| Revision as of 14:55, 16 October 2009 editWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →A couple of notes: a couple more notes← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 16 October 2009 edit undoRiverpa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users807 edits →A couple of notesNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:bioidentical hormone replacement therapy|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:bioidentical hormone replacement therapy|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | ||
| ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 12:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :When I have a comment that is directed squarely at you, I will use your talk page. Part of wikipedia is communication, and when the issue is with an editor's actions and not the page itself, then it is appropirate to use their talk page and not the article talk page. You are free to remove my comments if you wish, but doing so without reading them will inevitably lead to problems because you will not see the reasons for my changes - which I always provide and always do my best to base on the ]. There's a reason my signature links to the P&G pages - I take them very seriously and if I'm wrong, I admit it and change my behaviour accordingly. | |||
| :I am not threatening you. An ] is an unfortunate but common occurence on wikipedia. You are an inexperienced editor, and are therefore unlikely to be familiar with the specific policies and guidelines governing editorial disputes. Ergo, I am informing you. A ] is a standard template ({{tl|uw-3rr}}) that is meant to be neutral and informative. It is also a necessary step to ensure that you are ''informed'' of the policies and intolerance of 3RR issues, and if you continue to revert, you will be ]. Not by me, I am not an admin and can't block anyone. I would report it at the ] where an uninvolved admin would review the incident and issue a ruling - possibly a block, possibly a warning. In neither of our cases would the block be permanent, in your case it would probably be for a day at the most. You wouldn't be blocked if I hadn't delivered a warning on your talk page; it's both a necessary step and a check against abuse. | |||
| :A final note - I find it ''very easy'' to justify my changes. This is one of the main indications that I have that my changes are aligned with the intent of ]. I try to base my changes on direct quotes from reliable sources with minimal interpretation. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate it by citing the relevant source and appropriate sections. Most are either PDFs or web pages, either of which allow searching of exact phrases. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. In cases where your edits have added value to the page (i.e. the estriol comment in edit) I have kept them. And if I didn't have ready access to direct quotes from six sources that contradicted your points, I wouldn't object to them so much. That I can find so many sources that contradict so many points without having to perform any extra searches is the reason why I am reverting so readily. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:58, 16 October 2009
Re: Balticon
That kind of data is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in an article about a given SF con. There are a lot of mundanes out there who would love to see all fandom-related articles deleted; the last thing we need to do is to provide fodder for their arguments by padding articles with trivial detail about what's on the program at a given con (which changes every year anyway. (When was the last con you went to that had a banquet, once a fixture of convention programming?) Concentrate on providing evidence (preferably from the mundane press, or at least sources known to mundanes like Locus) to prove notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article needs more substantial, encyclopedic content. Examples would be information derived from articles in reliable sources explaining its history (putting it into a context as part of the history of SF and fandom, etc.) or stating what role Balticon plays in SF culture in the Mid-Atlantic states. This is a reference work, not a con-goer's directory. Look at Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, etc. for relevant information. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
David Standish Ball
I understand; uncited claims in biographies should be tagged or removed. Yes, I've heard the jokes about Canon Ball. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions
Hi,
In this edit you state " While the meaning you espouse is perfectly valid, and we are not trying to negate it..." - may I ask who the "we" is? Do you represent an organization?
Second, have you ever previously had a wikipedia account? The request for comment is an unusual step.
Third, have you read the talk page as I suggested? This discussion has happened before. Also, have you reviewed the relevant content policies I have pointed out, notably WP:OR and WP:NPOV? My edits are not based on not understanding the definition of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, it's based on how they are discussed in peer-reviewed journals. It is therefore important for you to understand these policies, and be able to demonstrate that the relevant sources are in fact discussing bioidentical hormones in the way you suggest before editing towards this point. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPOV - we represent issues as found in the appropriate literature. The majority of references portray bioidentical hormones as I have; unproven, misrepresented, borderline dishonest and with the same expected benefits and risks of conventional hormone replacement therapy. Also review WP:MEDRS and WP:CANVASS. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of notes
Boothby does not have an "e" in it.
Why should we highlight Boothby's work in particular? By using both a quote and using a name, a reader's attention is drawn and leads to the question "Who is Boothby and why should I care"? That's why we link to the various agencies making claims and statements.
If you don't like the wording, pick a wording that you think better represents the sources. Don't just blanket revert the addition of a half-dozen sources that converge on and support these points.
Please read the articles more carefully - most explicitly or implicitly support my points, and I'm finding this out merely through reviewing the Definitions section of the talk page. I'm not picking studies at random, I'm basing my edits on these articles and reviewing them based on your comments to ensure they are accurate. If a study says BHRT involves compounding, and BHRT is unproven, then compounded BHRT is unproven. If a study says BHRT is unproven but doesn't specify if compounding is used or not, then BHRT is unproven. The articles I cite collectively support the points, I don't see the need to cite compounded and uncompounded when all say the same thing - unproven, untested, exagerated claims. You're also removing reliable sources that explicitly support a point for no good reason. And finally:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.