User talk:Tobiasi0

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tobiasi0! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Zai talk 18:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletions

I have declined several of your speedy deletion requests for redirects because they did not specify a valid speedy deletion criteria. Please read and understand those criteria before making adding any more speedy deletion tags. If you feel the redirects need to be deleted, you should nominate them at WP:RFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system

Hi, I have reverted the tag you put on the article. Please see MOS:LEADCITE. Graham Beards (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards got it, thank you for the information. Tobiasi0 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson’s disease

I noticed that you have edited the page Parkinson’s disease recently; however, it looks like most of those edits do not comply to our sourcing guidelines (e.g. Review articles published in 5-10 years) for biomedical content. Please slow down your edit and discuss on the article’s talk page first. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I will keep an eye on the source dates. –Tobias (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the biomedical context, I made sure that the information I inserted were up to date. That doesn't account for all signs and symptoms, as basic understanding hasn't changed in the near past which I made sure as well before rewriting the section. So there shouldn't be any sources explaining biomechanical mechanisms that are older than five years, let alone "most of those edits". –Tobias (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelman syndrome

Hello, thanks for your edit there; I've had to fix it to more closely line up with the sources. Please be careful with this. Graham87 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth doing something like that in the cause section of that article too, so that the lead summarises the article, not the other way around. Graham87 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe not ... Graham87 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87 that are quite a lot of changed decisions not to mention your edit history there, so what exactly is your plan? :D –Tobias (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah :-) ... I'm removing the microdeletion bit because it can be more than 5Mb, but keeping your removal of the alternative name. Graham87 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87 to get this right: do you mean 5 MBit? –Tobias (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just got this ... yep, that's what I meant. Graham87 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm drawing a blank - how do 5MBit correlate with my edit? –Tobias (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital media use and mental health cleanup tag

Hello Tobiasi0! I noticed that you recently added a cleanup rewrite tag to the Digital media use and mental health article that makes reference to the Associated psychiatric disorders section. However, after reading caption in the tag and WP:MEDMOS, I'm not really sure I understand your concerns. Could you elaborate? I'm trying to improve the article back featured status if possible, and was planning on adding sections about body image and eating disorders, loneliness, suicide and self-harm, and evolutionary psychology for the article. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, my primary concern is that large parts of the article are just a chronological list of clinical trials, which, according to WP:MEDMOS, specifically the "Cite sources, don't describe them" section, is not the preferred style for sources on Wikipedia. I think the best way to elaborate is an example:

Original text:

"In April 2018, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a systematic review of 24 studies researching associations between internet gaming disorder (IGD) and various psychopathologies that found an 89% correlation between IGD and depression. In July 2018, JMIR Mental Health published a systematic review of 11 studies investigating social media use and depression among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) users that found that while qualitative research found that social media use could lead to greater social support and less loneliness for LGB users, LGB users were more likely to be cyberbullied than heterosexual users, that cyberbullying of LGB users was associated with depression among victims, and constant monitoring of accounts by LGB users was also found to be a stressor associated with depression."

Could be wrapped up to just:

In 2018, the correlation between internet gaming disorder (IGD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) was found to be 89 %, while there is growing evidence that LGBT users on social media are at higher risk of experiencing cyberbullying and loneliness, resulting in higher susceptibility for developing MDD.

And then just add the corresponding citation. This pattern is a general problem on Wikipedia, but it is especially striking in this article. As you may notice, the article could be shortened to possibly around the half of its current length without removing any actual content. Thank you for your efforts in advance, even if you might not share my opinion. It is valuable that some users improve articles to make them meet GA or even FA criteria. –Tobias (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...according to WP:MEDMOS, specifically the "Cite sources, don't describe them" section, is not the preferred style for sources on Wikipedia. ... This pattern is a general problem on Wikipedia, but it is especially striking in this article. ...the article could be shortened to possibly around the half of its current length without removing any actual content. Thank you for your efforts in advance, even if you might not share my opinion. Quite the contrary; I completely agree with your concerns. My principal aim when I started expanding the Associated psychiatric disorders section was to address the lack of secondary sources due to a WP:MEDREF maintenance tag that was added and has since been removed. However, another editor suggested at the talk page discussion on the FAR notice that it may be better summarize the references this way given the conflicted state of the research about the topic and the related difficulty in creating a clear and useful summary under WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you have the time and would be willing, I would have no problem with you rewriting the section in accordance WP:MEDMOS and any of the other sections that I add (especially since I don't have access to many of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses due to paywalls), but leave a comment at the FAR notice talk page discussion if you do so the other editor is aware. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear that. I would love to help, but I currently don't have the time or motivation to rewrite the entire page. I flagged a few articles for flaws as came across them. My main objective right now is to complete the copy-editing for Parkinson's disease before I move on to other diseases. I feel you regarding the paywalls; I don't have access to this articles either. On the other hand, utilizing accessible sources is crucial for ensuring that we provide transparent information and uphold basic scientific transparency standards, so this isn't necessarily unfavorable. There are usually quite a lot of recent publications of high-quality available to the public. –Tobias (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Psychedelic drug page

Hello Tobias. The psychedelic page was originally it's own page, which someone split into Psychedelia and psychedelic (disambiguation). I would be all for moving Psychedelic (disambiguation) back to Psychedelic, and also for moving Psychedelic drug to Psychedelic (drug) if you would like to propose them. --Thoric (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, but I don't want to initiate a new move request on the same article within such a short time frame. We could either wait or try it with WP:BB, as the previous request had nothing to do with this idea. –Tobias (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]