User talk:AmiLynch

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Sertraline , please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..

The source you used is considered unreliable on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sertraline[edit]

I don't mean to be stepping on your toes there. If I'm annoying you, tell me to go away until you're finished. (It's bed time here, so I won't be doing any more for a bit.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with Ami's edits. First, they are tendentious, e.g. changing wording to make antidepressants look bad. Second, Amy has to read the article before requesting citations in the lead. Lead is a summary and citations are not necessary in the lead, if the main text has them. Third, Kirsch meta-analysis applies to the sum of all SSRIs, but not necessarily to sertraline. Besides, Kirsch meta-analysis is flawed, there are later, better balanced meta-analyses. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Tendentious. Regardless of how the term is typically used here, Ami hasn't done enough editing to demonstrate a tendency one way or another. I'm a little concerned that you are leaping to insulting language from the outset, and asserting that an edit that makes antidepressants look bad is evidence of tendentiousness. Would you have said the same if the edit had made them look good?

You're right that lede's don't have to include citations, per WP:LEAD, but it's not a bad idea when an assertion is potentially surprising - it saves the reader the trouble of scouring the body for the source.

If you have a problem with the content or sources of any edits, please take it to the article's talk page, so that all editors interested can benefit from your insight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said tendentious I meant tendentious. Check Ami's edit history.

"Would you have said the same if the edit had made them look good?" - If somebody went across antidepressants articles deleting adverse effects and claiming efficacy where none has been proven, I would call that tendentious and reverted that. As a matter of fact, I have done so. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look at Ami's contributions later. The samples I've seen don't smell like trouble, but I'll let you know when I've had a good look. I have more important things to do for now, unless you think it's a pressing problem. I'd appreciate it if you dropped that kind of language unless you can - are willing to go to the trouble to - back it up with a convincing set of diffs. For the time being, let's discuss content.

I've been distracted by Talk:Fibromyalgia#Tramadol, and will be busy on other things for a few days, but I do intend doing a careful review of Sertraline - which will take some time.

Ami, it's OK to insert the stuff about drug companies hiding neutral or negative results, and the stuff about antidepressants being little more effective than placebo, but if an editor has an objection, as SC does, the next step is to discuss (per WP:BRD). I won't be engaging in that discussion until I've finished my review of the article and done a lot more reading besides. I'll ping you here when I'm ready to start that discussion, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Wikipedia's antidepressant articles[edit]

Hi AmiLynch. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's antidepressant coverage? Do you know if we do a generally good job of conveying antidepressants' efficacy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPA/COI[edit]

Hi AmiLynch. Your account appears to be a WP:SPA (please read that) and SPA accounts often have a conflict of interest. Hence the notice I am provided here.

Hello, AmiLynch. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Please clarify if you have a conflict with regard to the content you are editing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what my conflict of interest could be. I do not have one. I am simply well read on this subject, and noticed a deficiency in wikipedia's coverage of the matter, whereas this is not the case for other topics. AmiLynch (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I hope you read WP:SPA - please know your account is a SPA and we will be reacting to your posts as such. SPA editors ~generally~ either have a COI or are advocates, and neither leads to alignment with Wikipedia's mission. Please note that WP:COI says "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." and please note the section, WP:COISELF. Please also make sure you read WP:EXPERT, especially bullet point 5 under warnings. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded further to this. As a new editor I don't reckon that you understand what the en-WP commmunity means when it talks about "conflict of interest". The question I asked about, was "connections". Would you please describe any connections you have with sources or issues you have edited about or with? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia employee"[edit]

here you asked if I am a "Wikipedia employee". Wikipedia has no employees. I am not sure what you were asking about? If it is about "authority", that is a kind of complicated thing to talk about in Wikipedia, but is perhaps addressed by this very short, but important essay: WP:CLUE. If you want to ask a more nuanced question or discuss this further, you can reply here.

I replied here instead of at the article talk page, because article talk pages are strictly for discussing article content. (See WP:TPG) Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia has employees, and they host Wikipedia. AmiLynch (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has employees. They generally use WMF in parentheses behind their names when they make edits as employees, for example like this -- WhatamIdoing (WMF) -- as opposed to WhatamIdoing when they edit as volunteers. I am not a WMF employee. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]