User talk:Bejjer

Welcome!

Hello, Bejjer, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 5:2 diet. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia 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 lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a box that says "There is a consensus that including "is a fad diet" in the lead section is not a sufficiently neutral way to introduce the topic. There is support, within the scope of this consensus, for a rewording of the opening lines similar to that suggested by User:JonRichfield, but not for the precise wording". It seems the argument has gone on a while, and the ongoing "edit war" has two sides, so both sides are just as guilty. The point is that "fad" is generally seen as a negative term, as is "fad diet", which doesn't have any special distinction from "fad". Even if people might argue that the term is neutral, it would surely be better to use a term that has a more agreed-upon meaning, rather than insisting on the controversial wording.Bejjer (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was an RfC, but it was a while ago and it's fine to test the consensus. We should not aim to be controversial or uncontroversial, but to reflect the best sources. If people want to know what a fad diet is, they can read our article on fad diets. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]