User talk:WikiLinuz

Notification of Dispute Resolution

Hi there, to help reach article consensus on a matter you are involved in, I have requested a dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Methylphenidate Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

History of LSD

You deleted my contribution to the History of LSD page without much justification. I believe it was valuable and reasonably backed and of reasonable extent. Please discuss with me on Talk:History_of_LSD what you exactly consider to be issue and how we can resolve our opinion differences. Barvinek (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Edits to the Bipolar Page

Hi WikiLinuz,

I spent several hours making edits to the bipolar page, and you removed them less than three hours later without making any effort to contact me to resolve our disagreements beforehand. In your message notifying me of their removal you called them "disruptive" but provided no reasons for why you felt that way. My edits did not remove any of the previous content, they were elaborating on things that were already there based on very basic knowledge of bipolar disorder that is well understood among the psychiatric and bipolar communities. My edits sought to make the jargon approachable for the general populous, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, as well as to provide context to problematic stereotypes, especially under the extremely outdated prognosis section.

Was the issue simply a matter of citations? I initially did not include citations as my edits were mostly making the current content understandable to a widespread audience and added content was very basic and widely understood among psychiatric and bipolar communities. However, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I understand that citations might be required more on Wikipedia than in other circumstances. I'm happy to revert my edits and add citations to them, if that would resolve this dispute.

If I don't hear back from you here I'm happy to open a forum the articles talk page as requested, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond more privately first.

Best,

Cjallen26 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You cannot add original research. We also do not water down a topic just because something upsets some people; Wikipedia reports facts based on WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. Medical articles have its own criteria, see WP:MEDRS. You cannot add your own theories or things you consider well understood among the psychiatric and bipolar communities without substantiating it.

I initially did not include citations as my edits were mostly making the current content understandable to a widespread audience and added content was very basic and widely understood among psychiatric and bipolar communities - the WP:BURDEN to provide citation lies on the editor who added/restored a material. You must provide citation while adding it. --WikiLinuz (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your clarification. I was not asking you to provide the citations, I can easily find sources for the vast majority of the things I added and am happy to not re-add the few things I cannot. None of these sources would be my own personal research, as I do not have degrees in psychology or psychiatry. I believe this should resolve your concerns about original research and those you outlined in the second paragraph.

The only remaining dispute would be your concern about "water[ing] down a topic just because something upsets some people." I'm a little confused where you came to the conclusion that this was what I was doing. My explanation of what psychotic paranoia is like to those experiencing it is much more upsetting to a general audience than the cartoons explaining it on the current page. If you are referring to my edits to the prognosis section, I am confused as well. I left the current prognosis section intact simply with the clarification that this was for those who do not follow treatment plans. I then added a section for what many people who do follow their treatment plans can expect. When providing information on a disorder, health condition, injury, or disease, it is standard practice across any health or information site to look at both the untreated and treated prognosis. I understand that the medications to effectively treat bipolar disorder were only approved in 1970 in the United States, and even with the medication early treatment plans were severely flawed. Therefore, evidence of successful long term prognoses for medicated people are a relatively new concept, and the writer of the current section may not have found the updated studies when writing the section. I, however, have the sources showing the updated prognoses and am happy to add them. While the updated evidence is most certainly less upsetting to bipolar people and their families than the old evidence used on the current prognosis page, using outdated information to make something more upsetting than it actually is goes against the idea of "reporting facts" you described.

I hope this proposed solution resolves things. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Cjallen26 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)