User talk:14.200.91.233: Difference between revisions

Please be more carful when editing to not delete things/ annoy people. I do not agree with these comments. Thanks, Qwerty number1 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty number1, care to reference what was deleted or how it is "annoying" for you that I referenced the second most popular bird in Australia (as rated by a very large public poll by The Guardian and Birdlife Australia), as being more than of "low importance"? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining about a request to have the status changed. However, I think that you have vandalized the page by threatening to sue Wikipedia if they do not change the status of the article. Therefore, I have removed the section threatening to do this. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's libel mate. I never threatened Wikipedia. If you lack enough comprehension skills that you can't even recognise obvious humor on a talk page and truly believe THIS GUY (@BinChickenSC) is going to sue Wikipedia, then you need to slow down a bit. P.s. The humorous reference was highly relevant, as part of the Bin Chicken's cultural importance IS that he's such a funny bird and the source of endless jokes. Labeling lighthearted banter on a TALK page is content vandalism? Oh Drearypedia. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also changed the section title, which was annoying. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

soory, but I have only found links to a magazine, a twitter account and a clip from the bbc(copyright?!)

Your spelling of soory is annoying. There was an accidental double-paste (after proofing it elsewhere pre-edit), that was fixed seconds later. See comment above re the legal threat false allegation. I'll refrain from straight talk, except to say, you make this a rather unpleasant place, not a civilised one. Recommend that you study the subject matter first, before getting so trigger happy. As stated, it's the 2nd most popular bird of an entire continent and relevant. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply, I believe this was answered long ago on talk page to explain rationale. I'm glad you love evidence-based medicine, as do I. I appreciate the courteous tone User:Doc James and that you kindly offered style advice, tools, assistance, etc. All the best.

Please stop your disruptive editing^{[citation needed]}. If you continue^{[citation needed]} to add defamatory^{[citation needed]} content, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on your Nick-D talk page, please provide evidence of the falsehoods in my statements, which is necessary to establish a claim of defamation. Also, I find it unlikely that you're here again by random chance when I edit so very rarely. So if you could, please do allow other editors (and not a cabal friends), to participate also. It might more accurately reflect the diversity of society that funds Wikipedia, containing a range of political backgrounds and perhaps even different prejudices than your own. I edit extremely rarely and yet it's always you who's apparently here. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your complete failure to even cite said alleged 'disruptive editing' here Nick-D, let alone to justify your case of why you considered the single edit defamatory (a single edit 'disruptive'?!) and failure to identify even a single falsehood that could justify calling that edit defamatory in the first place, shows bad faith and bad editorship. Your claims that I'm a disruptive editor are slanderous libel. Either state your case, or kindly remove your comments, or I shall remove it for you. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Yassmin Abdel-Magied, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iryna Harpy, Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires to "document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence" as part of the Five Pillars. Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P2. Thankfully now, there is a section on "Media controversy", since the ANZAC day subject did happen, did in fact offend many people and was notable (including due to its media coverage). The edit war against people trying to have that section and a major point of view included on the page, is against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, particularly WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:WELLKNOWN and "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". The effort to censor such the content, instead of even just removing it, denies opportunity for others to assess the facts. Making false allegations without evidence (as has happened towards me), is personal attack and defamation. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the above diatribe have to do with your article talk page comment which I removed as the blatant personal attack against an editor/admin that it was? Wikipedia's guidelines regarding such behaviour is clear. You are also sailing close to the wind in suggesting that the removal and warning is 'defamation'. I suggest that you pay attention to what you have been warned about before attempting to read the riot act to me, or to any other editor. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if the lack of due process and policy failures in the original (prior) matter had received the same degree of attention Iryna Harpy. This conversation was avoidable in more ways than one. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including whether allegations of disruptive editing had had any basis in fact. Nowhere had a "pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" been substantiated in any way, nor was the original claim of a defamation and neither were those statements retracted, or intervened by another editor. Do you think WP:5P4 was shown regarding how the disagreement was handled, given the tone used above on my page? Without courtesy of an explanation and with a threats of banning, without any warning and on the first occurrence; once again in breach of Wikipedia's editor policy? Would appreciate the original facts to be considered, before any subsequently causative matter in isolation. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Be proud of yourself causing more preventable diseases, by blocking high quality NIH-funded university research (replicated by multiple independent international research teams, passing expert peer-review panels and cited in reputable sources including covers of WP:MEDRS exampled "core clinical journal"), from reaching the public's eyes. When you answer the question "What did I do today?", you can say, "I helped make more people cripple and destroyed their quality of life!". May you get what you give. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how hard some will fight to NOT just say something simple like, "NIH has funded research into whether EGCG could be a potential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis". Even though every research program and team who's study it, has strongly concluded that it is in fact a VERY promising treatment and has remarkable results in every animal model study. There is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV exercised by editors reviewing. Just systemic bias towards synthetic, prescribable, patentable, commericalised drug companies and doctors protecting their prescribing monopoly on treatments (against safer alternatives). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]