You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Medical cannabis. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Alexbrn ( talk) 19:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Medical cannabis.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Guy ( Help!) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So it is clear that you are passionate about the possible health benefits of cannabis and derivatives of it. It is also clear that you are pretty new here.
Just wanted to leave you a note to see if this can help keep things more peaceful....
People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to unconstructive arguments. Some people come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.
But Wikipedia isn't about changing the world nor it is a platform for advocates. Our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarizes accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of.
We have three very good essays offering advice for people who come here and are especially passionate about something - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how people who are advocates for some view, tend to behave.
So while it is clear that you are passionate about cannabis in the real world, please do try to check that at the login page and focus on Wikipedia's mission to communicate "accepted knowledge" to the public, and please take some time to better understand the policies and guidelines. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)
I also want to provide you with a quick (as brief as possible) overview of the key policies and guidelines that govern what we do here.
As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text - please do read it).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.
I hope this was not unwelcome. Jytdog ( talk) 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Medical cannabis. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Alexbrn ( talk) 19:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Medical cannabis.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Guy ( Help!) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So it is clear that you are passionate about the possible health benefits of cannabis and derivatives of it. It is also clear that you are pretty new here.
Just wanted to leave you a note to see if this can help keep things more peaceful....
People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to unconstructive arguments. Some people come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.
But Wikipedia isn't about changing the world nor it is a platform for advocates. Our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarizes accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of.
We have three very good essays offering advice for people who come here and are especially passionate about something - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how people who are advocates for some view, tend to behave.
So while it is clear that you are passionate about cannabis in the real world, please do try to check that at the login page and focus on Wikipedia's mission to communicate "accepted knowledge" to the public, and please take some time to better understand the policies and guidelines. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)
I also want to provide you with a quick (as brief as possible) overview of the key policies and guidelines that govern what we do here.
As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text - please do read it).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.
I hope this was not unwelcome. Jytdog ( talk) 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)