User talk:Bornwenty1992

Unsourced

Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Chiropractic in Canada, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic and mental health

In this edit to Chiropractic in Canada, you cited M. V. W. v D. M., 2018 CanLII 65215 (ON HPARB) to support the conclusion that the College of Chiropractors of Ontario / L'Orde des Chiropraticiens de l'Ontario ruled that Chiropractors are authorized to provide quality assurance on Independent Psychiatric Exams (IPEs) conducted by Psychiatrists on mental health. I would argue that you have misinterpreted this decision. As I read it, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board found the Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario deficient in its review of the matter at hand (whether a Chiropractor is operating outside of his field of licensure by providing "Quality Assurance" on an IPE) and returned the matter to the Committee for a deeper investigation. Basically, the committee had argued that the Chiropractor was not practicing psychiatry in performing the review, but merely performing a clerical function. The Appeal and Review Board disagreed, or at least determined that the Committee had not sought sufficient definition of what activities constituted "Quality Assurance" to have made a proper decision. No precedent appears to have been set with decision; and the matter is still very much open to question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick note that you are conflating the decisions. The HPARB Board did indeed direct the matter back to the College of Chiropractors of Ontario which then issue a second decision dated February 2019. It is this second decision by the College of Chiropractors—-so after the HPARB Board decision that you cite and in response to the HPARB decision—-that discusses the quality assurance and notes no further action and that a chiropractor can provide quality assurance on mental health. There appears to be a misinterpretation here I think in your reading, but I hope this clarifies. I also don't understand why the chiropractors appear to be upset about this decision. After all, if you can double-dip and get paid for quality assurance on psychiatric reports you make additional money to chiropracting!

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. --Yamla (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bornwenty1992 reported by User:JamesHSmith6789 (Result: ). Thank you. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. STOP this pointless edit war! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Chiropractic in Canada

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week certain areas of the encyclopedia for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Is this a new feature? I was not aware a user could be blocked from editing a single page. That's a handy tool! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, yes, it is fairly new. See WP:PB for details. El_C 15:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?

Hi everyone, I'm not sure what is going on here. I edited a page, Yamla (sp?) was kind enough to note that a source was needed. Source was added which is a government issued document and the facts are directly from this document and the cited ruling. Still, the page is now taken down. Not sure why if the facts are verifiable and cited. Any help with this would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornwenty1992 (talk • contribs)

Please review my comments above (in the "Chiropractic and mental health" section). Then review the other notes here about edit warring. If you are not sure what's going on here after all the warnings you've received, I'm not sure what else we can do to explain the matter. 15:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You received plenty of warnings. You were blocked from editing a single page due to your violations of WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:NOR, etc. You are welcome to attempt to resolve your conflict on the article's talk page. You need to achieve consensus for your changes prior to reintroducing them. For the next week, you are unable to edit that article but are free to edit other articles. --Yamla (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamla. I've read the information on violations. That is helpful. I'm not sure how to get on the article's talk page. I've clicked on talk, but end up here. I did cite facts from a government document (with reference as per your suggestion) so I'm not sure how this is a misinterpretation of the document itself. In any case, if consensus is against the document, perhaps best to leave it off this particular page, what do you think? Thanks.

The article talk page is at Talk:Chiropractic in Canada. I think it's best to leave off of the article, as do others, but you are very welcome to make your case on the article talk page! --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Are yourself and the others chiropractors? Would it not benefit chiropractors to be able to double-dip and make more money by providing quality assurance on psychiatry exams on mental health in addition to their chiropractic practice? Or is this secret (in which case, sorry I tried to post it :) Have a nice day.

Borthwenty, whether or not it would benefit chiropractors to be able to extend their income basis in this manner (a matter surely outside of Wikipedia's sphere of interest), it is not clear from the material you posted that this is, in fact, the proper interpretation of the facts at hand. And, at the very least, since your material was reverted by three separate editors (myself included), you really need to discuss the addition of the material at Talk:Chiropractic in Canada to reach proper consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not a chiropractor. --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]