Lau737

Greetings, You replaced info that was/is NOT cited in the article, "The Causes of Poverty." Any info on Wikipedia, no matter what we personally feel about it, must be neutral and verifiable through reliable sources. MRSawesome33 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I would prefer it if you use the "Citation needed" tag as opposed to removing all that text. The section "Historical causes" did not look good after your edit, and in my opinion, still needs work.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

As I have said numerous times, these are the same accusations based on no-evidence that I've been hearing for a while now. I see your behavior as nothing more than an attack on me and the content. Keep this discussion in the ANI.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Workplace harassment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying to contribute by adding See Also sections, however, our policy for see also sections (see WP:See also ) focuses on only linking to a (i.e. 3-5) articles that would not otherwise be navigable from the article. Most of the see also sections you have been adding contain high-level articles, that should be linked in other ways in the article (using WP:Hatnotes like Template:Further or Template:Main) or WP:Navigational boxes which are designed to map a whole topic area (for example, this recent one I created about Rural areas: Template:Rural society ).

Huge see also sections don't actually help readers navigate much between articles because they don't know what to click on, and thus ignore the list. If they are not kept limited, they become less useful because its a bunch of uncontextualized links to topics, that doesn't help the reader decide on which ones to click on, and which ones to ignore. I recommend trying contributing to some of these other strategies (i.e. helping readers find related content within specific subsections of articles with links and notes at the top of the sections). Or, if you are intersted in doing this in topic areas Navigational templates are really helpful ways to effect many more articles.

Keep up the good work, and I hope that you find a good strategy for adding links: building the web is so important! Sadads (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

P.s. did you know that we have a bunch of WP:Orphaned articles that have no links to them at all -- this makes the article invisible to not only readers but search engines and other tools that use Wikipedia to map the relationship between topics). Sadads (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will keep that in mind. I'm certain people will use those more often when they're more complete. Lau737 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Adolescence. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I have done so for you this time, but hope you will follow best practices yourself next time.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing this out! Lau737 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been adding primary and dated studies to support medical content; please have a look at Wikipedia's sourcing guideline for biomedical content, which typically prefers secondary and recent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Separately, I see that Sphilbrick alerted you about Copying within Wikipedia a few days ago, but today, you are copying content from social stress without adding a wikilink in the edit summary back to that article. When CWW, you should do that, for proper attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK Lau737 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This page is a bit dated, but it still gives a good overview of how to find sources compliant with MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you violated WP copywrite policies - this was from a BBC story - also the causality issues make the study - a meta-analysis kinda challenging - I suspect there was a prior reason this was just not dropped in the article by others - it is from 2021. Clinically, I am uncertain this would prove causality - folks who are stressed and overworked - likely are also eating poor diets and not receiving great medical care - if you read the WHO article - I think you will see all the caveats on over-interpretation... BeingObjective (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Think this is a pattern - Wikipedia's sourcing guideline for biomedical content BeingObjective (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I've asked this editor to take greater care. If they've read WP:MEDRS, they'll know we don't source biomedical content to the laypress. But they did that before I advised them. But the WP:COPYRIGHT issue is more problematic than the MEDRS issue. (I'll go request revdel on that edit, but now deeper checking of all edits is needed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

And <sigh> that copyvio content was also copied to multiple articles, which now also need revdel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

BeingObjective would you have free time to help me see if there is other copyvio in other articles? I can start going through and submitting the revdels, as I have a script for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Allright, that copyvio was originally inserted by another editor, here. Lau737, this is yet another reason to take great care when copying within Wikipedia. Now it looks like you committed copyvio, when in fact what you did was copy another editor's copyvio all over Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I confess I am no expert on WP:C - and there is a little complexity to it - just what is reliable can be a problem. Though taking language directly from a source - can be a tad challenging - paraphrasing in good faith - can still end up as looking like plagiarism. BeingObjective (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, we've got now three separate issues. Carrying content from article to another without attribution (WP:CWW), copyvio (which was originally committed by a different editor, but I've still got to get them revdel'd), and WP:MEDRS. So either way, none of that content is salvageable ... work ahead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

At school climate

• Article: Posselt and Lipson found, in 2016, that those who perceived their classroom environments as highly competitive had a 37% higher chance of developing depression and a 69% higher chance of developing anxiety.
• Source: It found a link between high levels of 'perceived competition in classes and depression and anxiety. Students who perceived their classroom environments to be very competitive had 37% higher odds of depression and 69% higher odds of anxiety.

This is again using dated non-MEDRS sources for biomedical content, and see also WP:CLOP on the need to rephrase in our own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I copied that editor's text from Overwork. I did not realize that anything was wrong with it. So you demand that biomedical information is from reliable, third-party published secondary sources? The problem that I have is that many studies refer to concepts like depression or anxiety in a way that differs from their clinical definitions. For instance, "depression" is often referred to in loose terms and does not necessarily refer to clinical depression. Would it then still count as biomedical information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lau737 (talk • contribs)

If you always make sure to add a wikilink in edit summary to the article you are copying from (see WP:CWW and Sphilbrick's post below this one), that will avoid having you appear to be the editor who added the cut-and-paste copyvio (in this case, it was a different editor).

There are instances where primary sources have a use on Wikipedia, but while you're learning your way around, it's safest to stick to secondary sources (or ask an experienced editor if you're unsure).

