User talk:MedStudentUSA

Welcome!

Hello, MedStudentUSA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Osteopathy; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Natureium (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Osteopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Natureium (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about not care about a phrase that simply connects readers to a different article. That phrase "not to confuse with XYZ" is not hurting the article, right?

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MedStudentUSA reported by User:Natureium (Result: ). Thank you. Natureium (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Osteopathy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 02:50, 9 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is a clear difference between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine as declared by the United Nations in 2018. I can provide you with the direct article. Osteopathy is alternative medicine while osteopathic medicine is a way of practicing traditional medicine and surgery. Commoners, however, often confuse osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. The page about osteopathy hyperlinks an article about osteopathic medical practice in the United States, but it fails to talk about osteopathic medicine (general) which is a separate article. I simply added a 6-word long phrase "not to confuse with Osteopathic Medicine" after Osteopathy and linked the Osteopathic Medicine article in the article. Some predatory editors decided to predate on such a minor, benign edit by constantly undo-ing this edit that does not add or subtract from the article. There is a clear purpose of putting the phrase there so people do not confuse osteopathy with osteopathic medicine, which does not get directly cleared by that other existent article. I should be reporting those two editors for edit warring. Just because I am new to Wikipedia, those editors are using their expertise to predate on a new editor. Is this how the community is like here?

MedStudentUSA (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the contents of your edits. You were warned, you persisted, you were blocked for a short time so as to stop the disruption. I strongly suggest you don't keep your promise to continue edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 07:03, 9 February 2020 (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.