If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here. |
This is Bon courage's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
Hi. My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, so I don't really agree with your edit making the text "simpler". Proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there. You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification) Anyway, I appreciate your cooperation and I was hoping you would agree with my explanation here before entering into any sort of edit war :-) Peace. Callmepgr ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Care to clarify why you removed reference to an excellent study in a reputable journal? Teleoid ( talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
When you disagree with another user's edit, the correct approach is to explain why you disagree and attempt to reach a consensus on the subject. Reverting the edit without providing any reasoning for doing so is a violation of WP:WAR. I have started a discussion on the talk page here, please voice your objections there rather than continuing to vandalize the main page. KingSupernova ( talk) 07:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not saying that the medicine works. I personally don't think it does. However, I can't find evidence that says it doesn't work. Could you at least be a little bit kind and maybe show that source and say "Hey, you missed it, here it is."? I see plenty of sources that say it's false advertising, that makes sense. Do you understand what I'm saying or any of the nuance I'm mentioning here? Also, a talk page or something would've been a little more appropriate from either of us. Fephisto ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon courage,
Happy New Year. How to I get talking to someone about this Wikipedia page? My original point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I personally messaged a couple of days ago and have not had a reply. Given modern technology I am up for a Zoom or Google Meets discussion with moderators. Last time I interacted with Wikipedia after a long discussion I was put in contact with an ER doctor in Canada and we had some fruitful discussions. If I could be put in contact with him again or someone of a similar medical research background (ie someone who has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals as regards medical sciences) that would be great. Otherwise if there are higher powers within Wikipedia who I could talk to via Google Meets or Zoom that would also be great.
Warmest regards Peaceful07 ( talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm RudolfoMD. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page You removed: {{tl|unreliable source|sure=yes|quote=of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston...|Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources.}}{{tl|fv|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston and 39 without, all but 6 in Houston}} However, [[clinicaltrials.gov]] shows 29 studies with results. [1]
You are in error.
WP:PROFRINGE/OR/unreliable sourcing is a demonstraby false claim. Please reconsider/adequately explain.
You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article, "Burzynski has not published results for any of these" which I had removed. If you did so in error, I urge you to self-revert. If you did not, do explain how it is not untrue. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 is not OR or unreliable sourcing. Do you insist it is? Would citing each of the 29 instead be acceptable?
AS for profRinge: I have no opinion on Burzynski's treatments. I was taking initial steps toward forming one when I stumbled upon outright falsehood in the article. Which I removed and you have restored. RudolfoMD ( talk) 09:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article.Your subsequent edit ~1 hour after you reverted doesn't excuse that you reintroduced three outright falsehoods, just because it fixed one. I responded to what was visible at the time. Own your screw-up. And it's silly to lecture me about MEDRS while defending freaking Forbes blog tripe. I noticed you dodged the question.
(I presume due to the passage of time)not accurate. Policy doesn't allow lies in articles. [pmid:25790229 PMID:25790229] proves positive results were reproduced. DO NOT put lies back into wikipedia. RudolfoMD ( talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I updated. You didn't keep any of the updates I made. You threw it ALL out. What did I put in the article that didn't improve the article with respect to NPOV? I'm not edit warring with you. So why are you threatening me a second time? Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? I don't. RudolfoMD ( talk) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated.
— User:Bon courage 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording?← yes, that's good style for WikipediaAny edits that were in line with the applicable WP:PAGS would surely garner consensus. If you have any, perhaps propose them at the article's Tall page. Bon courage ( talk) 11:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acrylamide. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acrylamide&diff=prev&oldid=1196348004 RudolfoMD ( talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Your vote here was very perceptive about the judgement and style of the candidate; it's too bad it didn't carry more weight in that discussion. -- JBL ( talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect: Your revert reinstates a particular opinion that stands against all others from various institutes. And the general opinion is "potential carcinogenic", period. Whom are you trying to please here? -- Kku ( talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't← that's your personal random POV and wrong in respect of acrylamide as humans and rodents absorb and process it differently. Simply put, for humans there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer. No reliable source says otherwise. Bon courage ( talk) 20:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)A systematic review published in Frontiers of Nutrition in April 2022 even concluded there was no association between high dietary acrylamide exposure and increased risk of any of the investigated cancers, including those of oral cavity, oesophageal, gastric, colon-rectal, pancreatic, prostate, bladder, lung, renal, lymphoma, myeloma, thyroid, brain, larynx and melanoma.
