User talk:Petergstrom

ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC) -->

Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't specific that primary sources have to be avoided. I have justification for the use of the primary sources, it is not my POV that is being forced onto the page.Petergstrom (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is that we use secondary sources for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So...follow MEDRS religiously until you don't agree with it? Petergstrom (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

pasting content here that was left on my talk page in this dif, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't specific that primary sources have to be avoided. I have justification for the use of the primary sources, it is not my POV that is being forced onto the page.Petergstrom (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs)

MEDRS says what we should do; when policies and guidelines say "should" they mean "should" - you need a good reason to do something different, and you have refused to justify your blowing off the guideline. It actually is OK to use primary sources from time to time (rarely) and you do need to justify when you do it. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And more importantly, if the community allows you to pick some random primary sources and add content based on them, we have to let everyone do that. We have to let the autism advocate and the salesperson from Pfizer and the person who believes in Powerful Herbs do it too - in other words, all kinds of garbage content comes streaming into WP. That is what you are arguing for. Why would you do that? That is a real question. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do answer the question above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because primary sources are used, doesn't mean low quality alternative medicine ideas can be brought inPetergstrom (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Everything in WP starts with sources. Not my opinion or yours about what is good science or not. There are so, so many arguments we avoid by excluding content due to the sources it was based on. We would waste an incredible amount of dealing with shitty content if we allowed people to use primary sources freely. Again, this was the reason MEDRS was developed. It saves us from so many horrible arguments with advocates of all kinds. When you have been around a while this will become more clear to you. Jytdog (talk)

Sounds good dad.Petergstrom (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's exactly what it means, because "low quality alternative medicine ideas" show up in lots of primary sources, but don't appear in the high quality secondary sources that MEDRS requires (other than to be debunked). Here are the ideas you want inserted into CFS:

• "altered cytokines early in the course of the disease compared to those with longer term disease" - sourced to a single 2015 study;
• "altered cytokine levels that differed between severe and moderate CFS patients" - sourced to a a single 2015 study;

Why should those specific ideas override the present article text? "Elevated levels of cytokines involved in generating sickness behavior have been found in those with CFS, however the results have not been consistent." - sourced to a 2008 systematic review, and affirming that results have been found to vary from one study to another. Once you accept what the secondary source is saying about inconsistent results, you can see that there's no point in trying to cite individual studies because you have no basis to assume that these are not outliers. Now do you understand? --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

yeeeee. I actually think that I put that sentence in there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&type=revision&diff=750134833&oldid=749952834

• so we have this discussion, and then you do this. Please consider this a last warning. Either start following MEDRS of I will seek to have you topic banned from editing about health. There is way too much work to be done here for us to constantly clean up after you. Your editing is becoming a time sink for the rest of us. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine dad. Here is a secondary source that mentions trauma: ^[1]

You can take what I am saying lightly if you want. You shouldn't. It seems that you could be a good contributor but I mean it; we have too few committed editors and you are wasting their time cleaning up after you. I will seek a topic ban the next time you add content about health based on a primary source without getting consensus on the associated talk page first. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yea I got how this place works, I will stop using primary sources unless justified and run through other editors. Petergstrom (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

-->

don't know if you noticed this. That editor finally lost it. Was difficult to work with them, but that is unhappy. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Petergstrom (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bipolar disorder page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

PMID 23075555 is not a WP:MEDRS-quality source. It has an impact factor of only 2. Studies of supplements in exercise performance are prone to uncountable variables and errors. Nothing about this journal or the study design described is consistent with MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Really I am! And thank you for using reviews. But you are adding so much, so fast, that it is really important that you take time - you - and make sure everything is OK before you click "save". Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC

Its the autofill with URL function. Sometimes it gets the date, sometimes it fills it with todays date Petergstrom (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to further discuss the idea that you, and others, are postulating on emotion being a conscious experience, since I thought you are not following the changes in the talk page I thought I would give you a notice here as I would like you to comment in there to further elaborate, and feel free to remove this section in your talk page (and no, I'm not even logging in, just prefering to use IPs). thanks 186.144.41.175 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

And now this mess at MDMA. The recent history is a disaster.

I was just thinking how nice it is has been since you have learned better how the community that works on medical/health article operates.

What the heck is going on now? Please please use high quality, recent sources. if you cannot find any about X that is a good sign that we should not discuss X in WP. And please use the talk page to reach consensus.

