User talk:GHuys

October 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Spirulina (dietary supplement). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021 - Spirulina

On my talk page, you said: what is the purpose of your (sic) life as an editor? Who gives you whatever credit for deleting valid details to articles about valuable topics? I had quoted scientific papers and UN-Organization documents, and you - obviously full of power and empty of understanding - delete these additions. You have no qualification and no right to violate Wikipedia rules.

This was your edit on 15 October, seeming to be a rant against the UN and promotion of your unsourced view that spirulina is a "very productive source of high quality nutrition which can be locally procuded (sic) in most areas world wide. It would replace industrial products and improve health which contradicts the interest of cartels and pharma companies." Such a statement is WP:OR. The nutrition of spirulina is adequately displayed in the table, and the nutrient contents are sufficiently discussed and sourced in its section of the article. The research section states the current view of three major organizations - NIH, EFSA and the Cochrane Database - that there is insufficient evidence for using spirulina for any health condition, and no need for it in normal nutrition and diets. Inferred in those sources is that a mixed normal diet will provide sufficient nutrients, and use of spirulina - for most people - would be unnecessary and probably expensive. Based on use of encyclopedic sources and clear statements in the article, I don't see a scientific basis for changing the article or your objection. Also, your writing both for the article and my talk page was reckless in English composition - if you're going to edit Wikipedia, be sure to copy edit your own writing. Zefr (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your action, the complete deletion, is reckless and arbitrary. If you found errors in my expression or spelling, you can correct them. The details above are widely incorrect and biased. Spirulina should not be considered a "supplement" - a completely arbitrary classification. The nutritional value compared with average sea food, a supposedly "main food source", is remarkably higher while the price is lower. Your cited "Crochane Database" is a joke. There is one irrelevant article about Spirulina. The Wikipedia article should not only be "changed" but it should be rewritten. I will repeat my edit with less bias against the corrupt UN. If you continue to find reason for deletion, I will work on ending your access as a censor.

May 2021

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Superfood seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]