User talk:AlexanderDunlop

Quantum Healing

Wow, what a lot of alternative medicine hooey. However I don't expect great success from a direct debunking approach. It will require discussion in the article's Talk Page. Editors more experienced in this field than me might be encouraged if you put wp:internal links in related articles to this one. It ain't usually easy but baloney can usually be balanced. Seldom sliced out entirely, alas. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlexanderDunlop. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article quantum healing, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question. My question was, why is the post automatically reverted? I am actually unable to make ANY edits or contributions. The definition that is written seems locked in an automatic protection. Where is the actual spirit of real open discourse? I am unable to make any contribution, it seems, according to the system of locks that have been set up.

Please advise me on how I may become a contributing editor of WikiPedia. I am a Harvard-trained scholar. And, I would like to add my knowledge to this and other important topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderDunlop (talk • contribs)

Your edit was not automatically reverted. It was reverted by a human being, a fellow editor, because your version violated our rules on reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and fringe theories. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, AlexanderDunlop. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not entered any new material into the quantum healing page. I started a discussion on the talk page, which I believe you indicated was the thing to do. So, I'm now confused about how to actually have a discussion. Are you referring to my discussion thread as something that violates terms of use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]