User talk:UnicornRainbowMonkey
Hello, UnicornRainbowMonkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Quick introduction to Wikipedia
- How to write a great article
- Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
- Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
- Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
- A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or .
If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).
Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
[edit]
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. 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 build 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) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I did use review articles and journals. My edits were a genuine attempt to improve the page content and reference material. To strip out all my edits seems very heavy-handed. UnicornRainbowMonkey (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Finding it very hard to work out how to discuss this with you. The talk links on the pages are closed. How do I reply? That page is really biased and seems edits and improvements (by others before me) also getting blocked. Too much bureaucracy? (I don't know what WPSpa or whatever it is is. Obviously very new here and finding this pretty unusable. Why is it so hard to make an edit? Are there more admins/super-users now on Wikipedia than editors?) UnicornRainbowMonkey (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that you found the article talk page: Talk:Effects_of_pornography#JytDog_why_did_you_rollback_my_edits.3F. Great! Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't get discouraged, the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE clique here is very aggressive and uncompromising. I actually agree with them maybe half the time because they do legitimately have to deal with nonsense such as Young Earth creationism and Bigfoot, or quack cures like laetrile, where the promoters are generally rather difficult personalities and the "science" is truly junk. But the other half of the time, they refuse to consider legitimate material that does not fit their preconceived notions, and then if you argue at all, rather than help you locate high-quality sources, they will attack you and accuse you of edit-warring, threaten you and generally be very nasty. My suggestion is to read WP:MEDRS carefully, do a very through literature review, and try to find the highest quality sources you can. Then begin a discussion of them at the article's talk page. It is a very difficult job, because once these folks' minds are made up, they ignore all evidence to the contrary (even very high quality evidence), but on occasion, you can attract a few other editors who they respect who will sign off and say it's OK to keep. Generally, I have found that if I try to stay gracious (I do lose my temper sometimes, though) and keep working on the issue, I usually can get in something about new ways of looking at a topic and allow for a discussion of directions taken with current research. Your particular edit in the case above is something that has been a concern for well over a decade, and there are probably peer-reviewed studies on the topic. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- UnicornRainbowMonkey first, nothing that I wrote to you has anything to do with PSCI; Montanabw is upset about something else, and brought that argument to your door, inappropriately. But please always use high quality sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't get discouraged, the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE clique here is very aggressive and uncompromising. I actually agree with them maybe half the time because they do legitimately have to deal with nonsense such as Young Earth creationism and Bigfoot, or quack cures like laetrile, where the promoters are generally rather difficult personalities and the "science" is truly junk. But the other half of the time, they refuse to consider legitimate material that does not fit their preconceived notions, and then if you argue at all, rather than help you locate high-quality sources, they will attack you and accuse you of edit-warring, threaten you and generally be very nasty. My suggestion is to read WP:MEDRS carefully, do a very through literature review, and try to find the highest quality sources you can. Then begin a discussion of them at the article's talk page. It is a very difficult job, because once these folks' minds are made up, they ignore all evidence to the contrary (even very high quality evidence), but on occasion, you can attract a few other editors who they respect who will sign off and say it's OK to keep. Generally, I have found that if I try to stay gracious (I do lose my temper sometimes, though) and keep working on the issue, I usually can get in something about new ways of looking at a topic and allow for a discussion of directions taken with current research. Your particular edit in the case above is something that has been a concern for well over a decade, and there are probably peer-reviewed studies on the topic. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree more with what Jytdog originally posted here, which was "please always use high quality sources. There are those in Wikipedia who would open the floodgate to all kinds of promotional content from advocates as well as representatives of companies, who cannot see that consistently applying strong sourcing across Wikipedia is the only thing that prevents Wikipedia from turning into a slag heap of promotion from many different quarters - commercial and noncommercial alike." I'm not "upset" at all, I just noticed that you sounded frustrated and I wanted to let you know what was probably going on. For example, for the material you want to add to the article, perhaps a source like this one might work. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- And what you see Montanabw doing here is something that comes from the ugly gutters of Wikipedia. I made a mistake and wrote something I didn't mean; I changed it. But here is Montanabw dredging up what I originally wrote and then changed, yet further confusing the issue. I am sorry you are being exposed to the ugly side of Wikipedia, but it is there, and it happens. What I want to communicate to you is in my statement above. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is important to know that a focus on content and sourcing is the best way to resolve these issues; as you can see, there are a lot of personalities around here and it is important to not take things too personally. Montanabw(talk) 04:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- And what you see Montanabw doing here is something that comes from the ugly gutters of Wikipedia. I made a mistake and wrote something I didn't mean; I changed it. But here is Montanabw dredging up what I originally wrote and then changed, yet further confusing the issue. I am sorry you are being exposed to the ugly side of Wikipedia, but it is there, and it happens. What I want to communicate to you is in my statement above. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree more with what Jytdog originally posted here, which was "please always use high quality sources. There are those in Wikipedia who would open the floodgate to all kinds of promotional content from advocates as well as representatives of companies, who cannot see that consistently applying strong sourcing across Wikipedia is the only thing that prevents Wikipedia from turning into a slag heap of promotion from many different quarters - commercial and noncommercial alike." I'm not "upset" at all, I just noticed that you sounded frustrated and I wanted to let you know what was probably going on. For example, for the material you want to add to the article, perhaps a source like this one might work. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
UnicornRainbowMonkey, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi UnicornRainbowMonkey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC) |