Hello Bon courage, The review Brantsæter et al. cites 5 publications to justify the list of confounding factors. You removed most of the factors. You did this 10 minutes after I inserted the sentence. Are you so familiar with all 5 publications that you can dismiss them like that?
The following two reviews (in addition to Brantsaeter) cite income as a confounding factor. Should I now reinstate the list of confounds citing three reviews? I initially did not want to burden the section further with citations to factors that from my own observations in my surroundings seem to be self evident. But I am happy to cite all three reviews. Or perhaps you know a lot more than I do about the subject. What do you think?
A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007
Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 Bosula ( talk) 10:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Invective in edit summary. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Sheesh! Bon courage, I wrote in your defense there. This type of revenge is petty. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We've had a couple disagreements over edits now, specifically relating to the leads in medical pages, and in the interest of avoiding acrimonious disputes I thought it would be better to have a productive conversation about editing philosophies. (If you don't want to discuss anything further, no worries, just say so).
It seems that the general view of you and other seasoned editors in these areas is that of the skeptical movement – not that you or they are literally part of this movement, or identify with it, but rather that Wikipedia policies are taken to embody its general principles, within certain parameters. Is that a fair characterization? I just feel sort of confused, because I have a hard time getting my brain to a place where the policies are aligned with that level of skepticism (and I am not saying that such skepticism is bad, just that I have a hard time reading the policies as embodying it). But maybe there is a history of arbitration decisions that have formally clarified these matters, or other things that I am missing. AtavisticPillow ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Bon courage. I saw you reverted most of my recent edit on Cancer Alley. While I think most of the reversions are fine, assuming we want to stick to a more minimalist philosophy on the page, I did want to ask if you could elaborate on your changes to the "Pollution and cancer rates" section. Seeing that section prior to my edit was what actually inspired me to make my edit, as I believed it was deceptively inadequate, and still is. I added information about numerous studies which discussed elevated rates of pollution and cancer in the region, which decades of literature appears to support. However, you simply reverted it all so that it simply says "there is debate" about the cancer rates, which is referenced by just one study, which itself finds that Cancer Alley is "a region of excessively high cancer risk". I believe that excluding numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the matter does not support the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) rationale you cited as the reason for your reversion. I also believe that replacing it with one sentence that simply there "there is debate" with little elaboration may fall foul of the balance guidelines of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Could you explain how exactly your edits are supported by the WP:MEDRS policy you cited, especially in how it pertains to your removal of numerous research papers? No ill will on my end, just curious. Amtoastintolerant ( talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage and thought I would see if I could get you to take a look at this recent edit [9] made on January 24 on the article " Human penis". I'm leaning towards the paragraph probably needing to be outright removed (or, at a very minimum, heavily modified) because, despite being heavily sourced, it seems to be seriously lacking WP:NPOV (and especially WP:DUE) to me, but you seem to be more aware of the current research and consensus on male circumcision than I am, so I wanted to see what your opinion was on it. I considered starting a discussion on the article talkpage instead of posting here, but wanted to run things by someone with knowledge about the topic to make sure I wasn't off base on such a contentious topic. Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage← Yes, you can check-out but you can't leave! I don't intend to get involved in another penis article, but I notice this (exact?) same content was also inserted into the circumcision article. Bon courage ( talk) 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. When removing a post that an ip user made expressing concerns, you stated in the edit summary, "Rv. dumb/trolling". Thinker78 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
