Knownnotknown

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Debtors' prison have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Debtors' prison was changed by Knownnotknown (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955666 on 2021-04-17T03:07:10+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Debtors' prison. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am an aspiring contributor to wikipedia. This was my effort to clean link rot. It would have helped if you acknowledged in your public reprimand that I had fixed a link rot. The link rot I fixed was not affiliated to me, it was not promoting a product, it was not link to a personal website, it was not added to attract visitors to a website. For the time being I am moving forward with your assertion that I cannot fix link rot by a link to a blog page on that topic. Though I am waiting for you to cite a specific wikipedia guideline. I would also like to point out that all your edits are reverting other users edit. Please give specific citations of rule violation instead of throwing the rule book. After making a decision that looks arbitrary at least to new editors. You are one of the top 500 editors on wikipedia, maybe it is time to welcome new editors. Knownnotknown (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not call it disruptive editing when there is a difference in opinion. The differences in opinion is clearly documented at Senior moderator arbitration page and Your talk page. Knownnotknown (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Depression (mood). Megaman en m (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

PHQ9 is clinically validated and is considered the gold standard for diagnosing depression. If you can find me an alternative link I will gladly replace it. I dont have a stake in the game. My only goal is to give readers a tool that they can use while they suffer from social stigma and do not seek help. Continue the existing long discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression to prevent edit war.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie I have no stake in the URL. Give me a similar tool and I will gladly replace the link. Stigma in mental health is real. Need for privacy-first tools is real. You have not been able to defend when it was made clear that you were reverting changes before reading the destination link. Why are you fighting this. I truly want to understand. Q1) Do you agree that stigma is a major barrier to mental health? Q2) Do you agree that privacy-first PHQ9 implementation can lead to lot less suffering? Q3) Do you agree that destination link is not commercial? Q4) Do you agree that people running the destination links are psychiatrists ? Knownnotknown (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No link to a copy of the PHQ9 will work. That is what a primary source is - the thing being discussed. A secondary source (which is what we can actually use here) is someone writing about the PHQ9, not the PHQ9 itself. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping the edit war and moving it to talk page. Now please let us talk on WT:MED. To make a point here is a quote from WT:MED by senior editor @WhatamIdoing "if by "tool", you mean something like a calculator or online quiz, then that would normally be placed in the ==External links== section instead of being hidden behind a little blue clicky number as a ref." Knownnotknown (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a link to primary source. It is an implementation of the primary source. An implementation of a primary source is by its very nature a discussion of the primary source. As a corollary if there was a research never implemented and a team implemented it and gave their opinion on the FAQ page that is the research being discussed and evaluated. The FAQ page has clear opinion of a well renowned psychiatrist about PHQ9 and hence the reasons for implementing it. Knownnotknown (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My perspective comes from 2 decades of continuous work with most innovative mental health startups in the bay area. Countering Stigma with privacy first early detection tools when brought to masses with wikipedia can help save 1000's of lives each year. Knownnotknown (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Knownnotknown reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made a detailed response at the noticeboard laying down how you reverted my edits without looking at the destination URL. You did not respond to the discussion on WT:MED even with repeated requests from me. This leads me to posit you cornered me into 3 reverts in 24 hours and then subsequently reported me. Because you could not win the debate on WT:MED you decided to take the debate to the noticeboard. It is an interesting signal that all your edits on wikipedia are reverts to other users edits. Since you are a top 500 editor on wikipedia, I know I cannot win an edit war with you. I came to this with 20 years of experience in mental health and to do good for the world. I hope you realize what you have done here. This tool would have saved 1000's of lives every month. Maybe with the universe's grace this unreasonable edit war you started will just lead to more exposure for this life saving tool Knownnotknown (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, No one 'cornered' you into anything, especially since you are continuing to edit war while the noticeboard discussion remains open. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize what you are doing. PHQ9 will save 1000's of lives each month. Please think wait and read up on PHQ9. I have no stake in the destination URL. Why don't you debate on the existing comprehensive debate at WT:MED? Knownnotknown (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Knownnotknown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My opinion on mental health comes with 20 years of working on mental health with the most innovative startups in silicon valley.

I am trying to use my experience to point out that lot of research shows mental health stigma causes millions of deaths worldwide. Since people due to fear of being judged do not seek help. I am sure each of you reading this can relate to social stigma's negative effects on mental health.

Mental health of today is the AIDS of 1980's

The way to counter stigma is to provide early detection tools where people are certain that their information will not be stored in a giant database and then used for advertising or worse yet being leaked and resulting in social stigma.

I gave link to clinically validated and researched tool to measure depression. This is the gold standard of measuring depression. I was told by moderators on WT:MED e.g. WhatamIdoing that this was a relevant external link but not a reference. This destination URL is secondary in nature based on the results of the research which comes from over 1000 depressed patients discussed on the FAQ section of the tool.

I would like to point out that MrOllie reverted multiple edits without looking at the destination URL. I was able to expose him on WT:MED since during yesterday's discussion on WT:MED a moderator commented he could not access the tool. I sent an email to the webmaster and I got a reply saying that the tool was only accessible within 5 miles of Stanford (ip-based-geo-tagged). Subsequently they removed the block.

I would like to point out I requested MrOllie and Megaman_en_m multiple times to continue conversation on the WT:MED existing discussion which they did not.

Also the destination link is completely non-commercial. There is not even links to other tools or articles on the destination link.

I have no stake in the destination URL. Find me an alternative link and I will gladly replace. My only stake is to make this privacy-first tool that nullifies mental health stigma available to the masses. I am convinced this will lead to early detection of depression and save 1000's of lives every month.

I have come to this with best intentions. I hope you are able to see through the edit war started by MrOllie where my comments were just ignored, opinion from other moderators on WT:MED was ignored and the destination URL was not even seen. Knownnotknown (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. This does not address the reason for your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was just on my way here to express concerns about this editor, prepared to head next to WP:ANI, so am relieved to see this block. Knownnotknown, you have now carried your use of a non-compliant source to a Featured article, major depressive disorder, and don't seem to be hearing the message. I am concerned not only about your edit warring, but also suggest that you read WP:COI, WP:MEDRS, WP:OWN#Featured articles, and suggest that you should stop insisting upon inserting a non-MEDRS source into Wikipedia articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor had already stopped trying to use it as a source. It's not an unreasonable link for an ==External links== section.

Knownnotknown, come back tomorrow and try talking to people again. You don't need to edit any articles at all for the next while. Just try to persuade people that a link to an online quiz would be a good idea that could interest some readers and would comply with Wikipedia:External links. If you talk people into it, they'll stick it in the article(s) themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Likewise, I am relieved that the editor has been blocked, myself undoing his edits to Depression barely yesterday. To be honest, I'd slap at least a fortnight's block, since it's not only about edit warring but about the sheer amount of disruption that the editor has caused to the project (including to a FA), and about their refusal to communicate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, I don't think this editor deserved that complaint about a "refusal to communicate". Only a quarter of their editors are to articles. Almost all of the rest are efforts to communicate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparison of PHQ9 tools moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Comparison of PHQ9 tools, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  A S U K I T E  00:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Comparison of PHQ9 tools (May 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zoozaz1 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Comparison of PHQ9 tools and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Comparison of PHQ9 tools, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zoozaz1 talk 01:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Knownnotknown! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Zoozaz1 talk 01:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Comparison of PHQ9 tools

Hello, Knownnotknown. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Comparison of PHQ9 tools, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)