User talk:Breachdyke
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Breachdyke, 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 complete 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Material you changed on the article Chronic fatigue syndrome[1]
[edit]Hi Breachdyke, I revered your edit because you are basically saying that your source for the WP:POV is better than the one currently being used. That may be, but it has to be accepted by a consensus of the editors of the article. This is accomplished on the talk page by showing the new sources come from a higher quality source than the one presently used (higher impact factor of new source, or the new source is more highly cited by other Journals than the old source), or more high quality sources agree with your POV than the other material you want to replace. Failure to do otherwise just leads to endless edit warring, and articles rarely improve that way. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ward20, Wikipedia NPOV at its heart means "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is therefore a violation of this fundamental principle of Wikipedia to suppress the views of the AHRQ on the topic of CBT and GET for ME/CFS. The rejection of the Oxford criteria, by the way, is also shared by the NIH in the US.
- The edit summary is intended to summarize the changes you made. It is not the place to argue your case. That's what the talk page is for. Please gain consensus there (per WP:Bold, revert, discuss and mind the three revert rule. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ward20, when you say there is an obligation on me to show that "the new sources come from a higher quality source than the one presently used" I disagree, because what the Wikipedia NPOV requires is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is up to you to show that the AHRQ and the NIH are either insignificant or unreliable or both. If you can't do that then by deleting references to these agencies it is you, rather than me, who is failing to be neutral. It is up to readers of Wikipedia, rather than editors, to decide which views and sources they think are the highest quality. You are trying to act as judge, jury and executioner. Breachdyke (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- In the case of dispute, consensus needs to be achieved. WP:EW is not a good way forward, and will get you blocked. Any further discussion of content belongs at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic fatigue syndrome. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. Kleuske (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I remain of the view that to exclude any reference to the AHRQ and NIH would violate NPOV and render the article biased. This really does seem self-evident, as both the AHRQ and the NIH are generally regarded as reliable sources and their position is obviously relevant to the claim regarding the efficacy of CBT and graded exercise. I am prepared to request page protection pending a reasonable discussion with other editors in which both sides are willing to constructively engage. Breachdyke (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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:Breachdyke reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- What actually happened, Alexbrn, was that I tried to add material citing Federal agencies in the US which many people regard as significant and reliable, and my additions were deleted. Breachdyke (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and you did it repeatedly after being told that such behaviour is not acceptable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
How can it be unacceptable to add material only to find it immediately deleted? Breachdyke (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the links given to you at the top of the page to start to get an idea of how things work around here. Maybe then look at WP:BRD. Please also learn to WP:INDENT your posts. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful if you put a hold on the condescending manner and engaged with the point at issue, which is why the AHRQ and NIH are to be considered insignificant and/or unreliable and so referencing them in a relevant context is worthy of deletion? Breachdyke (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Self-reverting your last edit and committing to use the article's talk page might help you to avoid a block. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring at Chronic fatigue syndrome
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Editing logged out
[edit]Is this edit yours? Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn, yes this edit is mine. I argue that it adds balance to this section of the article. It cites a significant point of view from a reliable source. I am still at a loss as to why other editors are unwilling to see a reference to the view of the AHRQ, since it is for readers to determine which view they find most persuasive; a neutral point of view in editors requires only that significant views, from reliable sources, be included. Breachdyke (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Need for balancing statement regarding the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise / exercise therapy
[edit]In the article lead a moderate claim for the efficacy of CBT and GET/exercise therapy is made: "Evidence suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy and a gradual increase in activity suited to individual capacity can be beneficial in some cases.". However, in the real world even this moderate claim has a significant contrary view (AHRQ, NIH, Institute of Medicine - see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK379582/). Without any balancing statement whatsoever, the article lead, as it currently exists, is biased. Breachdyke (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate concern, best raised on the appropriate talk page. Seek consensus there and you'll have no trouble. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Kleuske, I'll do that Breachdyke (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Breachdyke, there ia a convention on talk pages to indent under the user you are responding to by adding one more colon in front of your response, for example our responses to you. This helps organize conversations on the talk pages making them easier to follow. Ward20 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
[edit]
You have engaged in proven sock puppetry, using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. This is your only warning. If you do this again you may be permanently blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Guy, I don't think I have any idea what you're talking about. No disrespect intended. I use Lastpass for storing logins, there is an old one in there which I no longer use; I must have created it in the past. Probably what happened is that I forgot I had previously created an account and then created a new one. Could that be somehow responsible for "sock puppetry" which I've never heard of and have no desire to engage in?Breachdyke (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I see in my Lastpass the other account has username: mmaannddaa. I don't remember when I created this but I'm almost certain the only other editing I've done on Wikipedia was in the main section of the article where I added a citation to Professor Jonathan Edwards on the PACE trial, and that was using the breachdyke account. That plus the past few days of editing/talking is the sum of my activity on Wikipedia. I live in Winchester in the UK and you're welcome to come and meet me in person and inspect my laptop!Breachdyke (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Indenting
[edit]If it gets too far indented, the {{od}} template resets to the left margin with a joining like, like: this
- comment 1
- comment 2
- comment 3
- comment 4
- comment 3
- comment 2
comment 5
Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Breachdyke (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)