We do end up taking action to bar disruption from people who refuse to learn and I do not want to go there with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dopaminergic pathways page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fibromyalgia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The APA sent us a take down notice in the paste regarding our use of their criteria. If we are to use them we must paraphrase. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

<--

Hello! Your ANI thread would be significantly easier to follow—and more likely to gain serious attention—if you would thread your posts correctly by indenting each paragraph of your replies exactly one level deeper than the comment to which you are replying. Please review WP:THREAD for examples. Note that threading is required by our guidelines, although compliance is rarely enforced. See WP:TPYES ("Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard formatting and threading." (emphasis added)). Thank you for your time. Rebbing 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Here on your userpage you noted what happened at MDMA and you wrote "I learned about the importance of rhetoric". Please go deeper. Things like blowing off community norms about indenting noted above, ignoring WP:MED's emphasis on high quality sourcing and careful summarizing, and the general ethos here about authentically talking through disagreements, are all deep in the guts of this place in big and small ways. You need to take other people (especially established editors) more seriously as people and engage with them. Doing things like indenting correctly is a sign that you respect other people and their need to be able follow discussions. (small thing that signals deeper things) But instead you are establishing a pattern of not taking other people and community norms seriously, and it is hurting you. I noted this at the ANI here. I am not hopeless about you but my hope is dimming. fwiw. I hope you can turn things around. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Pretty much, I argued my case poorly(which I still do). In the end, the addictiveness was changed to low moderate, from moderate, because of all the sources pulled out, not a single one but my old crappy sources actually explicitly stated anything about addiction. Pretty much in my "flurry" of editing, and arguing I was not able to effectively communicate my point, and when I finally did, the conflict was resolved with a low to moderate instead of moderate rating.Petergstrom (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

nice header change.  :) but your response pretty much missed the point of what i was trying to communicate to you. In any case I wish you well. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm confused. Essentially you were trying to communicate for me to clean up my interactions with other editors, as well as to edit better in general. How did that response miss that?Petergstrom (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was concerned that your remarks were focused on the fact that you were right about the content and the content finally moved toward your position. Which is not the point. But my apologies, if you got it, you got it. That's great. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions: Never ever ever ever refer to another editor as "his/hers/its" again. That is appalling. And leave Flyer 22 Reborn 100% alone. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pro tip: the standard Navigation Popups plugin easily lets you view a user's gender (and other details) when you hover over a linked username. If you don't want to install that, there's also the {{gender}} template, which you can use in preview to find out a user's preferred gender pronouns. (You can set yours here.) Rebbing 09:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

This is to let you know that I have closed the ANI thread that you opened against Flyer22 Reborn. You have been topic banned from medicine and religion for 6 months and that ban will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues. I have also found your harassment allegations of Flyer22 Reborn completely unsubstantiated. I would also remind you not to give the appearance of harassing someone, if anyone finds your interaction with them problematic, stop it or change it. You are also encouraged not to make aspersions or assumptions about someone's mental status.--5 albert square (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom, please self revert these edits. They fall within the topic ban imposed above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe these additional edits also fall within the topic ban imposed above. - Mistercontributer (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Obsessive–compulsive disorder, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caudate and Temporal gyrus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Petergstrom,

You add " It is estimated that the percent of the population that has abused amphetamines cocaine and MDMA combined is between .8% and 2.1%." in the leading paragraph of Stimulant. The reference is . However, I can't find the data in World Drug Report 2015 document. Could you help me to find out what page the data is in? Thanks--Wolfch (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Occipital epilepsy, Petergstrom!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

V.Good!

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Winged Blades ^Godric 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread on you at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So you are back to high speed editing of medical content.

And again you are not providing pmids and pmc it is available.

Wny do we have to go through all of this again?? Again, if you fill out the autocomplete form with the pmid, it will do everything else for you. If there is a pmc you need to add that manually but that is the only thing... . This is not even a little bit hard to understand or to do.

You really could be a great contributor, or you could be a huge time suck on the rest of us. Which will it be? Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So I am missing the PMC/PMID. Will do.Petergstrom (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN.

here is what you did: cite journal|last1=Bloch|first1=Michael H.|last2=Landeros-Weisenberger|first2=Angeli|last3=Rosario|first3=Maria C.|last4=Pittenger|first4=Christopher|last5=Leckman|first5=James F.|title=Meta-Analysis of the Symptom Structure of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder|journal=The American journal of psychiatry|date=December 2008|volume=165|issue=12|pages=1532–1542|doi=10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08020320|pmid=PMC3972003 | url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3972003/ |issn=0002-953X

You put the pmc in the pmid parameter.

You don't need url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3972003/

all that is needed is pmc=3972003

really, if you put in the pmid field (in this case 19432385) the tool will autofill a perfect ref; all you need to do is click the "show additional fields" and fill in the pmc manually and click "insert ref" and there will be no problems.

