User talk:HealthAdvocate7

December 2019

Hello, I'm Erakura. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Functional medicine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Erakura^(talk) 21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Functional medicine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Erakura^(talk) 22:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for info about the sandbox, Erakura. I did do the edits in stages rather than waiting til it was complete and then posting. I will do it differently next time. The original post was not factual and instead was a collection of defamatory and inflammatory false information which I replaced with a basic description, not tainted towards a pro or con opinion. HealthAdvocate7 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My edit was straightforward information not biased in either direction. So you're telling me it's ok for Wikipedia to contain a page of inflammatory judgmental opinions rather than an unbiased factual description of a topic? I had actually donated to keep Wikipedia going but I now regret it and will no longer be using it as a source of information. HealthAdvocate7 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @HealthAdvocate7:, you should discuss those changes on the talk page of the article here and gain consensus before making such a big change to the lead of the articles. I suggest that you read the WP:FRINGE policy as it is relevant for the article. --McSly (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

HealthAdvocate7: Regarding waiting until your edit is complete before posting, that is fine, but I certainly can't imagine they will be kept if they are anything like what you posted. First of all, your latest edit was an obvious copy and paste from another website, which is a copyright violation and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Even ignoring that, attempting to edit the article to fit the narrative that functional medicine is anything other than pseudoscience/alternative medicine is very unlikely to succeed. Like McSly said, read through WP:FRINGE before continuing any further. -Erakura^(talk) 22:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There actually is already a consensus on the Talk page that this article does not provide a definition of the term "functional medicine" but instead is filled with biased and inflammatory information.

I am not attempting to fit a narrative. Actually, the original content of this page is doing just that. It is not unbiased and factual but fits the specific narrative that you yourself just mentioned. Calling a certain medical profession "pseudoscience" is a narrative.

You have a good point about the text I submitted being from a website that is actually about functional medicine. I had noticed that the article referenced external websites and mistakenly assumed it would be ok. I should have researched further the guidelines because I'm sure it's ok to quote small pieces but not a large section as I had. If I were to do this again I would do it differently.

However, since I've now discovered that Wikipedia supports and allows bias and opinion masquerading as facts, I'm not likely to be using this website as a source of information any longer. I regret donating to continue Wikipedia after discovering this. HealthAdvocate7 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not consensus, not by a long shot. (I suspect you ignored the latter 80% of the discussion you are talking about.) Donating to Wikipedia is your choice, but don't ever be mistaken that your donation will provide you any kind of preferential treatment. I'm a volunteer just like everyone else, whether you donated or not makes no difference to me. -Erakura^(talk) 22:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)