User talk:Petergstrom

Welcome!

Hello, Petergstrom, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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 and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia! 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)

Good-faith edits are not vandalism

Just because another editor disagrees with you, as has happened at Jesus, does not mean that they are vandalizing the article. Please review WP:Vandalism to know what vandalism is; please do not label edits as vandalism when they are not. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Jesus 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. Meters (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Source

You might want to read this. Author is atheist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Your point?

The point is that Ehrman, a leading scholar on Jesus and not religious by any means, does not know anyone who thinks Jesus was (within that era's context) "crazy." If you take anyone out of their era and put them in the wrong era, they become "crazy" by that era's standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Based on your edits alone, I would typically block you for edit warring. I saw your note here, though, and I'm going to take you at your word that you will stop edit warring immediately. Please read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD and avoid edit warring in the future or you will be blocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You are doing this wrong

The "information" you've added is your spin on a single paper, your use of "some suggest" falls under WP:WEASEL, and your "tertiary sources" was a single tabloid. Do you understand that academic discussion isn't settled by one sensationalist headline? That it's settled by a variety of papers being reviewed in a metastudy, many of which are then collected and summarized in turn by professional reference works? Because your editing shows that you have no idea what an academic source is. You've also been edit warring despite repeated warnings. At this point, even if I am involved, no one would object to me giving to a one or two day block just to stop you from further disruption.

This has nothing to do with my upbringing, this has everything to do with your incompetence. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." This is not an interpretation of original research, jesus did express PS behavior(the first source) and it is not the opinion of a single researcher, it is widely discussed(The new article). To avoid a ban I will stop adding about the mental health issues. I wanted to add a statement from the book "The Psychiatry Study of Jesus-Exposition and criticism", by Albert Schweitzer 1948, pg 12-15

Now you are Wikilawyering. The bit of WP:WEASEL you quote means that if you had a tertiary source (such as an academic encyclopedia) that discussed this view as common among academia, you could get away with "some suggest." As it is, you have a tabloid and oh wow, a book that's as about old as most editors' grandparents, written by someone who is not a psychologist, from an era when Freud was largely unquestioned, which views Jesus in an ahistorical context. Why not try Helena Blavatsky next? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The point is people for a long time have been noticing that there is something wrong with this guy...even that long ago. Wowowo what a witty remark about Helena Blavatsky you must be a really smart dude wowowo.

On Wikipedia, you do not get to make a point (see WP:NOR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX). All you do is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic sources, in proportion to the appearance of said claims, with the weight they are given by tertiary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 31 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(Talk) 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~^{(talk) (contribs)} 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):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMC 3955328. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

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 Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.

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. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

Every time you edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.