User talk:Indianfella

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Indianfella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at John Money[edit]

Hi Indianfella, I'm Mathglot. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to one or more articles such as John Money without citing a reliable source. Please note that all content and edits on Wikipedia are expected to be verifiable in reliable sources. In articles related to medical topics, the standard for content and sourcing is defined at WP:MEDRS, and in your edit you did not include any references that meet that ideal. Please have a look at MEDRS to learn about the quality standards for medical sourcing. You might also want to take a look at WikiProject Medicine. If you have any questions related to sourcing of medical issues, you can ask at the WikiProject Medicine Talk page. For general questions about sourcing, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI wrt D. Janssen[edit]

Indianfella, may I ask if you have any professional or personal connection to Diederik F. Janssen, who has published articles on sexuality, gender, urology, and nephrology? If so, you may have a conflict of interest, with respect to writing articles about these and other related topics. The WP:COI guideline explains what to do next, notably, to WP:DISCLOSE your connection, if any, and also gives guidelines about how to edit on these topics.

I noticed this because of recent edits at the articles Benjamin Rush, Gender, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, John Money, Nosophobia, and Transgender, which all include citations to article(s) by Janssen. In addition, to the extent that one or more of these citations fail to meet the standards of reliable sourcing policy, or of medical sourcing for those articles which must meet that quality standard, or appear to be WP:REFSPAM, I will be backing out your changes from these articles. If you feel that these citations are relevant, conform to Wikipedia content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and are not excessive, you may reinsert them, with appropriate justification in the edit summary. For additional guidance, please see WP:COI#Citing yourself. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, you appear to be a single-purpose account, as every edit of yours since 2017 involves adding a Janssen reference to an article. This does not mean that these references are necessarily irrelevant, or unreliable; it just means that you probably have a bias concerning Janssen, and it would be best if editors other than yourself added these citations to the articles. You can encourage the addition of references by going to the Talk page of any article (click the 'Talk' tab at the top of the article page), start a new discussion there, and propose that a reference of your choice be added to the article, and explain your reasons why it is appropriate. It's probably a good idea to WP:DISCLOSE your possible COI when doing so, or you can simply link to this discussion. Any other editor may then discuss with you on the article Talk page if warranted, or may simply follow your suggestion, and add the reference for you. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles[edit]

Hello again, Indianfella. Completely apart from any issues concerning possible COI, and apart from the requirements of medical sourcing, there is another issue you need to know about. Below is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. This isn't about you or your editing so far; everybody that edits gender-related articles gets one of these sooner or later. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there is a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial topic areas, like gender. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Wikipedia mistakes[edit]

@Mathglot: Thank you; first time "talking" here. Sure, I have a personal connection to Janssen, and can readily appreciate concerns for reliable referencing, previously unknown to me. My very limited edits all pertain to researched corrections of wikipedia text, published in leading peer reviewed journals. The concern for Wikipedia:MEDRS seems overdrawn in the case of Money: I appropriately qualified my claims which are not medical, but historical, at best medical historical. My addition was correct and referenced; what is up now is incorrect. Sidenote: to conceptualize GENDER (or e.g. TRANSGENDER) as "medical" is cool only if you need to medicalize. I appreciate your concerns for WP:SELFPUB and WP:COI#Citing yourself -- but they would have more traction if your interventions were based on substance in individual cases. Self-referencing is obviously problematic in academe; I never imagined this held for wikipedia in terms of "COI" (wiki is useless for academic purposes save perhaps for references to the latest peer-reviewed materials, which I provide). In response to your query: I find none "excessive". It seems that to remedy the semblance of excessiveness I could cite more authors not Janssen? Appreciated. But researchers are naturally curious about how wikipedia represents things they (recently) researched, and this obviously is likely to result in an eagerness to correct egregious mistakes, which useful research may well point out. That's not COI in my book, that's assisting high school students and the general public in not falling into egregious misunderstandings and superseded research. Please make it about substance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianfella (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, a bit of procedure, before we get to substance (which probably won't be today; I'm otherwise engaged):

please title your newly created sections the way a headline writer would for a newspaper article (or for that matter, the way you would for a journal submission). See WP:TALK for general guidelines about Talk pages.
terminate your message with four tildes ( ~~~~ ); this will be converted by WikiMedia software into your signature and timestamp.
If replying to an existing comment already in a discussion, please use leading colons on each new paragraph to provide an appropriate level of indentation. See WP:THREAD for details. (Note that this message is indented one tab stop to the right with respect to your message; that's the general principle.)

I'll have to respond later to matters of substance. I'll just say this for now: if you find information about Money that is incorrect, just remove it. If it is referenced with a superscript numerical footnote leading to a reliable source, then leave a message in the edit summary giving sufficient justification for removing it. "Just saying 'removed inaccurate information' isn't sufficient if it's sourced; someone will probably just revert you. You'd have to actually justify either why the source is wrong, or why the source does not verify the assertion of fact in the article. The edit summary has a few hundred characters of text available for this; if that's not enough to explain the removal, then just write a brief summary message, include the words "See Talk" at the end of it, and then raise a section on the Talk page and use as much space as you need (remembering to sign with WP:4TILDES).

In the meantime, maybe have a look at some of the links in the Welcome message. I'll try to remember to come back but if I forget, just ping me again in a couple of days. You're also welcome to interact with other editors, or pose questions. You can summon an experienced editor here to your Talk page, by writing a question in a new section, and including the token {{Help me}} somewhere in it. You can also visit the WP:Tea house for general questions about Wikipedia, and the WP:Reference desk for questions about how to edit. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: you can discuss your proposed changes about Money on its Talk page; just go to Talk:John Money, add a new section, say what you propose to do and why, and see what other editors have to say in response. That would be a good start. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]