If possible please stop following me around the pages I edit in [10] [11]. I am seeking uninvolved community input in an objective manner. Your input is involved, biased, and unnecessary, and seems to be for the effect to stop any further input from other editors. Kindly read the hounding policy. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
[12] I hadn't noticed you'd attempted to refactor my comments in violation of WP:TPG. Had I done so I would have gone to WP:ANI immediately, so you can thank Thomas for reverting you. I would suggest that if you can't add to a dicussion you stop with the petty point scoring, the bad faith comments and the personal attacks. W C M email 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon, I understand that you're frustrated, but I have no intention of discussing my motives based on 8-year old blogposts I wrote while the events were still going on. I'm pretty sure that it violates WP:NPA to refer to them. I've had to disengage with one other user so far, and I will do the same with you if you don't delete the comment. If you continue to refer, directly or otherwise, to off-wiki writings in order to cast aspersions on my motives, I will seek help from administrators. Like I say, I understand that this has become unpleasant and missteps like this can happen. But I hope you'll just remove the remarks so we can move forward. Best, Thomas B ( talk) 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
You might want to find "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (under ===Appearance===, more than 75% of the way down the page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Not out to cause any trouble, but was surprised by a statement which looks to be derogatory or prejudicial, and appears to need some debate on. You appeared to have almost immediately reverted the change and while the new section in talk was being created. Please refer to the new section on their talk page. Thanks. Wukuendo ( talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Bon Courage. I'm currently editing the Psilocybin page as part of a course through my medical school and I noticed you removed my most recent edit for using "dodgy" sources. In my time researching, I've found the Oxford Journal of Psychopharmacology, Frontiers in Psychiatry, and especially Behavioral Sciences to be quite reputable sources. The new research is quite important to talk about, especially when medically minded individuals come to the page as that's the most likely reason they may seek it out in contemporary time. If you'd be willing to be a little more descriptive, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thank you! ChasYoung4 ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I want more explanation why you removed this with the remark "unreliable". All references are from reliable sources. If you type the name of Danny Leclère in e.g. Google you find a huge amount of articles from reliable sources all telling the same story. These are not only articles from that period: the topic is nowadays a hot topic - especially in Belgium and The Netherlands - after the release of documentary "Bad Bad Belgium" in which the life of Leclère is told. This documentary is also one of the references I've used. I admit most of the articles you find are in Dutch or French language but all of them tell the same facts. Ino mart ( talk) 12:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You might be interested in improving this article. I removed a lot of nonsense from it recently. There's a good overview here [13]. The lifestyle medicine has been highjacked by functional medicine and alternative medicine proponents. Also fringe figures like Caldwell Esselstyn. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
What did you not like about (including) Neal Barnard's latest book? [1] MaynardClark ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
You locked the topic on /info/en/?search=Talk:Carnivore_diet "LDL and Cardiovascular Disease" citing /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:OR
Perhaps you saw the sources I cited were links to journal articles and therefore dismissed them as original research
But the original research page actually gives the example: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research" One of the sources I cited was a literature review
The other was a meta-analysis of published studies /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Medrs explains: "It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible."
So you are dimissing (and locking discussion) claiming that I am presenting original research, but wiki's policies on original research and medical reliable sources give the kind of sources I give as examples of appropriate or even best sources.