At the rate that you edit when you get going, you create a pile of work for people to clean up behind you. This is senseless. Please just slow down and do it right the first time. Please! Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

you nailed it here. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you review the history of this page you will see that we had this exact discussion in November 2016 here.

Anyway, it is now fresh for you again, and hopefully we will not need to have it again, ever. I hope! Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed that your article on Hyperreligiosity relies on widely spectulative primary sources, yet you deleted a whole chunk of the relationship between genetics and psychopathy from numerous authors and sources without even going to the talk page. I would like to know if you have an actual standard for deleting "widely spectulative primary sources" or if it is more of a "I have decided I don't agree with this so I will delete it" thing. Also please do notice that WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources are allowed if they are a straightforward quote of what is being discusssed. -Penorhaxs (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So, before I restore that chunk of text, all I need from you is a definition of "reliable source" that we can agree upon, so that we avoid a pointless edit-war. Once I am provided with that, I will review each link and filter those that we can agree are reliable sources. Thank you, - Penorhaxs (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that PubMed is a good starting point? Wikipedia guidelines seem to think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Searching_for_sources -Penorhaxs (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penorhaxs:The very fact that you characterize the sources on the hyperreligiosity page as "primary" leads me to the conclusion that you completely fail to understand the concept-A primary source is one that reports its own experiment, while a secondary source reviews the current literature.

From discussions from other users above, it seems like you actually don't know what a primary source is or what is primary research, so this is not a first time. Case in point is your article quoting: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1819.1998.00397.x/full IT is CLEARLY a primary source: it is a research paper which slowly describes the method used and the raw data captured, and then expand into its immediate conclusions without further review. It is not a summary by a third party, neither a meta-analysis, in any sort of way, it is LITERALLY original research that you are linking, and the same happens with numerous other links that you have posted.

So unless you provide me with a clear definition of what is actually a primary source that is compatible with your random tastes, I will proceed to clear the text that you randomly deleted from Psychopathy from possible original research links, and replace them with actual links from meta-analysis from PubWeb, which should take me one day or two. If you desire, before I put the text back in, I can provide you with links to the third-party reviews from Pubmed that we can discuss so that we can agree on their validity, like mature men do. Does that sound good to you, or shall I expect childish random deletions? I mean really, what I want is to avoid the random "undo / rollback" that sadly dominates this kind of arguments. -Penorhaxs (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penorhaxs: There is generally no reason to use a primary source. However, in WP:Primary exceptions are discussed. When quality secondary sources can be used in place of primary sources, they should be, however in the hyperreligiosity article, there are few secondary sources. A primary source reinforcing a secondary source is justifiable. The psychopathy article is not the same.Petergstrom (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There are few secondary sources because Hyper-Religiousity is not an actual "psychiatric disturbance" recognized by any medical bureau. The entire article seems to be your own original research combined with other people's original research. "Hyperreligiosity is a psychiatric disturbance in which a person experiences intense religious beliefs or experiences that interfere with normal functioning." is a case of According to Whom?. Where did you take that definition of hyperreligiousity from? The origin of it seems to be yourself entirely, there are zero links to its definition because it is not recognized as such, and it is instead seen as a symptom of far more complex manias. If I review more of your articles I am sure I will find even more widespread original research.

Anyhow. I am going to write the improved version of the genetics section of Psychopathy, and I just wanna know, can we review it together before I submit it, or will it be a back and forth until arbitration? Can we work like that, in a peaceful manner, so that we won't be reverting each other randomly and waste everyone's time? I mean really, you are a hedonist, surely you have more enjoyable things than going into the endless waste of time of arbitration because you wanna remove the text that had been part of the article for years before Vrie0006 decided to delete it last year without awaiting for discussion? -Penorhaxs (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penorhaxs: Hyperreligiosity is a symptom in psychiatry, not a disorder. It is not original research, perhaps you should review that term as well :WP:OR.

Again, According to whom. Who says that "Hyperreligiosity is a psychiatric disturbance in which a person experiences intense religious beliefs or experiences that interfere with normal functioning"? You? Someone else? Can you provide with a link? The article even includes obvious spelling errors (Hyperrelgiosity, really?) it is quite evident it is made largely of original research. WP:OR could not be even clearer: all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source. The very first phrase of the articles has no such scientific attribution whatsoever. The rest of it is research papers describing experiments and conclusions, not actual encyclopedic material.

Again, Can we review an improved version of Psychopathy together, or do I have to expect childish, mindless undos? -Penorhaxs (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penorhaxs: Again ACCORDING TO THE 10 SOURCES CITED, only a minority of which are primary source that support the wealth of secondary sources.

