on the associated talk page first. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yea I got how this place works, I will stop using primary sources unless justified and run through other editors. Petergstrom (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

hyperforin

don't know if you noticed this. That editor finally lost it. Was difficult to work with them, but that is unhappy. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Petergstrom (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bipolar disorder page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Beta-glucans in Pleurotus ostreatus mushrooms

PMID 23075555 is not a WP:MEDRS-quality source. It has an impact factor of only 2. Studies of supplements in exercise performance are prone to uncountable variables and errors. Nothing about this journal or the study design described is consistent with MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Really happy you are contributing so much

Really I am! And thank you for using reviews. But you are adding so much, so fast, that it is really important that you take time - you - and make sure everything is OK before you click "save". Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC

Its the autofill with URL function. Sometimes it gets the date, sometimes it fills it with todays date Petergstrom (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Which past account are you?

I'm going to ask you this once: Which Misplaced Pages account (and I mean your past main account) did you edit under before this one? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhh, none this is my first and only wikipedia account. I may have had some conflict with editors in the past, such as on the adaptogen page, but I have only been temp banned once for that conflict, while the other dude got an indefinite ban. I don't know what gives you such conviction and audacity to be rude, but I can assure you that this is my sole account big boy. I haver never been reborn either, I wonder what thats like... Petergstrom (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If that's the story you are going to stick with, so be it. And, remember, WP:BAN is not the same as WP:BLOCK. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm serious, what gives you the idea that I have been banned and created a new account? Firstly, bans or blocks or whatever from wikipedia are totally justified, the policy makes sense to me(Edit warring, POV pushing, vandalism etc etc). Although I have participated in edit warring in the past, I have been reprimanded and get how it works here. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc etc. So I wouldn't be petty and find a way to create a new account to continue to participate in stupid shenanigans. Secondly, I think I have been doing a decent job obeying the wikipedia policies, as I have gotten in fewer and fewer conflicts over time. Third, if you check my edit and message history, you can see areas of misunderstanding policies associated with being a new user. I don't know why you think I've been banned but whatever bro.Petergstrom (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll say this: The vast majority of newbies do not sign their first talk page post, which contrasts yours. The more and more I look at your edits, the more and more you remind me of one editor in particular. The more you edit, the more your interests intersect with his interests. If it were not for your interest in religious topics, then I would be less inclined to tie you to this editor. Your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is just as flawed as his, and there are other similarities. Your usual edit summary and citation style is not like his usual edit summary and citation style, but one can evolve. I can't do anything about my suspicions at this time anyway, since I don't yet have convincing behavioral evidence. Furthermore, any WP:CheckUser data will be stale. So, for now, you can simply categorize my posts in this section as inquiries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhh there are instructions at the top of talk pages instructing user to sign posts...and in the edit box, the sign button is right there. Its not complicated, and in the beginning, I actually had some posts signed for me, as I forgot to sign them. I have no conflict of interests, and I have no stance on religion. My POV in that area I think is quite neutral. I have no idea who you think I am, but I am totally new to wikipedia. I have never edited before...Petergstrom (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 RebornOh damn I get it. You have a thing about sock puppetry, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AFlyer22+Reborn. RIP, you should be able to understand what false accusations are like(if.....you were telling the truth....if). So back off. I have never abused multiple accounts. Furthermore, I would be less hostile towards you if you hadn't taken such an arrogant tone. "Convincing behavioral evidence".Lmao Petergstrom (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on my supposed sockpuppetry won't work. Deflecting won't work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 RebornDeflection wasn't the point, and if you don't get that, there is no point with you. You can continue acting like an honor bound martyr, valiantly defending your holy grail wikipedia from the throngs of editors far inferior to you, go ahead and act like that, but with all due respect, just stay away from my talk page. Thank you.Petergstrom (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Emotion

I would like to further discuss the idea that you, and others, are postulating on emotion being a conscious experience, since I thought you are not following the changes in the talk page I thought I would give you a notice here as I would like you to comment in there to further elaborate, and feel free to remove this section in your talk page (and no, I'm not even logging in, just prefering to use IPs). thanks 186.144.41.175 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

Things seemed to be going well...

