User talk:Bwmbagus

Removing sourced material

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC) The material I removed is opoinionated and not factual. I have simply posted a correct and provable piece of information. I can provide references for all I have said in the post and I will conitnue to correct the disinformed post.[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of being disruptive on this topic. I have simply removed an opinionatd entry which has no basis in the science and is premised on internet myth claims about LDN. I qam writing the entry based on the real science of LDN and the real situation regarding it's use by real patients. It disturbs me that the wiki site is ued by a professor at Yale to spout opinion built on internet myths.The idea that LDN boosts the immune system is a myth so it cannot be used to dimsmiss patienrts who use it based on the real science.b The wiki entry must express the facts and the real science and not become a playground for an opinionated individual seeking self promotion. We are engaged in the work of ensuring that what is said about LDN reflects the real proven facts and nothing more!

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content I am editing is a falsfification and an abuse of Wikipedia. The person writing the LDN article has both vandalised my previous work about LDN on this site, and is expressing his opinion and not the real facts about the subject. This is wrong for a site like Wikipedia and I would like you to justify the entry which you are preferring to my own, because it is wrongt and offensive.

The current article is well-supported by numerous WP:Reliable sources, unlike the version you've been blocked for reverting to, which contains no reliable sources whatsoever. If after your block you continue this pattern of editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bwmbagus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for removing material which consists of opinion and is not factal about the subject. It has been created by someone with a published agenda regtarding the subject of the entry. The entry must simply present the science that really does exist and background information about it's use in the world, and not make judgements, especially ones based on internet mythology as the current LDN article is. The author of this offensive twaddle actually vandfalised my previous entry on the subject so why was he not blocked too? My current material is up to deate with the published science and I want to see the wiki entry reflecting reality and not cynical opinion. Bwmbagus (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for disruptively edit-warring to include your preferred version of the article over the one there at present. You were properly warned to stop, and yet continued - thus, the block. On review, I see that you have precisely one edit to the article's talk page - and that was more than two years ago. If you have specific points to raise about the article, please do so - on the talk page. "This statement is wrong, and this source (link) shows why." for example, would be a great way to show the flaws in the current article. You can also start a Request for comment on the matter. Other editors may disagree with you, and that's what the talk page is for. You do not get to declare the article bad and re-do the whole thing without discussing the matter first. Once you're unblocked, you can post your proposed version to your userspace - something like User:Bwmbagus/LDN Draft. Click that redlink and paste it, if you like. Then you can refer to it as you discuss the article. But you do not get to edit-war over your preferred version. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(ec x1 on decline) You need to read the policy on edit-warring, and even moreso the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Your edit did not meet consensus, and this it was up to you to try and obtain consensus on the article talkpage before making the same edit again. Your only way forward from this point on is to obtain consensus by including appropriate links to reliable sources through discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way forward here is for me to insert my article and make sure I include the qualified references to the science papers. It is necessary that this entry is correct and this time I will supply many published papers proving the points being made. I will try and do this by presenting an alternate view and leaving the disinformation in place between my paragraphs. This should be acceptable since it is the references anhd their quality that makes the article credible.

Removing sourced material that you don't like is also unacceptable. If you start doing that again without a consensus, you're going to end up with another block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've got the protocol now. It is a shame though that this artcile actually breaks your own criteria and does so by citing references mostly to journalistic opinion by the author and his friends. The references need to go to good science in this article. The whole entry also concentrates on an opinion and doesn't acvtually tell any visitor anything useful abot LDN, it just tries to scare them off which is as bad as trying to sell LDN. We are serious about ansuring that LDN is presented based on the real science and real theory as proposed by those doing real research and publishing real papers. We have access to these people and will now set about setting up a correct entry for Low Dose Naltrexone, and getting the information and refrences from the profgessors and ddoctors who are conducting the research, instead of from someone with an agenda to expose qwackery on the internet, who actually knows little of the science about LDN and seems to have littlee interest in people with terrible diseases who are trying to make choices in the face of a lack or medecines to help them. I knpw this because I am one, but I am also a real scientist and I do know how to write this entry, and how to get the qualified references we need to make this entry true and useful.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]