When studies refer to concepts like depression or anxiety outside of the clinical definitions of those, I wonder in what circumstances adding that content to Wikipedia would be accurate and due weight for encyclopedic content. That is, we don't want to confuse readers with colloquialisms. Could you give me an example of where this confusion might be arising? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think is not really a debate - it is not even a Wikipedia thing. I get the concept 'anyone can edit' - but consider:

1. Is my edit adding any value?
2. Is the source of my supporting information reliable?
3. Am I pushing an agenda and then looking desperately for a supporting citation - many readers do not look at the quality of the citations/refs in a WP article - this is the editors role.

I am shocked how much data is fed from WP to other external sources - as such - there is a robust case for full protection of many health/medical/science WP articles.

Numerous political articles have heavy duty protections - I think an article on stroke - rather important.

There is a core group of MDs/GPs and Biomedical professionals in the WP community - perhaps there are too many articles to offer oversight

As to the medical/science articles - IMHO - I think one does need at least some expertise - how can you even evaluate the quality of a citation if you have no experience in the subject matter - it is indeed problematic - and so - we end up with outrageous CLOP. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and verbatim copy - I think this matter needs escalating in the case of a pattern of edits - and this is documented here.

Respectfully Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit: For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sphilbrick: I will try to use that format

@SandyGeorgia: For instance:

Studies have assessed that anywhere from 30 to 85 percent of patients suffering from chronic pain also suffer from depression.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

That huge variance isn't just due to different testing groups. Different studies measure depression in different ways. Depression is a hard to pin down and evolving concept, see also the need for two pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood). I'm not dedicated to any one particular definition of depression and I think the public also understands depression as something that's hard to pin down and evolving as a scientific concept. I do believe that the use of "clinical depression" or "major depressive disorder" qualifies as a biomedical statement.

OK, what you are proposing there is problematic (and see also BeingObjective's response above) in many ways, but I will have to hold off on a longer answer until I home on a real computer. Short answer: yes, that is biomedical content, and your proposal would be using sources in non-compliant ways to advance original research. More later. Also, could you please remember to always sign your talk page posts, by adding four tildes after them ( ~~~~ ) ? I am editing from an iPad, and when your posts are unsigned, I can't use the reply-tool script, which facilitates editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see Zefr has addressed this one; will explain in more detail when I am on a real computer, but maybe Zefr wants to review this discussion and jump in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

First, to help you understand what is meant at MEDRS when it says:

• Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine.

If you click on Wikipedia:Biomedical information from that page, you find:

• Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health.

It's just that simple. As counterexamples of what is not biomedical information, you can see this section of that essay. In the context of human health relative to sourcing, it matters not if the topic is clinically defined major depression, or mood: the statements being sourced in this discussion are still about human health, regardless of any differences in how certain studies measure them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Before you edited, the content at chronic pain was:

• Studies have assessed that anywhere from 30 to 85 percent of patients suffering from chronic pain also suffer from depression.[104] In 2017, the British Medical Association found that 49% of UK chronic pain patients also suffered from depression.[105] A 2014 study by Hooley et al. found that chronic pain increases the chance of death by suicide by two to three times.[106][107][108]

All of that content was added by an IP last month. (That same IP was adding content like the McKinsey study to Women in the workforce – an article you have also edited, along with others you have both edited – so all of those IP edits need checking.) The sources used for that addition were:

• Medicalnewstoday.com, a laypress article from a source that has issues much like this one. Don't be deceived by the names of sources; it's better to read the guideline thoroughly, and if you're unsure about a source, inquire at WT:MED.
• BMA.org, a 2017 (see WP:MEDDATE, also note WP:CLOP) media release on analgesic use that says: "An estimated 49% of patients in the UK suffering from chronic pain also suffer from depression", cited to a very old non-peer reviewed report (Department of Health (2009) On the State of Public Health: Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2008. Department of Health: London.)
• Painaustralia.org - not compliant with MEDRS, probably not even WP:RS, Pain Australia is an advocacy group
• Painaustralia.org on costs – same, although this source provides an example of a source you can use for non-biomedical information (unless a higher quality, non-advocacy source is available, like a peer-reviewed paper or data from a governmental body that is not an advocacy group, for example)... parts of that report could be used to cite information about the costs of care in Australia, but not the medical information.
• PMID 24916035 which is a secondary review (Hooley on suicide), although a very dated one (2014, see WP:MEDDATE). This is an adequate source only if more recent sources don't differ, and a) that is the first thing that should be checked before using an old source, and b) it is mentioned in the text added by the IP as "a study", when it fact, the source is a review. I don't have access to the source; is it mentioning one particular study, and what else does it say about that study, and without access to the source, I can't determine if it's represented correctly.
  Of those sources, the most usable one is BMA.org (although a better way to write the section would be to search for newer MEDRS sources).

After the IP edits, in this version, you added more sources. First, see WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; proper sourcing would be to use the most recent, highest quality available sources, rather than adding on a string of dubious sources. (So, for example, the medical news today source could be removed.) The added sources are:

• PMID 28706741 Sheng, a 2017 review
• A 2014 paper (WP:MEDDATE, and not indexed at PubMed and does not look promising
• A 2013 paper, also not indexed at PubMed
• And the same BMA.org paper previously used above.

Sheng is the best quality, but again, a better way to write the section is to search for newer sources and start over.