Moreover, you failed to address the point I made that the existing source for the claim in question is a journalist not citing any expert, textbook, studies, etc for that particular claim Even if you disagree with my (implied) suggested change of content, the existing claim should have a citation to a proper source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:580:67D0:60BB:7F1C:B88C:4997 ( talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Neuroplastic effects of pollution. -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Due to your recent editing history I have submitted a XRV for review. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. 86.187.171.52 ( talk) 19:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I was going to delete the "medical citation needed" tag at Androgen replacement therapy, as International Journal of Impotence Research seems like a medical journal. But then I saw that you added it [14], and you clearly know more about this than I do. Or are you looking for a secondary source for the statement? Stix1776 ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
YOU WILL *IMMEDIATELY* CEASE YOUR CENSORSHIP CAMPAIGN AGAINST MY CORRECTIONS TO THE PAGE ABOUT ROBERT MALONE. Delt01 ( talk) 16:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to reach out and let you know that I won't be able to continue our conversation about Massacre of the Innocents. The last month has been a lot of me going back and forth with editors on talk pages. Unlike editors of all identities who have generally used cruel or demeaning language, you remained calm and civil. Your politeness and willingness to recognize an impasse is a credit to the project. Thank you for your hard work. However, I can not trust myself to carry on the conversation with any patience, which you very much deserve. While I continue to disagree, I find the current state of the article suitable because it is more aligned with WP:V than it was a few days ago. Thank you very much, again, for your civility in disagreement. Let me know if you ever need a second pair of eyes on something—I'll gladly work with you. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion. Now that the consensus has been implemented (and has been more or less stable for about a week), I'm happy to let cooler heads assess it. My personal view is that the editors who support the expanded version should, out of respect for S Marshall's close, revert to the short version and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. Thomas B ( talk) 07:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there; I believe what you do is for the good of the project and I think you would agree with me that we don’t want to put our wikifriends in a difficult situation. I have no interest in getting anyone sanctioned, though I do hope we can have more good, civil, AGF active editors and a better encyclopaedia. IMO our goal is the same. I really appreciate some of your work in guarding Wikipedia against misinformation, e.g. in the discussions at the COVID-related talk pages. I hope I’ve made myself clear and I look forward to have better collaboration with you in the future. Best, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC); -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I thanked you in error. The new information is heavily sourced and highly relevant, and absolutely belongs in the article. Matza Pizza ( talk) 09:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you aware of WP:CANVASS? I believe this post [16] in relation to the ongoing discussion here Talk:Havana syndrome#Adding the new investigative report? is a violation of that principle. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you aware of WP:CANVASS← Of course I am. You seem not to understand though? Noticeboards are great for widening consensus. Bon courage ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular wayis considered inappropriate. I would suggest you re-read WP:CANVASS and reword your notification more neutrally. Your entire notification pushes your view on other editors and compromises the normal consensus decision-making process. If you won't amend it I will have to report it. Thanks. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 17:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we are equating your reversion with censorship. Whatever that means on an encyclopedia with curated content and talk page rules. Meh. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Havana syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. FailedMusician ( talk) 08:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course now this is going to become a debate as to what constitutes BMI. I am starting to really loathe that 60 minutes / Insider / Spiegel report. Flight logs and a whole lot of speculation being paraded around as a smoking gun. And now we have to deal with another round of Russian secret super-tech speculation. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage, just want to say I hope there are no hard feelings. I am aware we disagree on including certain information on the Havana Syndrome page. Just want to say it's nothing personal and I want to apologize for getting a bit heated at times. Anyways I have to head off now but I hope that this situation can be resolved amicably in the coming days. BootsED ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re: your reversion of my edits on the Cancer Alley article. MiseDominic ( talk) 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
industry shill, you won't last long on Wikipedia, MiseDominic. Robby.is.on ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you know what to do with the ANI votes regarding Thomas B and Wee Curry Monster? Both recently got auto-archived without closure [18] [19] despite a closure request at WP:CR. I and User:JayBeeEll unarchived them, only for the bot to archive them again after around two additional days.
