User talk:Racassidy54

Welcome!

Hello, Racassidy54, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I have combined two references for two redundant sentences

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chlordane may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(NHANES)have reported heptachlor epoxide and oxychlordane increase the risk of cognitive decline]].<ref>{{cite journal | author = Kim, Se-A | year = 2015| title = Greater cognitive decline with
= 1-9| doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0130623|display-authors=etal}}</ref>, liver damage ( liver enzymes)]].<ref>{{cite journal | author = Kim, Se-A | year = 2015| title = Greater cognitive decline with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chlordane

WIkipedia is not really the place for primary references. About 8000 papers describe chlordane. Let's see if we can just get reviews per the usual standard here. Also be careful that WP:COI does not apply. Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir:

The update to the chlordane page was derived from recent (within 5 years) major epidemiological studies with most of the research data coming from the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). NHANES is a cross-sectional surveys of the health of Americans. For the part, the peer-reviewed publications I referenced are from large studies conducted by multiple investigators from US Government Agencies (NIH, NIEHS, or CDC) or multiple investigators from leading research universities.

Since these large epidemiological studies are new areas of research with major importance to America health, I do not think the banner placed above the Health Effects Section of Chlordane is warranted and send an incorrect description to the reader.

Request removal of the banner.

Thanks, Dr. Richard A. Cassidy Toxicologist

Hello Racassidy54. Please provide edit summaries when editing articles (e.g. Chlordane), otherwise it is difficult for other editors to understand what you are trying to achieve. Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have provide review articles with meta-analysis of specific areas cited previously. According to wikipedia guidelines, review articles are considered secondary publications and should meet previous concerns. Best, Dr. Richard A. Cassidy, Toxicologist

Maybe so, but please provide a summary in the summary box each time you make an edit. In this edit for example, you removed a sourced statement about liver damage, but you give no indication why you did so. Without any explanation, such an edit can look like vandalism, and even if it's not vandalism, other editors have no idea why you removed it, so it is likely to be reverted. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about liver damage (which I placed) could not be support with additional scientific studies and had not been reviewed in a review article as previously requested. Richard

COI?

If you have a potential conflict of interest, please post that on your user page. http://toxfree.net/chlordane/Cassidy/index.php. See WP:COI. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My adddition to wikipedia on chlordane is only as an expert in the scientific research on health effects. I have published 4 peer-review articles on different area chlordane effects on health.

Do you have a conflict of interest?

Dr. Richard A. Cassidy, Toxicolgist

Nope, have published lots, but none on chlordane. I have no axe to grind on the subject. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While being an expert editor can sometimes be a gray zone in terms of WP:COI, citing yourself on Wikipedia definitely is. Especially seeing the above link that you now run a business for air testing and consulting focusing on chlordane, you should not be editing the page directly, but instead gain consensus for any edits on the article's talk page.

Also a reminder, sign your posts with four tildes (i.e., ~) at the end of your post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply January 24 2018 The relentless efforts to keep the most salient narratives on chlordane Health effects from being introduced in the introduction by Kingofaces43 suggest a potential conflict of interest (COI). Kingofaces43 has repeatedly deleted any statement pertaining to Health effects in the introduction some of which have been posted for almost a year.

His efforts would keep the most salient aspects of chlordane (Health effects) from being read by the readers of wikipedia. Who came to wikipedia to find out how chlordane could affect their health.

Dr. Richard A. Cassidy is an objective scientist, with a through knowledge of what is required for acceptance on a scientific topic. If anyone can find in my contributions to wikipedia any bias outside of the scientific norm, or any special interest, I will immediate delete those statements.

Edits to chlordane

I have made several minor changes.

Basically I have moved sentences into the correct headings to improve the logic of the narratives

Dr. Richard A. Cassidy

Pesticide topics

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 all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, 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.

I see you've been cautioned about MEDRS, etc. already (i.e., not using primary sources), not to mention the inappropriate appeal to being an expert here for edit warring. Please read WP:EXPERT for one. However, the main issue here is that due to your edit warring, you have now reverted editors twice on the page. I highly suggest undoing your revert due to violating 1RR as described above not to mention that you reinserted malformed content with non-MEDRS sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at chlordane

I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but adding a second period at the end of sentence isn't helpful. Regarding your edit summaries, they could easily be construed as personal attacks against other editors. Please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks and do not do that again. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Your behavior at chlordane is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Racassidy54. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit at Chlordane without waiting to get consensus from others, you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from editing anything related to chlordane.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 09:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]