So, one of the first problems with the section is dated sources; the next is that it's built with a hodgepodge of sources. But more importantly, we can't cobble together sources to draw a conclusion ("anywhere from 30 to 85 percent") that a secondary source hasn't already drawn; that's original research. If there are differences in methodology and population among various studies, it's not for us to do that analysis if secondary sources haven't done it. Wikipedia follows the sources, doesn't lead.

So, you'll see that Zefr considerably reduced the section (and also all the IP edits have to now be reviewed as well), to:

• People with chronic pain may also have symptoms of depression.[104][105] In 2017, the British Medical Association found that 49% of people with chronic pain had depression.[106]

... preserving Sheng, BMA.org and Surah (which I wouldn't have used, but Zefr may have full journal access and know more about the source than I do). The suicide data was dated and specific to one country, the ranges of rates of depression were poorly sourced and not all verifiable, and based on the sources presented, all we really know is that depression and chronic pain have some comorbidity. To write more than that requires better sources, which means getting into a library and locating updated secondary reviews. The content is not optimal now, but at least it's not presenting any dubious information as fact to Wikipedia readers.

I hope this helps; please spend some time reading the pages I've given you here about how to find and use sources, and please inquire at WT:MED if you're unsure about a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am iPAd/hotspot editing, but when I check your edits and see that you are still using laysources to cite biomedical content at 15:41-- even after my post at 14:35 and BeingObjective's at 15:19, I am compelled to ask that you stop editing biomedical content until a) I can get on a real computer to provide a fuller explanation of the problems, and b) you can develop a more thorough understanding of how to source biomedical content. A laypress summary of a primary study should not be used to cite biomedical content as in the link I provide here. I am at the hospital with my ill husband, and don't know how long we may be here, so will ask Sphilbrick and BeingObjective to look in until I can get back to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't actively edit medical content, but I am very aware that Wikipedia has special rules for such content. While most articles can be edited using information from generally reliable sources, we impose a more stringent world when it comes to medical content for reasons that may be obvious but we can spell out if necessary. I know it does surprise some editors, who were used to thinking of publications such as the New York Times as high quality sources, to find that those sources don't meet the more stringent standards for medical articles. I more involved in copyright issues recently and I do appreciate your acknowledgment of the need for following the best practices when copying within Wikipedia. While I'm not sufficiently qualified to explain the nuances of our medical sourcing, I'd be happy to answer any general questions, with the expectation that when SandyGeorgia has access to more time and a better computer she can respond to trickier issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do empathize with newcomers to WP who want to edit a medically focused article (I am very new here) - many such articles are now fairly old and clinical thinking changes - I did feel rather monitored by several other editors - this 'monitoring' has essentially evaporated, but some very simple edits that I initially made - were reverted with impressive alacrity and with no commentary - I now understand some of the 'vigilance' mentality - I am guessing that as one builds credibility, there is less of this. I am not stating this thread is the same thing - I am stating that I do empathize when a good faith edit - (that is accurate/in-policy and constructive) - gets deleted - especially with no commentary. It is happening to me - less, but it is a barrier for new editors. BeingObjective (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. The statement SandyGeorgia is referring to is not biomedical content. If a study found that people of color receive far less pain medication than white people, that's more like a study on demographics than biomedical research. Based on the comments here I'm still not sure as what to do with the sources and future content. If you follow my reasoning that depression (symptoms of depression) and anxiety (symptoms of anxiety) do not not necessarily qualify as biomedical content, then I will upgrade the sources where they are biomedical content (clinical depression, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder), but leave the others under the general rules. Lau737 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see this as a distinction without any real difference.

My recommendation is to read these policies and stay with them - they do map to how 'good authoritative' writing in the sciences/social sciences/biomedical/reporting - all operate.

If you are writing for any authoritative journal, the same standards apply - there is nothing especially odd about the WP:COPY topic - it is far older than the WP initiative as a good writing practice.

I think one has to see all of this in the context of the bigger WP initiative, over two decades a lot of these policies/guidance things have matured and if you follow them they do help - though many WP:xyz thinks do get weaponized against many newcomers - I am not sure that is really the case here, remember how all this started - you did drop verbatim a chunk of text from a BBC report into an article on stroke -

Many of WPs senior editors are actually writers in the real world and they know the policies far better than we do.

I can tell you - you can get easily banned from WP - and I think the more established people are seriously trying to help you - I'd read and understand these WP:COPY policies as you do have a firm track record of WP:COPY violations - and compliance is the much better path.

Kind Regards - BeingObjective (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC).Reply

On this edit about pain medication and demographics, I think you are probably correct; that content is more about demographics and societal factors than, for example, efficacy or dosage or other medication information (see Wikipedia:Biomedical information). I will re-instate that edit (or you can) if you suggest it, but would prefer in this case that you contemplate BeingObjective's post above and whether 13-year-old data from a 2010 study in one part of one state from a source that does not verify the content is adding useful or helpful information to the page? There is surely broader and more recent and better sourced data on race and medication prescriptions. The factor in your editing that drew attention is that you were copying rapidly either copyrighted or poorly sourced information across many articles. I suggest slowing down and thinking about finding better ways to add the information you seek to contribute, and making sure it is recent and well sourced. While you are probably right that my reason for removing your edit was not the right one, I suspect that re-instating it as is would lead to someone else removing it as well. Helpful reading on these broader issues of what to include is at WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the new form of the additions, which I intend to resubmit. All sources have been changed from primary to secondary. Also I've added a study that found the risk to be three times greater.

