User talk:Ddeleon82

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alfredo Bowman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

I notice you flagged my edits on this page as disruptive, but the existing article references several unreliable sources or uses them incorrectly entirely. For instance,

"and factored in faux-afrocentric[9] claims about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans and its diaspora."

cites sources, 9, 10 and 11.

Source 9 is a secondhand source from a Moorish author who lauds Bowman but contains no claim that Dr. Sebi ascribes to these beliefs and therefore does not support this claim in any way.

Sources 10 makes no claim about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans so it also does not support this claim.

Source 11 references a letter that is neither signed nor verified and is hosted on an unreliable 3rd party site. Further research reveals no further attribution for the letter nor mention of it in any verifiable source.

The edits I made did not attempt to change the spirit of the article, but only to back it with verifiable words attributable to the subject of the article, as reprinted here:

https://drsebiscellfood.com/methodology/

The other article cited is a verifiable study in a peer-reviewed journal, available for view here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Ddeleon82 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page and sourcing

Hi, just to make sure you see this (I also responded on my talk page but you probably didn't see that) : please use the article's talk page, not different user talk pages, for discussion about article content. This makes it easier to follow the discussion and keeps it from being fractured. Before you do that, please have a look at this information to understand why Wikipedia absolutely cannot use a person's own claims about the efficiacy of their own cures. And yes, Wikipedia strongly favours evidence-based medicine and will not include any claims of cures based on fringe theories. --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]