We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. 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. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
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. 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!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
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, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
collapsing old edit warring notices and unblock discussions
July 2019
Your recent editing history at Neuromodulation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Need page number
"Memantine can add benefit to people already receiving donepezil.[1]"
@Doc James: But I see many articles containing dose info. I personally feel it's okay to include such information in encyclopeic articles but I will respect the community's consensus from the future poll as it currently states that "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.". Regards. --Exert yourself (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a review
You added "A review published in 2019 showed the treatment efficacy in ADHD especially those who are not well-responded to the generally indicated pharmacotherapy.[1]"
@Doc James: Wikipedia doesn't judge a source. I am citing Elbe, Dean (2019). Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Hogrefe. p. 366-369. rather than the mentioned open-trials. It can wait for decades for the RCTs for that to come. Now the experts decide to just go ahead. We should respect their expertieses. --Exert yourself (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... Have moved the stuff back to the research section as this is what that is. Yes I have read the source you are citing. No the experts have not "decided to just go ahead". In fact the NICE recommends against the dual use of donepezil and memantine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The experts have suggested the recommended target dose, Sir. It's definitly not just a "research". Rather, it's consensus made by a broad of experts. --Exert yourself (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to get consensus... If you continue edit warring you may be blocked. The sources do not say what you are attempted to claim they say. The NICE specifically says that dual use is not recommended and yet you have removed that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Elbe, Dean (2019). Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Hogrefe. p. 366-369. ISBN978-1-61676-550-7. OCLC1063705924.
July 2019
Your recent editing history at Donepezil shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
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).
This makes me so sad. Please state which Diff by me is a breach of WP:RMEDS????? @EdJohnston: There were only one or two votes. You call it "There is no visible support for the changes by User:Exert yourself on either Talk:Donezepil or Talk:Memantine." Is Wikipedia a place to vote?? Doc James didn't obey WP:RMEDS and I corrected him and I got blocked in the end?? Exert yourself (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (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.
Ref: I cited material from Elbe, Dean (2019). Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Hogrefe. p. 366-369. ISBN978-1-61676-550-7. OCLC1063705924.. User:Doc James insisted it's not a reliable medical source and moved it to research section despite the title of the medical textbook is Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs for children and adolescents. I was protecting Wikipedia and now I got blocked. This is completely wrong. I didn't intend to start edit warring but protecting Wikipedia!! --Exert yourself (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (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).
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.
@Flyer22 Reborn: I know what you mean, but it can wait for several decades for RCTs for that to come! We, patients, have a limited lifetime. Now the experts decided not to wait and just go ahead. Why Doc James can defy the decision made by a broad of experts in pediatrics despite himself is devoted in an emergency department rather than the pediatric psychiatry/neurology?? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't get why he reverted to the version he liked and asked me to discussion based on his liked version?? My version is supported by medical textbook!! Just because Doc James doesn't like it so we should start the discussion based on his liked version? --Exert yourself (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2019 (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).
The guideline is too long to read at once. I just wanted to start over. Why it can still result in indefinite block?? But fine. Now, where I am from is revealed. And my contribution history is revealed. I told some people I am busy and now they know I am busy contributing to Wikipedia. I didn't use two accounts to engage in any edit war. How could Wikipedia still reveal my privacy? Exert yourself (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (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.
This account is not a legitimate use of WP:CLEANSTART. There's substantial overlap in editing between the two accounts. You did not stop using the old account. This was a clear case of attempting to evade scrutiny, rather than of a clean start. I'll note that you immediately ran into substantial problems with this account, too. I will leave your unblock request to another admin, but I would be within my rights to decline the above unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I only use the old account when editing stuff regarding Taiwan. I used the old account to edit Calcium channel blocker toxicity several months ago. Also, I don't want to let people who know me see stuff I wrote on this User Page. I tried not to appear like there is the same person behind the two accounts. And I think I did it. Today is probably the worst day in my life. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there's substantial overlap in your edits. It's not just Taiwan, and it's not just several months ago. See this page, showing an almost complete overlap in edits, with only hours or days between edits via each account. Look, I get that you are having a bad day. But I'll politely point out this is because of your actions. Regardless, there is still a path to being unblocked. If the above unblock request is denied, WP:SO would still apply. That would require you step back from Wikipedia for a while, then come back and convince us your future edits would be significantly different from your current edits with both accounts. That's tough, but it's achievable. And it's not your only path forward. You may be able to convince an admin to unblock you sooner than that. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: Thank you so much for your warm reply! Yes, I think I need to calm down for a while. I will be right back probably tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. (By the way, the overlaps were probably because I logged in one on my tablet and the other on the computer and the two accounts served for the same purpose-- making Wikipedia better.) Goodnight from Taiwan. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Sorry, I hope our relation can remain good despite today's disagreement. I will be right back to discuss the matter with you. I believe we edit for the same purpose. I gonna take a break now. Thanks for the time. --Exert yourself (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user would have to convince a CU to unblock them. I should add that the master account has a history of blocks at zh.wiki, and was blocked (I believe today) until November 30, 2019. Even with machine translation, I have trouble figuring out the bases for the blocks. Exert yourself has also edited at zh.wiki but has not yet been blocked. I'm considering requesting global locks for both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: That's an article ban since May, 2019. And the reason of the ban is somehow sensitive, not suitable to talk on Wikipedia. (The reason for the article ban in ZHWIKI can look formal to people not familiar with ZHWIKI. Best.) --Exert yourself (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have made so many misreprentations, it's hard to have confidence in anything you say, but even assuming you're correct that the block is for a violation of an "article ban" (no clue why you claim it's "sensitive" - it's a public block), how is that not disruptive? And what are the other blocks for?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Regarding the ZHWIKI contribution. Because I found myself trapped in the "discussion jam" at that time. Every time I logged in ZHWIKI, I had to join the discussion there first. And that made me want to breathe some fresh air. It's that simple. Anyway, After the discussion regarding donepezil, memantine, and cholinesterase inhibitor with User:Doc James. I goona do a standard restart on EN WIKI. Finally, you may find some clues about you're asking on It's gonna be awesome's talk page. Thank you so much!! --Exert yourself (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're not going to have any discussion with Doc James because you're blocked. Second, what do you mean by "I goona do a standard restart on EN WIKI"? Third, don't be coy about "clues". I have no interest in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Firstly, I plan to propose an unblock request after I read the instruction. I believe Doc James and I are editing for good intention. Secondly, I didn't use two accounts to do the wrong things. Really! So I am shocked that there exits the definition of Wikipedia's starting over. Thirdly, it's easy to spot the clues on It's gonna be awesome's talk page. I don't directly to point out because of some reasons. But I called "admins" on that talk page only two times. They are where I refer to. Thank you! --Exert yourself (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you that you could not have a discussion with Doc James while blocked, and you initiated one anyway. I have therefore revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