Research has found that unhappily married couples are at 3–25 times the risk of developing clinical depression.^[1][2][3]

Just adding that I don't think the research is too old. I also don't consider Medical News Today to be an unreliable secondary source. Lau737 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

None of those sources are secondary reviews. Medical News Today is news, not peer reviewed or secondary. If you will hold off on this content, I will show you how to locate and format a MEDRS-compliant source for the content you wish to add this afternoon after I return from church. If you go ahead and add this content without waiting, that would be disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches and restricted your search to recent reviews ?? Those are all primary sources; you can notice that the PubMed indication of a review is not mentioned, and you can see by reading them that they are primary studies, not reviews of other primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you have anything: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation or a document created by such a person." Please refrain from using that tone against me, you've done nothing but deride my contributions in an unfair way. Lau737 (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What you read as "tone" is a simple statement of how things work on Wikipedia. WP:COPYRIGHT is a serious policy with legal implications. I'm willing to continue trying to help you, with your cooperation. WP:PSTS is where you can find definitions of primary and secondary sources for Wikipedia, and the link I gave you above will help you learn to locate secondary reviews ... I can walk you through that in detail this afternoon. This:

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2019.1610136 Whereas the evidence for a cross-sectional association between marital quality and depression seems robust, longitudinal research as well as research on mediator/moderator variables is less conclusive.

for example is a secondary review, but its content is unfortunately not freely available, so I can't be sure it will be helpful for the content you want to add. In fact, with limited time and on a quick search, I haven't yet located any secondary source that supports the proposed content -- I'll continue looking this afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do love basing things on information that people can't access without paying. Have you changed your mind about the racist pain medication study? Lau737 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had time to look yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My hunch is that there is limited secondary sourcing for the content you wish to add (too many confounding factors), because Casliber hasn't included such content anywhere; perhaps he can find something more quickly than I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I will have a copy of this by the time I return today; it should tell us a) if the proposed content is supported by sources, and b) where to look for some more freely accessible secondary reviews that we might use. It is so far the best source I can find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I now have this source and it will be useful; I will get back to you on this this afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have the Goldfarb article now (a secondary review that conforms with WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDRS overall).

1. It directly cites and verifies a 25-fold increased risk from Weissman. "In a seminal epidemiological survey that analyzed martial dissatisfaction as a risk factor for diagnostic depression, it was found that being in an unhappy marriage increased roughly 25 times the odds of suffering major depression for both men and women." (pages 1–2)
2. It cites other papers by O'Leary, but not the one listed here.
3. It cites Fink for "evidence in support of concurrent negative association between marital quality and depressive symptoms" (page 4) and "coping mediated the association between marital instability and depression, but not the association between martial satisfaction and depression" (page 10).
4. It doesn't cite Daniel who was included back in this version.

So, we have from the secondary review that:

• Weismann is talking about diagnostic depression (that is, clinical).
• I didn't find the 10–25 times originally included, or the 3–25 proposed here, but we can say "up to 25 times" in the event another secondary review isn't found.
• There is much more detail, and discussion of different population samples, gender, and other factors, but the paper does distinguish between depressive symptoms, depression, and major depression (while mentioning Weissman in the context of "diagnostic depression").
• The review concludes that studies found a "well-established cross-sectional association between depression and marital quality in the general adult population, with higher depressive symptoms or presence of major depressive episode associated with lower marital quality ... marital quality significantly predicts later depressive symptoms ... lower quality marriage would increase the risk of onset of major depression" ... BUT ... "a few studies have found that marital quality and depression did not have prospective associations" and mentions longitudinal results "offer more conclusive supposrt for the marital discord model of depression ... marital dissatisfaction and discord would precipitate depressive symptoms".

I would suggest this text and citation:

It is well established by research that unhappily married couples are at greater risk, by as much as a 25-fold factor, of developing clinical depression.^[1]

(Please note how I've written the citation; normally, I would not add that it was citing Weissman, but since Goldfarb mentions that Weissman was a seminal study, it is probably worth including.)

I'll return to your other questions above (in a bit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

My ears were burning. Review article looks interesting and a good add. Haven't read it yet though as busy IRL. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that sounds more encouraging. So if you link to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2019.1610136 I can add the (up to) 25 times finding by Weissman. It is my understanding that peer-reviewed articles are recommended, but not mandated by the aforementioned pages. I have a secondary source for O'Leary et al. (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk of depression 10 times) :https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.1.33. I have a secondary source for Whisman, 1999 (concluded that unhappy marriage raised the risk 3 times): https://arammu.com/assets/research/MC%20Depression%20Outcomes.pdf

The following is a secondary source citing Posselt and Lipson (regarding depression and anxiety in a competitive environment): https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/35346

In regard to chronic pain and depression: I find the the term "lay press" for Medical News Today insulting, they are not laymen, and in their own words, their articles are fit for both physicians and ordinary people. But I do have an alternative secondary source stating that the risk of depression goes up 85%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494581/ https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/chronic-pain-depression. I have a secondary source stating that risk goes up between 40% to 60%. And I have a secondary source stating that the risk goes up 30%: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/6/depression-and-chronic-pain

