Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:#medterms.net is a tertiary source, which is "trumped" by the secondary source which says that Morgollons ''is'' delusional.
:#medterms.net is a tertiary source, which is "trumped" by the secondary source which says that Morgollons ''is'' delusional.
:#And the precise (but weak) words of the 2009 CDC study are trumped by the peer-reviewed conclusion paper published in 2012, which stated, not only that there was no evidence of infection, but that it ''is'' (almost always) delusional. — ] ] 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:#And the precise (but weak) words of the 2009 CDC study are trumped by the peer-reviewed conclusion paper published in 2012, which stated, not only that there was no evidence of infection, but that it ''is'' (almost always) delusional. — ] ] 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't continue to edit war at ], and please do remember to log in when you edit. ](]) 15:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:19, 17 July 2014
July 2014
Hello, I'm BethNaught. Your recent edit to the page Morgellons appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Ccpb101, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zad6818:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad6818:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Morgellons 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.
Hello, both revisions I conducted have made the article more accurate and have been cited by well respected sources. There should be no reason to undo my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccpb101 (talk • contribs) 23:15, July 16, 2014
I haven't yet checked your specific reference, but your edits resemble edits removed in each of the past 4 years as being not reflective of mainstream medical research. Please explain on the article talk page Talk:Morgellons why your source and edit represent mainstream medical research, and properly meet WP:MEDRSbefore making the edit again. Regardless of whether your edits are correct, edit warring is not appropriate. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
medterms.net is a tertiary source, which is "trumped" by the secondary source which says that Morgollons is delusional.
And the precise (but weak) words of the 2009 CDC study are trumped by the peer-reviewed conclusion paper published in 2012, which stated, not only that there was no evidence of infection, but that it is (almost always) delusional. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BethNaught. Your recent edit to the page Morgellons appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
