RiverMonkey

Your submission at Articles for creation

The Third Ventricle Hypothesis of Depression, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheOneSean | Talk to me 18:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Independent Manchester United Supporters Association

What exactly is inaccurate about the facts in the article as it stands? Seems pretty accurate to me, if a little incomplete. – PeeJay 23:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Every line has an error and it doesn't reflect IMUSA's position in 2013

IMUSA doesn't claim to represent anyone's interests - it furthers them
The club hasn't spoken to IMUSA since 2005 so the facilitate lines of communication is wrong
The group wasnt formed as a protest against standing
IMUSA isn't opposed to foreign ownership - nationality is irrelevant - it is the leveraged buyout we object to
IMUSA doesn't believe in 'true' owners only owners and what we believe in is supporter ownership

OK, I completely agree with the changes you would like to make and I acknowledge that, in its current state, the article is badly worded. However, the way you have gone about making these changes is not appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Adding copyrighted material to the article was your first mistake; if you want to add material, make sure it isn't lifted verbatim from another website, even if it is your own. As a side note, if the content on the IMUSA website is not copyrighted, you really ought not to have a copyright symbol on every single page, as that might (quite rightly) give people the impression that it is.

Second, if you have a problem with content, don't just blank the entire page, as that can be perceived as malicious and detrimental to the encyclopaedia. Instead, please highlight errors and inconsistencies on the article's discussion page (see Talk:Independent Manchester United Supporters Association) and we can take it from there.

Finally, per Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interests, you should not be contributing to an article you have a vested interest in. By all means point out errors on the article's discussion page, but it is not right for you to make changes yourself.

Now, if you check the article history, you will see that I have an interest in improving and maintaining the quality of the article, and I appreciate your help, so thank you for pointing out the issues you have with the content as it stands, and I will try to implement changes that will meet with the satisfaction of all parties concerned. – PeeJay 20:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RiverMonkey. You have new messages at Talk:Independent Manchester United Supporters Association.
Message added 11:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! You may not have been aware but Wikipedia has a Manual of Style at WP:MOS. All articles should have a lead giving a brief overview of the subject matter and external links should not be formatted as jumps within the text, but either as references or in an external link section. The "Background" section does suffice as a simple lead, and the external jump you added is a duplication of the first reference, and so should be formatted as part of it. DrKiernan (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent editing history at Third ventricle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war????

I have left a message for the person who keeps changing this page but they have not responded - can you advise what else I am supposed to do in this situation please? The person who keeps editing the page does not appear to accept reference to published work for reasons I am unable to comprehend

At this point, it is actually multiple people, not just one. If you go to Talk:Third ventricle, you can start a discussion there, and ask for editors to reach WP:Consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's actually one person who doesn't like Medical Hypothesis and who commented on this six months ago - in response I put *three* other references up and the problem seemed to go away. This same person came back with the same issue a couple of days ago, having seemingly forgotten they had made this point before ...

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

About the third ventricle discussions

At the merge discussion on the hypothesis talk page, I asked you to take a look at WP:COI, and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Based upon your subsequent comments, I'm unsure about whether you really took that advice. Please understand that nothing that I have been saying, nor anything that the other editors have been saying, is in any way personal about you or about your scientific colleagues. Rather, it's about what Wikipedia is, and is not. I get the feeling that you are trying to get Wikipedia to help advance an argument in your research field in a way that a review article in a scientific journal or a symposium at a scientific conference might serve to do. But that's just not what Wikipedia is about. If you persist in trying to get something to happen that Wikipedia is not going to do, you will just be frustrated. I say all of this while holding you personally and your research in high regard, so I'm not criticizing you, but trying to help you understand how things work here, so you can avoid disappointment in the long run. Please read those two links, and think about them carefully. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the link you added to Evolutionary approaches to depression because it seemed like you were just trying to promote material which editors here seem to have decided is inappropriate. I second the comments above that you're going about this the wrong way - trying to use Wikipedia to further a theory, rather than getting work published in the field regarding it. GreenReaper (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article. I updated the link to a new article giving more detail of a *published* theory since the original article was removed - the theory *is* published in several peer reviewed journals whether Wikipedia editors like this or not and all this was was a link to a thumbnail sketch to save people having to wade through the original articles to get to the point. I'm sure Wikipedia is all the better for its readers no longer being afforded the convenience of a direct link to this thumbnail and so I thank you once again for the attention you have given this matter ... RiverMonkey (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)