Painaustralia may not qualify as a secondary source for reliable biomedical information, due to a conflict of interest and the issue of advocacy, no matter how well they explain it. I suggest the following secondary source for the Hooley et al. study (chronic pain increases the chance of death by suicide by two to three times): https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/suicide_prevention/docs/FSTP-Chronic-Pain.pdf

I've also found a more suitable example of people using "depression" in a way that I don't think qualifies as a biomedical statement: "for those who do not have other financial options or find themselves unable to get a job despite their best efforts, the eventual acceptance of welfare benefits often leads to self-hatred, shame, and depression. Sherman (2013): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334431470_The_social_stigma_of_unemployment_consequences_of_stigma_consciousness_on_job_search_attitudes_behaviour_and_success

I will need some time to sort through this (by tomorrow); I'm not sure if you are understanding what MEDRS considers secondary. It appears that you want to use any (laypress) secondary source, rather than a MEDRS-compliant source, but I need more time to look through your post above.

There are two things that would make processing of your edits faster.

1. Wikipedia has a reply tool script that I (and many) use for ease of editing, but it can't enter a reply when there is no signature; could you remember to always add a reply to your talk page posts, with four tildes ( ~~~~ )?
2. If you will always add a PMID, I can get through your sources and respond much much faster. Wikipedia has a template you can use for that; just put the Pubmed Identifier inside the PMID template, like this: {{PMID|3826462}}. That produces PMID 3826462 (and removes the need to put everything else in your post). From there, you can see that's not a secondary review (there is no indication that Pubmed lists it as a review), whereas for example, PMID 28706741 is a secondary review (see the very first line, marked as review).

On Goldfarb, I haven't yet figured out why it is not PubMed indexed; I just haven't had time to inquire yet. @Bon courage and Zefr: would you have time to glance at why the Goldfarb source listed in the Reflist box above is not PubMed indexed ? As well as the rest of the conversation in this section?

Lau737, it's not necessary to link Goldfarb by adding a URL to the citation template; free full text isn't available, so adding a URL gives nothing different than one gets by clicking on the DOI link, which is already there. We typically only add a URL when free full text is available but is NOT already given by the PMC (Pubmed Central) link. For example, if you view the citation for Weissman in edit mode, you'll see it has no URL, because the PMC link automatically populates the blue link in the title. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Faulty ping: redoing. @Bon courage and Zefr:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lau737, I'm home from a long day, and have had a look at the info you've posted above. I'm confused about what you're proposing. As we discussed earlier on this page, Sheng PMID 28706741 is a secondary review. Other than that, the format of your post confuses me, and I don't find MEDRS secondary sources there. Perhaps it would be faster for you to propose exactly what you want to add (for example, as I did at 20:03, 19 November 2023 above), so I can see exactly how you want to use which source. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What I'm proposing is that when I link biomedical content, I will minimally link them to secondary sources. But policy does not require me to link to peer-reviewed review articles, which may be difficult to find or simply not there. But I will favor them when I come across them.

I have another question: how long will the Overwork page remain under investigation for plagiarism? Lau737 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, if your edits are not compliant with the Wikipedia community's interpretation of policy and guideline, then you can expect to see them reverted. I've given you links above to help you understand those; that's the best I can offer.

On the Overwork copyvio, I have pinged the copyright page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I noticed you have been copying the same two paragraphs of text from the article on populism into a bunch of other articles. I'm confused as to why you're doing this, as the text you have copied doesn't appear to have much to do with many of the articles you have pasted them into. What's your reasoning behind copying this same passage onto so many different pages? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I consider them to be excellent additions to the recipient pages. That is why! Lau737 (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to reconsider. Your ongoing copying between articles looks, in some cases, indiscriminate. It's instructive that when challenged for a justification you don't offer one. Please at least read the articles you are thinking of pasting text into. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The explanation has been presented to you, so please reflect on your own advice. Lau737 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lau737, please have a look at

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Major depressive disorder

... which is the page that appears when you edit major depressive disorder, along with WP:MEDORDER and WP:MEDDATE. Featured articles have been vetted by a community review process, and must conform with certain criteria. This edit added a very dated study (WP:MEDDATE) to repeat information already included in broader summary style in the preceding paragraph. We talked about this edit above, which also introduces primary studies and was added to the wrong place with a breach of WP:CITEVAR (I've moved and fixed the citation). MDD is an overview of a broad topic that uses summary style, and due weight has to be kept in mind. When editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper right hand corner), it is helpful to first discuss additions on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You mean? Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Bremner JD, Walker JD, Whitfield C, Perry BD, et al. (April 2006). "The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology". European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 256 (3): 174–186. doi:10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4. PMC 3232061. PMID 16311898.