I don't want to be vexacious, but it would be good to have these closed because it's likely that this will be soon relitigated yet again, as Thomas B appears to be working on yet another thread in own sandbox [20]. NicolausPrime ( talk) 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my recent edit under the reasoning that it was "whitewashed". I disagree. The original language is bad style. Additionally it needs to be adjusted to accurately reflect what the sources say. But I won't re-edit. ArguedOyster ( talk) 05:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here. |
This is Bon courage's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
Hi. My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, so I don't really agree with your edit making the text "simpler". Proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there. You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification) Anyway, I appreciate your cooperation and I was hoping you would agree with my explanation here before entering into any sort of edit war :-) Peace. Callmepgr ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Care to clarify why you removed reference to an excellent study in a reputable journal? Teleoid ( talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
When you disagree with another user's edit, the correct approach is to explain why you disagree and attempt to reach a consensus on the subject. Reverting the edit without providing any reasoning for doing so is a violation of WP:WAR. I have started a discussion on the talk page here, please voice your objections there rather than continuing to vandalize the main page. KingSupernova ( talk) 07:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not saying that the medicine works. I personally don't think it does. However, I can't find evidence that says it doesn't work. Could you at least be a little bit kind and maybe show that source and say "Hey, you missed it, here it is."? I see plenty of sources that say it's false advertising, that makes sense. Do you understand what I'm saying or any of the nuance I'm mentioning here? Also, a talk page or something would've been a little more appropriate from either of us. Fephisto ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon courage,
Happy New Year. How to I get talking to someone about this Wikipedia page? My original point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I personally messaged a couple of days ago and have not had a reply. Given modern technology I am up for a Zoom or Google Meets discussion with moderators. Last time I interacted with Wikipedia after a long discussion I was put in contact with an ER doctor in Canada and we had some fruitful discussions. If I could be put in contact with him again or someone of a similar medical research background (ie someone who has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals as regards medical sciences) that would be great. Otherwise if there are higher powers within Wikipedia who I could talk to via Google Meets or Zoom that would also be great.
Warmest regards Peaceful07 ( talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm RudolfoMD. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page You removed: {{tl|unreliable source|sure=yes|quote=of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston...|Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources.}}{{tl|fv|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston and 39 without, all but 6 in Houston}} However, [[clinicaltrials.gov]] shows 29 studies with results. [1]
You are in error.
WP:PROFRINGE/OR/unreliable sourcing is a demonstraby false claim. Please reconsider/adequately explain.
You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article, "Burzynski has not published results for any of these" which I had removed. If you did so in error, I urge you to self-revert. If you did not, do explain how it is not untrue. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 is not OR or unreliable sourcing. Do you insist it is? Would citing each of the 29 instead be acceptable?
AS for profRinge: I have no opinion on Burzynski's treatments. I was taking initial steps toward forming one when I stumbled upon outright falsehood in the article. Which I removed and you have restored. RudolfoMD ( talk) 09:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article.Your subsequent edit ~1 hour after you reverted doesn't excuse that you reintroduced three outright falsehoods, just because it fixed one. I responded to what was visible at the time. Own your screw-up. And it's silly to lecture me about MEDRS while defending freaking Forbes blog tripe. I noticed you dodged the question.
(I presume due to the passage of time)not accurate. Policy doesn't allow lies in articles. [pmid:25790229 PMID:25790229] proves positive results were reproduced. DO NOT put lies back into wikipedia. RudolfoMD ( talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I updated. You didn't keep any of the updates I made. You threw it ALL out. What did I put in the article that didn't improve the article with respect to NPOV? I'm not edit warring with you. So why are you threatening me a second time? Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? I don't. RudolfoMD ( talk) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated.
— User:Bon courage 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording?← yes, that's good style for WikipediaAny edits that were in line with the applicable WP:PAGS would surely garner consensus. If you have any, perhaps propose them at the article's Tall page. Bon courage ( talk) 11:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acrylamide. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acrylamide&diff=prev&oldid=1196348004 RudolfoMD ( talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Your vote here was very perceptive about the judgement and style of the candidate; it's too bad it didn't carry more weight in that discussion. -- JBL ( talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect: Your revert reinstates a particular opinion that stands against all others from various institutes. And the general opinion is "potential carcinogenic", period. Whom are you trying to please here? -- Kku ( talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't← that's your personal random POV and wrong in respect of acrylamide as humans and rodents absorb and process it differently. Simply put, for humans there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer. No reliable source says otherwise. Bon courage ( talk) 20:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)A systematic review published in Frontiers of Nutrition in April 2022 even concluded there was no association between high dietary acrylamide exposure and increased risk of any of the investigated cancers, including those of oral cavity, oesophageal, gastric, colon-rectal, pancreatic, prostate, bladder, lung, renal, lymphoma, myeloma, thyroid, brain, larynx and melanoma.
