User talk:Konzept1933
Welcome!
Hello, Konzept1933, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shot info (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3RR on homeopathy
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on homeopathy. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Your tag has been reverted again, by three different editors by now. I would not recommend putting it back on as it is likely to get your blocked for edit waring. Focus on the talk page and bringing in sources and convince the other editors that something should be added. Tagging an article doesn't gain you anything, and focusing on the tag will just wind up with you not being allowed to edit wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you have moved forward with adding the tag again, I expect it will be removed very shortly. If you tag it again after that then I will move ahead with recommending a 24 hour block from editing wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You have to respect the other editors opinion. Thats the purpose of the tag: to inform the readers that not everybody agrees with the current point of view. Are you going to block every editor disagrees with the current point of view or you have blocked them already?
- No one is under any obligation to respect an opinion just because it exists. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and reliable sources. You are not allowed to just tag an article you disagree with just because you disagree with it. I have explained to you how you can have an actual effect on the article. Use the talk page, present reliable sources, propose specific changes, etc. Those actions can change the article. If you merely focus on slapping a tag on the article then you will be blocked, the tag removed and nothing will change. It is your choice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did provide sources. Let me remind you that you reverted the tag several times without even bothering to participate in the talk page.
- Your sources are poor quality and not suitable for wikipedia, let alone of the quality needed to change the lede. I have not broken any policy, and have gone out of my way to try and get you to stop edit waring on the article. You need to read wp:rs and wp:undue very carefully, as well was wp:3rr to see why what your doing won't end well for your cause. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is the Lancet a poor quality source?
- Peer review publications in the lancet are quality sources. A letter to the editor is not really that great of a sources and can only be added as a source for saying that "so and so said 'x'." This comes into the wp:undue category as you would have to demonstrate that the person who wrote the letter is so important to the subject at hand to justify their opinion being specifically included. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- So the fact that some researchers who are published in the Lancet object to the findings of other researchers published in the lancet should be excluded from the article? Interesting. Keep in mind that the letter is coming form researchers whose quotes are already in use in the homeopathy article.--Konzept1933 (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- A letter to the editor is not equivalent to a peer review publication. Regardless, at this point you should be offering specific changes to the test of the article. I will wait to see what it is you would like to see added, where you want to see it added, and how you source it. I will address those specific changes when presented. Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stop saying that. No one said that "A letter to the editor is equivalent to a peer review publication". I said that his objection latter to the lancet about the latest Shang paper which found homeopathy is just placebo shows a controversy. This cannot be ignored since the article quotes so often Linde's metastudies and opinions. --Konzept1933 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- A letter to the editor is not equivalent to a peer review publication. Regardless, at this point you should be offering specific changes to the test of the article. I will wait to see what it is you would like to see added, where you want to see it added, and how you source it. I will address those specific changes when presented. Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is the Lancet a poor quality source?
- Your sources are poor quality and not suitable for wikipedia, let alone of the quality needed to change the lede. I have not broken any policy, and have gone out of my way to try and get you to stop edit waring on the article. You need to read wp:rs and wp:undue very carefully, as well was wp:3rr to see why what your doing won't end well for your cause. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Signing your posts
[edit]Also please start signing your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Special sanctions
[edit]Please be aware that the Homeopathy page is under special sanctions, and further editwarring etc may lead to blocks. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions. Verbal chat 02:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)