That doesn't sound old or primary. Lau737 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The information was already in the article, cited to newer sources. Please discuss your edits on the article's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

I have reverted some of your edits (e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4]) but there are too many of them. Undue POV pushing can be considered disruptive. Please consider amending or reverting some of the edits that you have made. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for improving this navigation template. Unfortunately most of the things you added under the heading of cognitive biases are not cognitive biases. They are psychological phenomena, or fallacies of reasoning. This will seem pedantic, but cognitive biases are not just any attitude: they have to be systematic errors of reasoning that arise in a particular way. If an article's sources describe it as a cognitive bias, then it can be put in the template, but if they don't, expect the link to be removed. Hope you understand, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I often conclude that terms are just simultaneously biases and fallacies. Lau737 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lau737, I reverted several of your edits that appeared to be indiscriminately pasting the same content into several articles, thus adding information that is either irrelevant to the article's topic or where the relevance could only be established with original research (if at all). As a rule of thumb, if a source doesn't even mention an article's topic, citing it is likely violate WP:SYNTH (by combining the article's existing topic and coverage as supported by already cited sources with the new source into the implicit conclusion that the added material is relevant).

I see that several other editors, e.g. EMsmile [5], SandyGeorgia (above), and MartinPoulter (above), had already raised similar issues to you before and yet you continued with this kind of edits, dismissing such input. So I'm not sure if my own attempt to explain the problem to you will be successful, but you do need to be aware that prolonged failure to meaningfully address concerns by other editors might be considered as disruptive editing.

(PS: And that's not even touching the question whether the content you added, even if on-topic, would be considered relevant enough and not unduly weighted, and whether the references cited satisfies applicable sourcing criteria such as WP:MEDRS.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

PS2: Separately from the issue of copypasting between Wikipedia articles, do not copypaste text from the cited sources, as you did here in case of a copyrighted book whose preface says "All rights reserved". See WP:COPYPASTE.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

And Sphilbrick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It also looks like Dustfreeworld was dealing with very similar issues above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

...as did C.J. Griffin in this and this edit. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree this looks troubling. Will be interested to hear an explanation. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dustfreeworld has yet to respond to me. I don't agree with the issues raised. No original conclusions were reached.

Requiring that sources use a term as esoteric as "culture of poverty" before inclusion, is a policy that I have never heard of and does not exist on Wikipedia. As usual, users have simply reverted edits citing policy violations that do not exist, which I have more than made perfectly clear.

Expect undue reverts to be nullified in due course. Lau737 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The above response, with its non-sequiturs and threatening tone, looks like pretty much the worst possible reaction to the concerns expressed by the community. I can't take any hope from this that this user's behaviour is going to be less disruptive. Interested in what User:Sphilbrick thinks. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That threatening tone comes from you, be careful! Read Lau737 (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

These days, I'm working less as an editor at large, mostly concentrating on copyright issues. If I recall correctly, one of my interactions with the editor related to the copying of material within Wikipedia but not properly attributing it. This is a rule that even veteran editors miss. I tried to avoid reaching an opinion about an editor if I find them not fully complying with this rule — even editors with tens of thousands of edits turn out to be unaware of this requirement. In this particular case, I asked the editor to follow the best practices and I believe the editor has so within the narrow confines of copyright rules, I don't have an issue. That said, indiscriminate copying of material from other articles may be technically okay if the attribution requirements are met, but that doesn't make it editorially okay which appears to be the point of the OP post. My eyebrows raised when I glanced at the editor's contributions and saw how many instances there were, but I didn't examine any of them.

I don't want to draw firm conclusions without doing adequate research which I am not prepared to do. I will note that if it is true that "users have simply reverted edits citing policy violation that do not exist" I'm very sympathetic to this concern. I felt the following point "expect undo reverts to be nullified in due course" to be more aggressive than I like but simply like the tone to be cooled down. I am in favor of handling issues at the lowest level of escalation, so I am happy that this is occurring as a discussion on the user's talk page. I hope that discussion continues calmly and reasonably. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your explanation. My frustration is a result of the following reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Biases&action=history (by MartinPoulter)

It is clear to me that those concepts refer to thoughts that are biases, as well as to thoughts that are fallacies.

Empathy gap, for instance, refers to a bias that may be based on a fallacy, same for tall poppy syndrome, wishful thinking, toxic positivity, and the law of Jante.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=1189130734&oldid=1188870250 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims the text is somehow off-topic and that I have copy-pasted it "indiscriminately."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_of_poverty&diff=1189131152&oldid=1188607014 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims the text is somehow off-topic and that I have copy-pasted it "indiscriminately."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prison_strike&diff=1188698429&oldid=1188596715

HaeB claims that sources used on "Prison strike" must mention the words "prison strike," a rule that does not exist on Wikipedia. HaeB also refers to WP:SYNTH, like I am inventing content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happiness_economics&diff=1188698150&oldid=1188606567 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims the text is somehow off-topic, and refers to WP:SYNTH to suggest I am inventing content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myocardial_infarction&diff=1188697396&oldid=1188595235 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims that sources used on "Myocardial infarction" must mention the words "myocardial infarction," a rule that does not exist on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_unemployment_in_the_United_States&diff=1188697094&oldid=1188607405 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims that I must prove that cheap prison labor competes with labor elsewhere. In my mind that just logically follows. It's the most valid point HaeB makes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_poverty&diff=1188696859&oldid=1188611661 (by HaeB)

HaeB claims that sources used on "Culture of poverty" must mention the words "culture of poverty," a rule that does not exist on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajor_depressive_disorder&diff=1187967047&oldid=1187932801 (by SandyGeorgia)