Hello Bon courage, The review Brantsæter et al. cites 5 publications to justify the list of confounding factors. You removed most of the factors. You did this 10 minutes after I inserted the sentence. Are you so familiar with all 5 publications that you can dismiss them like that?
The following two reviews (in addition to Brantsaeter) cite income as a confounding factor. Should I now reinstate the list of confounds citing three reviews? I initially did not want to burden the section further with citations to factors that from my own observations in my surroundings seem to be self evident. But I am happy to cite all three reviews. Or perhaps you know a lot more than I do about the subject. What do you think?
A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007
Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 Bosula ( talk) 10:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Invective in edit summary. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Sheesh! Bon courage, I wrote in your defense there. This type of revenge is petty. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We've had a couple disagreements over edits now, specifically relating to the leads in medical pages, and in the interest of avoiding acrimonious disputes I thought it would be better to have a productive conversation about editing philosophies. (If you don't want to discuss anything further, no worries, just say so).
It seems that the general view of you and other seasoned editors in these areas is that of the skeptical movement – not that you or they are literally part of this movement, or identify with it, but rather that Wikipedia policies are taken to embody its general principles, within certain parameters. Is that a fair characterization? I just feel sort of confused, because I have a hard time getting my brain to a place where the policies are aligned with that level of skepticism (and I am not saying that such skepticism is bad, just that I have a hard time reading the policies as embodying it). But maybe there is a history of arbitration decisions that have formally clarified these matters, or other things that I am missing. AtavisticPillow ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Bon courage. I saw you reverted most of my recent edit on Cancer Alley. While I think most of the reversions are fine, assuming we want to stick to a more minimalist philosophy on the page, I did want to ask if you could elaborate on your changes to the "Pollution and cancer rates" section. Seeing that section prior to my edit was what actually inspired me to make my edit, as I believed it was deceptively inadequate, and still is. I added information about numerous studies which discussed elevated rates of pollution and cancer in the region, which decades of literature appears to support. However, you simply reverted it all so that it simply says "there is debate" about the cancer rates, which is referenced by just one study, which itself finds that Cancer Alley is "a region of excessively high cancer risk". I believe that excluding numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the matter does not support the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) rationale you cited as the reason for your reversion. I also believe that replacing it with one sentence that simply there "there is debate" with little elaboration may fall foul of the balance guidelines of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Could you explain how exactly your edits are supported by the WP:MEDRS policy you cited, especially in how it pertains to your removal of numerous research papers? No ill will on my end, just curious. Amtoastintolerant ( talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage and thought I would see if I could get you to take a look at this recent edit [9] made on January 24 on the article " Human penis". I'm leaning towards the paragraph probably needing to be outright removed (or, at a very minimum, heavily modified) because, despite being heavily sourced, it seems to be seriously lacking WP:NPOV (and especially WP:DUE) to me, but you seem to be more aware of the current research and consensus on male circumcision than I am, so I wanted to see what your opinion was on it. I considered starting a discussion on the article talkpage instead of posting here, but wanted to run things by someone with knowledge about the topic to make sure I wasn't off base on such a contentious topic. Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage← Yes, you can check-out but you can't leave! I don't intend to get involved in another penis article, but I notice this (exact?) same content was also inserted into the circumcision article. Bon courage ( talk) 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. When removing a post that an ip user made expressing concerns, you stated in the edit summary, "Rv. dumb/trolling". Thinker78 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