The psychopathy article does not need a genetics section, made up of entirely primary sources. If you can find a review, go ahead and make the section.Petergstrom (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Good enough. I will be making the required chances so that the article can have a proper genetics sections. You shall see it up in a few days, according to my work schedule. Peace. -Penorhaxs (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

1. Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
2. We do that, by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources. (for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF)
3. Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please be aware that predatory publishers exist - check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
4. The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead, that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
5. More generally see WP:MEDHOW
6. Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
7. We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
8. Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
9. Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
10. Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
11. Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
12. Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
13. Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Specifically refs go right after the punctuation and we use very few caps. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Insula, Caudate, Salience and Culmen

Bipolar disorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Insula

Cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caudate

Mechanisms of schizophrenia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Insula

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anorexia nervosa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caudate and Fornix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Petergstrom,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Biology of bipolar disorder should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology of bipolar disorder .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 19:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dschslava: I have not had a lot of experience with the AFD process, and am wondering why the article was put up for deletion in the first place. There has been no activity on the AFD for the page since I last posted there, and am curious to know when the deletion proposal will be rejected.Petergstrom (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panic disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your userpage is pretty funny. Please consider writing something for the Humour section in the Signpost. I'm the humour editor but any one can initiate a coup. See my latest example and draft Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 07:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biology of depression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caffeine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I am glad to see that you have knowledge of neurochemistry.

I noticed that you undid my addition to the article on Parkinson's Disease about the current hypothesis that PD may originate in the gut. But you did not explain why you undid my edit--neither in the Edit Summary nor on the article's TALK page. That's not how we do things at Wikipedia. For every edit you make, you are ALWAYS supposed to put something in the Summary Line to explain what you have done and why (unless the "why" is manifestly obvious from the edit itself, in which case you still should enter what you have done). A summary can be very short but you are never supposed to leave it blank. I have been gently rebuked in the distant past by a Wikipedia moderator for having failed to understand this.

Accordingly, I have replaced my addition. If you think it should be removed, the way we handle a situation like that is you add a new section to the article's TALK page, describe your opinion about the edit in question, and your reason for your opinion. Then, you wait for other users to chime in and eventually, when consensus emerges, you go with the consensus.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads-up...sci-hub.tw is now blacklisted here on en.wp, so you might have problems when you next try to edit User:Petergstrom/sandbox unless you remove the links to that site. DMacks (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Petergstrom,

My name is Matt Nemet and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a firm specializing in healthcare. One of our clients, electroCore (a commercial-stage bioelectronic medicine company), has expressed interest in increasing patient awareness on vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment for headaches, and views Wikipedia as a valuable outlet to focus on as they market gammaCore Sapphire (a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator). The company’s current focus is in multiple conditions, including cluster headache and migraine.

In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released gammaCore for the acute treatment of pain associated with episodic cluster headache in adult patients, and this year, the FDA cleared gammaCore for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine headache in adult patients. However, we would also like to bring to your attention a recent review of cervical vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders, published in the Journal of Pain Research on August 27th.

We know that Wikipedia users depend on active and reputable editors for reliable content. We also felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages such as migraine, you might be interested in considering this review to include up-to-date information on vagus nerve stimulation and/or gammaCore on relevant Wikipedia pages, such as vagus nerve stimulation for example.

We want to be upfront in our awareness that, per Wikipedia guidelines, neither the company nor those directly associated with the company can make such edits. It is an important set of rules and guidelines that we respect, as our priority is ensuring Wikipedia has the most current and relevant information possible. Therefore, we are reaching out, if you are willing to assess the value of the proposed information to make accurate and appropriate updates.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards, MSN2017 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Reward system#Clinical evidence of a causal link between dopamine and music-elicited pleasure. Also, if you've really run a 4 minute mile, you're a monster. >.> My most notable running feat is a 3:16:42 marathon time, which isn't that big of a deal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, will definetly give it a closer look later. A marathon is something by itself, I dont think Ive ever run farther than 15 miles.Petergstrom (talk)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fellow student, I tried to look for Neurobiology of mental illness the 5th ed. Can you please share :) Thanks in advance here is my email adress: laasmiwalid@hotmail.com Walidou47 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm working on getting bipolar disorder to GA. It's basically there but I'm just wondering if you might be able to help me out on the mechanism section. I'm not sure if you wrote that section or Triangular did or Casliber. Was it you by chance? There's a bit of clarification needed about the vPFC section per the GA review. If you have any insights into this, please let me know. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)