SandyGeorgia claims that secondary sources for biomedical content are actually primary sources.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_depressive_disorder Lau737 (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lau737, to help resolve these concerns on talk without escalation, it would help to see collaborative discussion and that you are taking on board the concerns raised by HaeB, MartinPoulter, EMSmile, myself and others. HaeB explained why sources have to be related to the topic of the article to avoid original research, and I've done my best to help you understand how to use primary and secondary sources to cite biomedical content, yet am still uncertain you have taken that on board or understanding how to add or expand content relevant to a given topic. I'm seeing a number of indiscriminate additions in your edits to templates and See also sections. It seems you aren't understanding how wikilinks are best used (rather instead spreading information across multiple articles), or how items are best grouped in templates. I don't have the time to keep up with all these edits, but here are some examples:

1. At Template:Domestic violence, you've added Major depressive disorder to a list where it isn't a fit
2. At the article midlife crisis, you've added to See also links to numerous other articles that readers are unlikely to click on or need from that article
3. At setting up to fail you linked the common term "fail"] (a word understood by most readers) nine times (!) and added several links of dubious value to See also
4. In almost all of your recent edits, you're adding basic dictionary def terms to See also or adding off-topic links to See also, eg here

Perhaps a read of MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:ALSO will help in this area. After a number of editors have tried to guide your editing, it's still unclear what value these kinds of edits are adding, while correcting them requires time from other editors. I'm also particularly concerned about the threatening tone of your post above, where you tell Martin Poulter to "be careful! Read", with a link to noisy investigation of Scientology. Please be aware when other editors are trying to guide you towards a better editing experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am merely reciprocating the tone. Lau737 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you've been editing some health-related articles recently. A bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and you'd be welcome to join us. It's a good place to ask questions about good sources for medical content and appropriate writing style. Please consider putting the page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I will make use of it should I have any questions. Lau737 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good work. If you have time you may want to put the navboxes on the articles you've added, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, that's on my to do list. Lau737 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks. You seem to be quite good at judging which entries to add to navboxes, at least on a quick look. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! It helps to hear. Lau737 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

More thanks from me, good work.

Note for your future reference that MOS:ORDER says to put navboxes towards the very end of the article, after "External links". I think it's also the case (although can't find documentation offhand) that if there are multiple navboxes on a page, they will all start off collapsed - you don't need to manually add state=collapsed to each one. Belbury (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I like them, if only for clarity. Lau737 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found it, it's Template:Navbox#Parameter descriptions, navboxes default to "autocollapse" which means they start out collapsed if there are two or more collapsible elements on the same page. Use as you see fit. Belbury (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Let's work together toward a consensus on the See Also links in the article on social rejection. The Wikipedia style manual suggests that See Also sections should be "relevant and limited to a reasonable number," that they "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body," and that if they are not clearly relevant there should be "brief annotations" to explain their relevance. I feel that this See Also section is long and confusing and is not adhering to these guidelines. I'm not interested in going back and forth on this, so if you could take a look another look at the links and see which ones you think might be removed or explained, I would appreciate it. Certainly some of them, like conformity and unemployment are very tangential indeed. Thanks! Jcbutler (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you removed a large number of terms and replaced them with Cancel culture. I appreciate that you have chosen not to remove them again. To me, these links tell a comprehensive story of social rejection in its many facets. Which terms do you find confusing?

Regards Lau737 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not so much confusing as off topic. I believe this entry would be improved by a more focused and curated list, and I would like to remind you again of the Wikipedia guidelines here. Honestly, if we are going to include conformity I'm not sure there is any social psychological or mental health link that would not be included. But I'm going to wait and see what others say in the hopes that a consensus can be achieved. Oh, and I didn't put cancel culture in there, and I don't think it is particularly relevant either. It is a very different kind of sociocultural experience than the kind of social rejection research being discussed in this article. Best, Jcbutler (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't you? Conformity or the lack thereof is an important cause of social rejection. Anxiety disorder or Major depressive disorder, etc don't need to be included, because non-conformity is the reason that people that people with those disorders are rejected. Lau737 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, conformity can be a cause of social rejection. And aggression is very often an outcome of it. And shyness is sometimes related to social rejection, because shy kids are more likely to be rejected under certain circumstances. And interpersonal attraction and reciprocal liking also connect to social rejection. Etc, etc... ad infinitum.

Now where to draw the line? The guidelines suggest that See Also sections should contain a limited number of links, rather than a laundry list of possible connections. There will always be a difference of opinion on these sorts of matters, but I think we can sort it out, and I'm glad you agree with me that anxiety and depression don't really need to be included. Best, Jcbutler (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those rules exist so people would first focus on making good templates and categories. They don't exist to remove links to relevant pages that may be hard to link via a template, like terms related to social rejection. If you shrink that See also list, the utility of the page will be decreased. Lau737 (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it means that at all. If the guidelines were intended to be used only in the initial creation of templates and categories, they would say so. This article needs some work before it can be moved up on the quality scale and the currently cluttered "See Also" section is a problem. I'm planning on doing some cleanup, but as a gesture of good faith, I will try to respect your desire to have a broad array of connected articles. In return, I would appreciate you not reverting my work immediately and in toto. Thank you for your time. Jcbutler (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many rules on Wikipedia are just models intended to produce good articles and indexes. They weren't put there by Moses. Lau737 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lau737,

Thanks for your edits on the article Ethnic Cleansing.