If possible please stop following me around the pages I edit in [10] [11]. I am seeking uninvolved community input in an objective manner. Your input is involved, biased, and unnecessary, and seems to be for the effect to stop any further input from other editors. Kindly read the hounding policy. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
[12] I hadn't noticed you'd attempted to refactor my comments in violation of WP:TPG. Had I done so I would have gone to WP:ANI immediately, so you can thank Thomas for reverting you. I would suggest that if you can't add to a dicussion you stop with the petty point scoring, the bad faith comments and the personal attacks. W C M email 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon, I understand that you're frustrated, but I have no intention of discussing my motives based on 8-year old blogposts I wrote while the events were still going on. I'm pretty sure that it violates WP:NPA to refer to them. I've had to disengage with one other user so far, and I will do the same with you if you don't delete the comment. If you continue to refer, directly or otherwise, to off-wiki writings in order to cast aspersions on my motives, I will seek help from administrators. Like I say, I understand that this has become unpleasant and missteps like this can happen. But I hope you'll just remove the remarks so we can move forward. Best, Thomas B ( talk) 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
You might want to find "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (under ===Appearance===, more than 75% of the way down the page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Not out to cause any trouble, but was surprised by a statement which looks to be derogatory or prejudicial, and appears to need some debate on. You appeared to have almost immediately reverted the change and while the new section in talk was being created. Please refer to the new section on their talk page. Thanks. Wukuendo ( talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Bon Courage. I'm currently editing the Psilocybin page as part of a course through my medical school and I noticed you removed my most recent edit for using "dodgy" sources. In my time researching, I've found the Oxford Journal of Psychopharmacology, Frontiers in Psychiatry, and especially Behavioral Sciences to be quite reputable sources. The new research is quite important to talk about, especially when medically minded individuals come to the page as that's the most likely reason they may seek it out in contemporary time. If you'd be willing to be a little more descriptive, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thank you! ChasYoung4 ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I want more explanation why you removed this with the remark "unreliable". All references are from reliable sources. If you type the name of Danny Leclère in e.g. Google you find a huge amount of articles from reliable sources all telling the same story. These are not only articles from that period: the topic is nowadays a hot topic - especially in Belgium and The Netherlands - after the release of documentary "Bad Bad Belgium" in which the life of Leclère is told. This documentary is also one of the references I've used. I admit most of the articles you find are in Dutch or French language but all of them tell the same facts. Ino mart ( talk) 12:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You might be interested in improving this article. I removed a lot of nonsense from it recently. There's a good overview here [13]. The lifestyle medicine has been highjacked by functional medicine and alternative medicine proponents. Also fringe figures like Caldwell Esselstyn. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
What did you not like about (including) Neal Barnard's latest book? [1] MaynardClark ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
You locked the topic on /info/en/?search=Talk:Carnivore_diet "LDL and Cardiovascular Disease" citing /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:OR
Perhaps you saw the sources I cited were links to journal articles and therefore dismissed them as original research
But the original research page actually gives the example: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research" One of the sources I cited was a literature review
The other was a meta-analysis of published studies /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Medrs explains: "It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible."
So you are dimissing (and locking discussion) claiming that I am presenting original research, but wiki's policies on original research and medical reliable sources give the kind of sources I give as examples of appropriate or even best sources.