And now this mess at MDMA. The recent history is a disaster.

I was just thinking how nice it is has been since you have learned better how the community that works on medical/health article operates.

What the heck is going on now? Please please use high quality, recent sources. if you cannot find any about X that is a good sign that we should not discuss X in WP. And please use the talk page to reach consensus.

We do end up taking action to bar disruption from people who refuse to learn and I do not want to go there with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Dopaminergic pathways page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Fibromyalgia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

DSM5

The APA sent us a take down notice in the paste regarding our use of their criteria. If we are to use them we must paraphrase. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Human brain article

You clearly decided to follow me to this article. If I see that you have followed me to any other articles, I will be taking the matter to WP:ANI and citing WP:Hounding. Your strict and often incorrect interpretation of sourcing is not what we need at our anatomy articles. And I'm certain that other anatomy editors like Tom (LT) would agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: What the hell? Do you actually think you are that important? You wont be the only one taking this to WP:ANI, as you are obviously stalking me. It popped up as an article on the project neuroscience page that was of top importance but was only B level. You aren't special, nobody cares about you, the article needed improvement so I improved it. The fact that you follow the article or whatever had nothing to do with me editing it-you aren't that significant in my life. Stop harassing me, or I will have to report you. Petergstrom (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

After I pointed out your asinine removals and noted that I was working on the Human brain article here, I knew it would not be long until you followed me to that article and started making a mess of it. You do not know what you are doing, and your edits have proved this times over. You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor. And there is proof that you have been stalking me since you keep popping up at articles that I significantly edit. There is no proof that I have been stalking you. Glancing at your contributions to see what latest asinine edit you have made after you have made a mess of an article I have on my watchlist is not stalking you. As for me not being that important, my years and years here with many supporting me, following me or wanting my take on things proves otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow.....you really think comments you made that I barely skimmed over influence my edits for weeks after they are made....wow, that is just an extreme demonstration of self centered behavior. Please, stop, I am taking this to WP:ANI, because it is hard to talk to you without going crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be attempting to resolve the matter there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Threading

Hello! Your ANI thread would be significantly easier to follow—and more likely to gain serious attention—if you would thread your posts correctly by indenting each paragraph of your replies exactly one level deeper than the comment to which you are replying. Please review WP:THREAD for examples. Note that threading is required by our guidelines, although compliance is rarely enforced. See WP:TPYES ("Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard formatting and threading." (emphasis added)). Thank you for your time. Rebb ing 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stuff

Here on your userpage you noted what happened at MDMA and you wrote "I learned about the importance of rhetoric". Please go deeper. Things like blowing off community norms about indenting noted above, ignoring WP:MED's emphasis on high quality sourcing and careful summarizing, and the general ethos here about authentically talking through disagreements, are all deep in the guts of this place in big and small ways.

You need to take other people (especially established editors) more seriously as people and engage with them. Doing things like indenting correctly is a sign that you respect other people and their need to be able follow discussions. (small thing that signals deeper things) But instead you are establishing a pattern of not taking other people and community norms seriously, and it is hurting you. I noted this at the ANI here. I am not hopeless about you but my hope is dimming. fwiw. I hope you can turn things around. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Pretty much, I argued my case poorly(which I still do). In the end, the addictiveness was changed to low moderate, from moderate, because of all the sources pulled out, not a single one but my old crappy sources actually explicitly stated anything about addiction. Pretty much in my "flurry" of editing, and arguing I was not able to effectively communicate my point, and when I finally did, the conflict was resolved with a low to moderate instead of moderate rating.Petergstrom (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

that response pretty much missed the point of what i was trying to communicate to you. In any case I wish you well. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)