I just want to ask you why you reverted these changes? The content was not removed, it was simply moved to other sections of the article. We now have duplicated content within the article. Just something to think about. Have a good day :) Phantomette (chat) 19:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Those terms are indeed linked via templates. At the time, I was double-checking a large number of pages, and I didn't notice.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries like this one are not indicative of the civility that's expected on Wikipedia. You seem surprised that your having an opinion or feeling that something belongs in an article is not enough to get it into the article. If you want to persuade the community to adopt your changes, you need to calmly set out reasoning. Threatening to make a change when you know there's no consensus is counterproductive. Some of your edits appear sensible while some others are utterly baffling. Most seem to be driven by the idea that if a link exists between two things in your mind, then the two Wikipedia articles about those things must be closely linked. That's not how we decide what goes in Wikipedia articles; please adjust to working with the community rather than against it. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't need your toxic noise, Martinpoulter and I would prefer you stop stalking my page. I've left your reverts regarding the double burden on women and issues with educational inflation intact only because you've been so incredibly obstructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escalation_of_commitment&diff=1188603618&oldid=1188601247

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meritocracy&diff=1188603787&oldid=1188598164

You seem incapable of behaving civilly, so don't expect too much civility from me. Lau737 (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lau737, please take a moment, step away from the keyboard, and breathe slowly. Martin is a respected editor here who is trying to communicate with you, but you seem to be more interested in fighting with everyone than working together. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Referring to reasonable feedback as "toxic noise" is not the way we should be doing things. Jcbutler (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree 100% with @MartinPoulter and @Jcbutler and can relate to their concerns. This user has been making eccentric edits and threatened me when I reverted it. It is obvious that he does not understand the basics of how Wikipedia works. He is never able to cite any authoritative sources in support of his edits and he never starts any discussion in Talk to reach a consensus; he just reverts and yells and threatens and uses sarcasm etc. There have also been other people reacting to this user's behaviour. I hope he gets his act together, but I see no signs of it, unfortunately. Trakking (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am surrounded by users who, in a matter detached from reality, accuse me of what they are themselves so clearly guilty of. I do understand how Wikipedia works.

Sir Trakking is here because of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASocial_philosophy&diff=1210008361&oldid=1205794919

Because of his baseless accusations, Trakking has gone from https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions

Regards Lau737 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy notification: please see Tang ping#See also links. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your "contributions" into numerous articles are pieces of wiki articles that you indiscriminately place into other articles. Much of what you place into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.

You have been warned numerous times by several people - but you don't seem to care to change or learn to do things right.

I am reporting your behavior to Wikipedia administration. 

This is notice I must serve to you prior reporting you. 

MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I received an email from you. I have no idea who you are, nor do I have any idea how you came across me. While I wouldn't call it blatant canvassing, I was surprised to receive it, and wish to say that I have no intention to be dragged into whatever qualms you have with the editors mentioned in your letter. Please follow the unblock process if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

me too. The instructions in the message in the section above is the way to go to appeal blocks, not email. Justiyaya 19:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Me too. I am sorry you have found it difficult to understand some aspects of policies and how important it is to explain your reasoning when others disagree with your changes, but that's how it is on a huge open wiki. I note that several users have explained policies to you on this page, and offered advice, and that there's a "welcome" template with links. We all have the right of anonymity here, but a corollary of that is that you could be a journalist with a 20-year career, or a senior professor, or equally an 11-year-old, and your editing will be subject to the exact same scrutiny and the exact same requirements of, for example, sourcing (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS), neutrality (WP:NPOV), avoidance of copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO, WP:COPYWITHIN) and also civility to other editors (WP:CIV). And it would be the same even if we knew who you were. It used to say in small print under the edit window that you should expect your edits to be remorselessly examined and modified, or something like that. And that's the strength of a wiki: we all muck up, but someone will come along and fix it; I may be an expert in some fields and a great writer, but there are other experts and even better writers.

Re-read the discussions above, and look at the links to policy and guideline pages. Think through the reasoning presented; people were trying to advise you, not to shut you down. You may also want to look again at what people said at the AN/I section, setting aside the assumption that having your edits examined and criticized is unusual and hostile; it happens to all of us (including sometimes being dragged to a noticeboard). Then appeal your block using the instructions (if you muck up the template, someone will correct it). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed your ability to send emails. If you wish to be unblocked, follow the instructions above. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Too long an explanation... stay tuned! Lau737 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also received an email from this person, who I've never interacted with before AFAIK. A long list of diffs. Sorry Lau, I do not have time to investigate your situation, and even if I did, I'm not in a position to adjudicate your dispute.

It's very odd to send lists of diffs to strangers, and I can't help but wonder if this is the sort of behavior that led to your current situation. I recommend clicking the "X" in the top right of your screen, going outside and getting some fresh air, staying off Wikipedia for a week or two, and then speaking with one, and only one admin, requesting an unblock. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also received an email along with other users. I have not interacted with this user and I don't have the time to investigate the edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I should add that Lau's comment "too long an explanation...stay tuned!" is a bad sign. When you submit an unblock request (after 1-2 weeks of touching grass and breathing fresh air - seriously, I'm not joking), make the unblock request very short. Under 1,000 bytes ideally. The longer and more "explanatory" your request, the less likely it will be accepted. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you base this on? Lau737 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've seen plenty of unblock requests accepted (and rejected) in the past, and I've noticed this pattern. I've also read admins say this explicitly. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply