User talk:Gren0ui11e

Welcome!

Hello, Gren0ui11e, 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Feldenkrais Method shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to bring the article up to scientific standards? What is the discretionary sanction for?Gren0ui11e (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you slow down and read it you will understand. We get a lot of alt med advocates who come to WP (we are open to anyone, right?) and raise all kinds of hell. Things got so hot, for so long, that behavioral issues related to alt med went to Wikipedia's "Supreme Court", which we call the Arbitration Committee or Arbcom for short. If something goes there, it ends up with long-lasting "sanctions" hanging over it, that allow the community to take swift action when things get out of control. (We also have such sanctions for abortion, the Israel-Palestine dispute... and others)

The notice above informs you to edit carefully on this topic.

btw you might find two things helpful, to get you oriented -- WP:EXPERT, and User:Jytdog/How. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- this is helpful. TBH, based on the rapid reversions over the last couple years in the history, it seemed like you were like the trolls that were common on Wikipedia before.Gren0ui11e (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Good luck to you in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome

Hi Gren0ui11e. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has probably been over a decade since I had been actively editing wikipedia -- I couldn't even find my old username. It is clear that a lot has changed, but many of the same problems remain. The pathway to resolve quality issues seems to be in a much better place than it was before but I still am obviously still learning my way around. Thank you. Gren0ui11e (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of Wikipedia for promotion

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Feldenkrais Method have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was correcting by removing a generalized assertion of benefit to autism? Please see discussion.Gren0ui11e (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there just before you made the edit. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it there -- each is responding in the other area. I am anticipating that further comments by me will be in talk.Gren0ui11e (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

So, topic bans are actual things in WP. See WP:TBAN.

Your recent editing history at Feldenkrais Method shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

did not remove any of the reversions potentially subject to WP:PROMO, but only removed the WP:PROMO portion.Gren0ui11e (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]