Moreover, you failed to address the point I made that the existing source for the claim in question is a journalist not citing any expert, textbook, studies, etc for that particular claim Even if you disagree with my (implied) suggested change of content, the existing claim should have a citation to a proper source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:580:67D0:60BB:7F1C:B88C:4997 ( talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Neuroplastic effects of pollution. -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Due to your recent editing history I have submitted a XRV for review. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. 86.187.171.52 ( talk) 19:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I was going to delete the "medical citation needed" tag at Androgen replacement therapy, as International Journal of Impotence Research seems like a medical journal. But then I saw that you added it [14], and you clearly know more about this than I do. Or are you looking for a secondary source for the statement? Stix1776 ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
YOU WILL *IMMEDIATELY* CEASE YOUR CENSORSHIP CAMPAIGN AGAINST MY CORRECTIONS TO THE PAGE ABOUT ROBERT MALONE. Delt01 ( talk) 16:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to reach out and let you know that I won't be able to continue our conversation about Massacre of the Innocents. The last month has been a lot of me going back and forth with editors on talk pages. Unlike editors of all identities who have generally used cruel or demeaning language, you remained calm and civil. Your politeness and willingness to recognize an impasse is a credit to the project. Thank you for your hard work. However, I can not trust myself to carry on the conversation with any patience, which you very much deserve. While I continue to disagree, I find the current state of the article suitable because it is more aligned with WP:V than it was a few days ago. Thank you very much, again, for your civility in disagreement. Let me know if you ever need a second pair of eyes on something—I'll gladly work with you. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion. Now that the consensus has been implemented (and has been more or less stable for about a week), I'm happy to let cooler heads assess it. My personal view is that the editors who support the expanded version should, out of respect for S Marshall's close, revert to the short version and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. Thomas B ( talk) 07:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there; I believe what you do is for the good of the project and I think you would agree with me that we don’t want to put our wikifriends in a difficult situation. I have no interest in getting anyone sanctioned, though I do hope we can have more good, civil, AGF active editors and a better encyclopaedia. IMO our goal is the same. I really appreciate some of your work in guarding Wikipedia against misinformation, e.g. in the discussions at the COVID-related talk pages. I hope I’ve made myself clear and I look forward to have better collaboration with you in the future. Best, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC); -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I thanked you in error. The new information is heavily sourced and highly relevant, and absolutely belongs in the article. Matza Pizza ( talk) 09:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you aware of WP:CANVASS? I believe this post [16] in relation to the ongoing discussion here Talk:Havana syndrome#Adding the new investigative report? is a violation of that principle. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you aware of WP:CANVASS← Of course I am. You seem not to understand though? Noticeboards are great for widening consensus. Bon courage ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular wayis considered inappropriate. I would suggest you re-read WP:CANVASS and reword your notification more neutrally. Your entire notification pushes your view on other editors and compromises the normal consensus decision-making process. If you won't amend it I will have to report it. Thanks. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 17:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we are equating your reversion with censorship. Whatever that means on an encyclopedia with curated content and talk page rules. Meh. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Havana syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. FailedMusician ( talk) 08:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course now this is going to become a debate as to what constitutes BMI. I am starting to really loathe that 60 minutes / Insider / Spiegel report. Flight logs and a whole lot of speculation being paraded around as a smoking gun. And now we have to deal with another round of Russian secret super-tech speculation. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage, just want to say I hope there are no hard feelings. I am aware we disagree on including certain information on the Havana Syndrome page. Just want to say it's nothing personal and I want to apologize for getting a bit heated at times. Anyways I have to head off now but I hope that this situation can be resolved amicably in the coming days. BootsED ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re: your reversion of my edits on the Cancer Alley article. MiseDominic ( talk) 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
industry shill, you won't last long on Wikipedia, MiseDominic. Robby.is.on ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you know what to do with the ANI votes regarding Thomas B and Wee Curry Monster? Both recently got auto-archived without closure [18] [19] despite a closure request at WP:CR. I and User:JayBeeEll unarchived them, only for the bot to archive them again after around two additional days.
I don't want to be vexacious, but it would be good to have these closed because it's likely that this will be soon relitigated yet again, as Thomas B appears to be working on yet another thread in own sandbox [20]. NicolausPrime ( talk) 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my recent edit under the reasoning that it was "whitewashed". I disagree. The original language is bad style. Additionally it needs to be adjusted to accurately reflect what the sources say. But I won't re-edit. ArguedOyster ( talk) 05:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)