User talk:Beall4

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, pursuing the mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia!

--Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes[edit]

The three key documents in the welcome message above are

WP:MEDRS- the sourcing guideline, supplementing the main sourcing guideline, WP:RS
WP:MEDMOS - the style guideline, supplementing the main style guide, WP:MOS
WP:MEDHOW, which has very useful tips.

The message below provides a bit more introduction to MEDRS and a concrete explanation of how to format citations, per MEDHOW...

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

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) 21:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never[edit]

Never do this again.

What I or anybody else writes on a user talk page is not necessarily what they would write on an article talk page. You made it appear that I had actually written that on the article talk page -- you misrepresented me.

What makes it worse is that you didn't even tell me you did that. Never do that again. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

STOP posting my comments from my user talk page on the article talk page.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beall4, you re-added the same content you were asked not to re-add. I have corrected the formatting so that it is clearly attributed as a quote. In the future, please link to sections using the table of contents at the top of the page or use a link to a WP:diff. We all want to help you contribute constructively to the article, but you have to listen to what other people are saying. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you've done it yet again, here. Read the talk page, answer the questions we're asking you, but do not copy and paste talk page messages from one page to another. Brad v 21:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Request Jytdog[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note you were added on behalf of the arbitration committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Heck of a place to start. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I apologize for calling you, and for how the call went and how I ended it. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration requests page[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, that per standard procedure, I've moved your statement to its own section, see here. Believe me, I know how complicated that page can be, so please don't worry about it, just if you need to say more, please add it to the section with your username on it. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the Arbitration Committee would be extremely interested to hear further details of how exactly the call went down, including the exact language used. If you are more comfortable delivering that information privately, you are welcome to email arbcom-en

wikimedia.org to communicate it directly to us. Any email correspondence with the Arbitration Committee is kept confidential. I understand this process is extremely confusing to those who aren't very familiar with Wikipedia, and we'd like to gather as much information as possible in whatever manner is most comfortable and easy for you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another apology[edit]

I'd like to apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community for the intimidation you have suffered. New editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to be treated in any such way -- see the guideline Do Not Bite the Newcomers -- and I feel sure that I am speaking for virtually all the Wikipedia community in expressing regret that this series of events took place.

Please don't hesitate to contribute any expertise or well-documented information you may have. Be advised, however, that medical-related articles are very closely watched and have particularly strict sourcing requirements so do not be shocked or alarmed if changed material is not integrated instantly and easily. WP is a collaborative project and there is a fair amount of push and shove with controversial or sensitive content. Medical-related articles are a tough place for a newcomer to tread.

None of this changes the fact you were treated miserably, however. This will hopefully be a learning experience for the entire community.

Best regards, -tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this apology. The way you were treated is quite unacceptable. I hope you return to the article page, and to other articles as well. Please see my recent edit [1]. I think the content and sourcing your provided were likely of benefit and a discussion should go forward about them. I don't have time now, but I will try to contribute to such a discussion when I return. Again, so sorry as to how you were treated as a newcomer here--a newcommer who appears to have expertise in the field in which you were trying to edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific carbohydrate diet[edit]

In your most recent edit to Specific carbohydrate diet, you removed properly sourced text, using a misleading edit summary. Please don't do that again. I've raised the issue on the article's talk page where you may wish to present an argument for why you felt your edit was an improvement to the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also recommend that you become familiar with Wikipedia's distinction between primary and secondary sources in a medical context. A paper about a study or clinical trial is a primary source. A review paper, or a paper analyzing multiple studies, is a secondary source. There are times when citing a primary source is appropriate, but it isn't appropriate to do so for supporting statements about the article topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to consider very carefully now the ramifications of ignoring the advice that you have been given to read and get to grips with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). That guideline goes to considerable effort to explain the distinction that editors of Wikipedia medical articles make between sources that are considered primary and those that are considered secondary. Contrary to practices you may have seen in academia, Wikipedia does not encourage its editors to collect together primary material, analyse it, and draw conclusions. On the contrary, our policy of WP:No original research expressly forbids it. This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal, and we may only report and summarise that which has already been published in reliable sources. Concomitant to that, the preference for secondary sourcing is strong, because those are the sources where the work of collation, analysis and conclusion for both primary and other secondary material has already been done for us. Therefore we are committed to ensuring that primary sources are treated very carefully in medical articles; that they are not used to support biomedical claims; and that they are not used to refute or contradict the conclusions of good quality secondary sources. You've now been editing Wikipedia for some six weeks, and it appears that a lot of the disagreements you've had are founded in your lack of understanding of what MEDRS requires of us. I'd really like to see you remedy that, in order to productively resolve the issue of improving the articles that you are interested in. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Specific carbohydrate diet; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI question[edit]

Do you have any connection to Kirkton Press Limited, which has a registered trademark on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (see [2]). Do they pay you to promote the diet? Are you a licensee of the diet per these terms? If so, you will need to make a WP:COI statement. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened[edit]

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: [email protected]

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]