Neurosurgeon2be123
May 2018
edit
Hello, I'm Natureium. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chronic Lyme disease without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chronic Lyme disease. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Chronic Lyme disease was changed by Neurosurgeon2be123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853909 on 2018-05-07T21:28:14+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
- Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
- We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources. (For the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF.)
- Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
- The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
- We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
- More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, how to format citations quickly and easily.
- Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
- We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
- Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
- Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
- Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
- Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
- Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.
Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.
– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions
editThe topic you are editing, is subject to two sets of what we call "discretionary sanctions". Please see the notes below.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
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.Edit war warning
edit
Your recent editing history at Chronic lyme disease 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) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
edit Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Landscaping has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Landscaping was changed by Neurosurgeon2be123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.862283 on 2018-05-10T15:42:46+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Landscaping. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. McSly (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chronic Lyme Disease, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to School refusal. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please read WP:NOR You can't just add your own opinions or research. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Note: indefinite does not mean forever, it means that the block will not automatically expire. You need to address the concerns identified above. I have reviewed your edits and find them to be consistently tendentious, promoting fringe ideas and in some cases fraudulent claims. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Neurosurgeon2be123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unfairly removed by editors biased to the extent that they did not allow comprehensive, neutral coverage of opposing viewpoints. I request that my account be unblocked for these reasons. In several instances, the editors mentioned that my edits lacked proper citation. My edits were in general quite minor and had factually correct information (not all information by other editors is cited, either). It seems like my mentioning that a lawsuit exists against the IDSA is not "fringe", and it would seem like it would be a mis-classification to assume so.
Decline reason:
"I am right and everyone else is biased and wrong" is not reason to unblock you. An unblock request must address your behavior; stating what you did wrong, how it will not happen again, and telling us how you will be productive instead. You were not blocked for what other people did, only for what you did. Until you concede that, you will not be unblocked. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
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.