User talk:FinalAccount

Bipolar disorder

Hello! Thanks for your edits to Bipolar disorder. While they seem reasonable, unfortunately, I've had to revert them for the following reasons.

This is a highly contentious article, and is one of the mostly densely cited in the encyclopedia for that reason. All the sentences in the sections of the article you changed are provided with citations to articles from the medical literature, per Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS policy. Have you reviewed the cited articles to check that they support your changes in wording? If not, you should either do so, or add new citations to support your edits that meed the WP:MEDRS criteria. Regards, -- The Anome (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Hello, FinalAccount, 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 ask your question and then type {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

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! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not support

This text "An influential" is not supported. Plus we need to use newer sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What TEXT exactly supports "The concept of 'Bipolar II' gained influence from the 1970s and was adopted by the DSM-IV in 1994." in this ref [1] Biol Psychiatry. 1976 Feb;11(1):31-42.</ref>? I do not see text that supports that it gained influence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look it's a trivial matter to search for this and see that the category of Bipolar II was introduced from the 70s - particularly the seminal article I took the time to format and include - and adopted by the DSM in the 90s. If you want the history section to continue having no mention whatsoever of the history of the main subtype of BP, then go at it. FinalAccount (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V we require references that support the content people add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I object to your use of 'we require' as if you are, and others aren't, synonymous with Wikipedia or some part of it. FinalAccount (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again

Hi, Final Account, and thanks for engaging with other editors on the Bipolar disorder article's talk page. As you can see, I hope you can see that we are, like you, all working together in good faith to improve the encyclopedia to reflect the current medical consensus on this -- and, where significant, to also reflect diversity in medical opinion. Welcome to the Wikipedia community! -- The Anome (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your perspective. FinalAccount (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ronald R. Fieve

Hello, FinalAccount. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ronald R. Fieve, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Ronald R. Fieve to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, nafSadh did say 06:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a visual or cognitive impairment or what am I missing? FinalAccount (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to User:GB_fan for indicating that WP isn't entirely irrationally hostile to new content: "(remove BLPPROD article had 2 sources on it at the time the BLPPROD was added. Ineligible for BLPPROD)" FinalAccount (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA dear. When I tagged the article cited one primary source and another really unclear source, and none WP:Reliable. Read about reliable sources and BLP guidelines before you QUESTION about some other editors' cognitive ability. I expect you have enough cognitive ability (no pun intended) to read and understand reliable source guidelines on Wikipedia.-- nafSadh did say 13:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not a primary source, it was a book published by an international academic society which selected Fieve's chapter with biograhy of him, you stil can't even get that right. And I asked whether I was missing something too, and since I do have a mental disability your assumption that I was asking the question in a derogatory way is misguided. Stop confusingly fly-by tagging and expecting your victims to chase you to clarify. FinalAccount (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ronald R. Fieve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ronald R. Fieve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald R. Fieve until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawing nomination...Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)" Thanks for realising. FinalAccount (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kay Redfield Jamison may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

his own,<ref>[http://www.bphope.com/Item.aspx/482/kay-redfield-jamison-a-profile-in-courage]</ref>) is considered a classic textbook on bipolar disorder.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

I believe you should drop your ANI report. There was no abuse of deletion processes. They worked the way they are supposed. Articles that meet criteria are kept. You are not helping your cause. You are just taking up time that you and others can use to write articles as nothing will happen as there was no abuse, just mistakes. GB fan 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't see how it can have worked as it's supposed to, when someone voted delete without having read or asked about one of the extra sources I worked to provide, and then refused to vote keep even when the article OBVIOUSLY met criteria, both according to the deletion initiator AND an a completely separate checker AND anyone not on a personal vendetta. FinalAccount (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was the article kept? Yes, process worked. Different people see the same sources and see things differently. Obviously it wasn't obvious to everyone that the article should be kept. GB fan 00:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect that's your assumption that it wasn't obvious to him/her, I believe it was. Also your own view if you don't care about how things are done to editors, only the end result. FinalAccount (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the difference, I assume good faith, you assume bad faith. GB fan 01:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume bad faith. FinalAccount (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that it was obvious that the article met criteria and you assume it was obvious to editors who !voted delete. You also assume editors are on a personal vendetta. Both of those things are assuming bad faith. GB fan 01:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I conclude it was totally obvious based on the evidence mentioned above. And therefore the final refusal to change vote - given that there was motive (ok I accept I probably exacerbated that motive by my reactive incivility) - was malicious. FinalAccount (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go, you assume that the refusal to change the vote had a malicious motive, in other words you assume bad faith on the part of the other editor. GB fan 11:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing the term 'assume'. The final refusal - accompanied by absolutely no reasoning that might otherwise explain it - was after a wrong tag, a delete vote without having waited to check or ask about a key source, and the withdrawal of the nomination and an independent passing of the article by others. All pieces of evidence leading to a probabalistic conclusion of abuse of process not an assumption. FinalAccount (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this. I see mistakes and a disagreement on the sources. You see personal vendetta and malicious intent. Nothing will come of the ANI, the article wasn't deleted, so once again I recommend you just drop it and move on. That is what I am going to do. GB fan 12:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfashsd made no statement of disagreement with the sources in their final comment only that could not confirm keep. But I do thank you for your intervention, to which I note Nfashsh has still not acknowledged whatsoever having made any mistake. FinalAccount (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to closed threads

Please do no post to closed threads as you did on ANI, I have removed your most recent comment as the discussion has already been closed. Your concerns have been given a lot of attention and there is not going to be any administrative action on the issue. I suggest you just move on.

It is not appropriate to continue to insist a matter be discussed on ANI after the topic has been closed. There are several alternatives to the administrative noticeboard such at dispute resolution and request for comment. Chillum 13:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.