User talk:Booklaunch

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! DVdm (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all your additions to risperidone, dopamine, and antipsychotics. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view (See WP:NOR), which I did not feel your editions followed. I would recommedn that since you are in your first editions you searched first for consensus and some advice in talk pages before editing the articles. Additionally your editions seem quite similar in scope and articles to that of a recently banned user, which may have led several editors to automatically eliminating your content. If you are not related to User:Mandragua, please state it and ask for advice in talk pages on the best way to implement your editions in the artiles.--Garrondo (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antypsychotics article

Antipsychotics is wrongly spelled.

I have reverted your elimination of a 2009 systematic review in the Antypsychotics article. Since it is a high quality recent source, it would be a great idea to discuss the elimination at talk page first. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change of wording to the structural effects section in the Antypsychotics article. Conclussion of the abstract is worded in extremely hyptotetical tone, and that tone should be kept in Wikipedia, otherwise we would be conducting Original Research.--Garrondo (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically source states (Bolded mine): Some evidence points towards the possibility that antipsychotic drugs reduce the volume of brain matter and increase ventricular or fluid volume.

That is not the right article. There is another paper stating very clearly as much as 20% reduction in brain volume in females first time psychotic episode. Most of it grey matter. Long term use (less intense dosage) destroys more white matter.Booklaunch (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the source we use. Moreover per WP:MEDRS a primary source should not be used to debunk a secondary source, so unlss you find a review article that states as proof that there is a causal relationship you should not change wording, and even then it should be discussed which of the two sources should be used (most probably the two).--Garrondo (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last source you added (PMID 17671875)estates (bolded mine): show possible different effects of first and second generation antipsychotics. This is true also for functional parameters, such as regional cerebral blood flow and metabolism, analysed, both in resting condition and after specific activation paradigms, with such diverse techniques as positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), functional MRI and MR spectroscopy. The possible molecular mechanisms underlying such differences and whether they represent direct drug effects or indirect consequences of their different and specific interactions with the 'natural' pathophysiological trajectory of brain abnormalities in schizophrenia are matter of present research and debate. So it is as hypothetical as the other one (and additionally is older, so the 2008 conclussions might slightly prevail over the previous ones). Your change of wording to reflect your POV is not warranted by the sources. --Garrondo (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as brain abnormalities in schizphrenia. That theory 70's is outdated.

Take a look to WP:truth, in a nutshell, WP is not about truth but about what sources say, so if there are reliable sources talking about brain abnormalities in schizophrenia, that is what we should talk about.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding discussing: I have given full explanations on why I reverted your edits here and in edit summaries. If you disagree feel free to seek further comments in talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your big addition to the article, and given full explanation (sentence by sentence) of the many problems I see. For such a change in the article, I would recommend that you reached consensus with more experienced users on how to advance, and you made the changes little by little. --Garrondo (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reverted my last 2 edits. I think they are quite wrong, but per the WP:3RR I should not have reverted more than 3 times. I would kindly recommend anyway that you discussed further edits in talk page. --Garrondo (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, you should have not reverted my edits. That is all you do. I am contacting an administrator about this because I think the neutrality of wikipedia is being compromised. Whiel some biased editors are busy adding to the article you seem to be only concerned with deleting everything I do.

I have said that I am sorry for reverting you more times than permitted, reverted myself about it, and I promise it won't happen again even if I feel your edits have many problems that breach several wikipedia policies. Regarding you contacting and administrator, feel free to do it. I have also asked for further comments at the medicine project. However it might be more worthy if if you discussed the problems I point out on your edits here and in the talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to rebut the problems I have pointed out with sources or reasons instead of yielling around in an intent to block me? As a side note: you might find ironic to know that I am a psychologist and not a physician.--Garrondo (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Garrondo should have reverted your edits as there was problems with them. Please discuss issues on the talk page. What we at Wikipedia are here to do is provide a balance view of the best available literature. The best available literature is systematic reviews and meta analysis recently published. Yet you removed one here [1]. Please join the discussion and bring evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I agree with Garrondo and Doc James. Booklaunch, I realize that you are a relatively new editor here, and I welcome you as such, but the fact is that Wikipedia has well-worked out ways of editing content, and I sincerely urge you to familiarize yourself with them, and not try to unilaterally change them without consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for pharmacology I don't need peer review references.Booklaunch (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC) so stop nagging me. Thanks.[reply]

All content in WP should secondary sources if possible (See WP:RS). In the case of scientific articles this usually means that unless something has been published in secondary sources it usually does not really fit into articles.

I forgot to sign.--Garrondo (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Booklaunch, many of your recent edits are cause for concern, and appear to be bordering on vandalism. For example:

In this edit to Minor planet replaced vandalism which changed the lead from "A minor planet is an astronomical object..." to "A minor planet is a funny object...", with the edit summary "off topic, unreliable sources and confusing wording"
In this edit to Hydrostatic equilibrium you removed plain numerical information sourced to a site associated with NASA, with the edit summary "confused wording, unreliable sources, POV"
In this edit to Small Solar System body you undid a minor grammar fix with the edit summary "lacks clarity, unreliable sources", no sources were involved

It's unclear why you're making these edits but they are unproductive and need to stop, please. You may be making them in reaction to the lack of support for your suggested changed to Antipsychotic. You might feel frustrated because of that, but taking it out on Wikipedia by making unproductive changes to other articles will probably result in you getting blocked. (I'm not sure that's what's happening here but that's what it looks like.) Please use article Talk pages to work through content issues, and realize that sometimes consensus does not develop in support of your edits, it's happened to me many times. Thanks... Zad68 14:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please do not modify archived pages as you did here. Zad68 14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment [2]

I completely agree with you Margarida. Doc James is obsessed with the peer review thing, he should try and seek more consensus when reasons are obvious instead of being disruptive all the time. Booklaunch (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am obsessed with the use of high quality sources. And this obsession is consensus here at Wikipedia. See WP:MEDRS, WP:V and WP:RS. If you too become obsessed with reflecting the conclusions of high quality sources you too may find editing Wikipedia fun. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look, I know you're all excited I gave you a bit of attention but can you and your friends please stop digging into my activities outside of your business? Thanks.Booklaunch (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booklaunch, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Booklaunch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Booklaunch. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disruptive edits

Hello, Booklaunch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Opinion_article.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice

I know that you didn't ask me, but this and this are a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mind saying that again? Thanks nevermindthebollocks (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it comes across like you are trolling them. When you say things like "Haven't you got anything rude and offensive to say about my edits??" it does not credibly sound like you really just want them to say something offensive to you. (I'll watchlist your talk page, so you can respond here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to say that I agree with Drmies' decision, which is where I was headed in the advice above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw your note and followed the diffs, but wasn't going to block since you already warned them. Then I looked at the SPI (which was started on my advice, I suppose), which contained a nice little list with many more instances, and that list was sufficiently long. Thanks for trying, though. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

come on guys, I was just chilling out and having a bit of fun! don't be a nazi about it! nevermindthebollocks (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Booklaunch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I have been a really really naughty boy, but I won't do it again I promise :) *hugs*

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And, btw, tryptofish, I saw your nasty comments about me, while discussing having a few drinks at a "business" meeting, and laughing about cleaning the "bollocks" that's just not right.. a little respect for my username please? nevermindthebollocks (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, that's a reference to comments that other people, not me, made at my user talk. But nevertheless, I think it's pretty obvious that the comment here is not only a reason to decline the unblock request, but to block talk page access. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins please note my comments here before taking action. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care about this anymore! so do whatevah you like!nevermindthebollocks (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]