Noiseformind
Welcome! edit
Hello, Noiseformind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Noiseformind (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I placed a peer-review article that a user kept deleting with no reason for it. The milk article sources are almost 100% from the dairy industry and a scientific article kept being deleted! That is how ridiculous Wikipedia as become.
Decline reason:
This account is not and has never been blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:13, 28 February 2015 (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.
Editing and discussion in general edit
Hi Noiseformind. I noticed you haven't been editing too much yet, so I wanted to either introduce you or remind you of some of core policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. First, your post at my talk page was inappropriate (assuming you weren't signed in there) [1]. We don't engage in personal attacks (see WP:NPA. That's part of how we conduct ourselves on talk page namely described by WP:TPG. If you get reverted, it's best to stop and come to the article talk page to figure out what was wrong, otherwise you can get it trouble with what we call edit warring, which can get you blocked.
That's all behavior above, but the cool thing (I think) about Wikipedia is that we do have some standards for how we generate content. I'd start off reading one of our core policies on reliable sources (WP:RS) followed by what we call neutral point of view WP:NPOV. In medical topics, we rely pretty heavily on WP:MEDRS for how we develop content in medical topics. I realize I just threw a lot of acronyms your way, but those are some of our most important policies and guidelines that help things run smoothly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Milk article is basicly and ad to dairy companies, no single study that alerts for risks on milk gets into it... edit
... being basically sent to the "criticism" section even if its a 10 year article. For most of the article the people doing the article uses articles directly from dairy companies-funded research but any article not complying with their views gets redacted and asked to be more "thorough". Just the sort of thing that Wikipedia shouldn't be, and ad to consumerism.
See this wonderful list of sources for the MILK article in Wikipedia:
"Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) Once Again Under Fire". Organicconsumers.org. June 9, 2006.
Voluntary Labeling of Milk and Milk Products From Cows That Have Not Been Treated With Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin. Fda.gov. Retrieved on November 24, 2011. Epstein, Samuel S. "Milk: America's Health Problem". Cancer Prevention Coalition. Retrieved August 28, 2010.[dead link] "Mastitis Control Programs: Milk Quality Evaluation Tools for Dairy Farmers". Ag.ndsu.edu. January 1, 1997. Retrieved August 28, 2010. Greger, Michael (January 2001). "Paratuberculosis and Crohn's Disease: Got Milk?". Vegan Outreach. Retrieved February 8, 2011. "European Council Decision of December 17, 1999". Eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved August 28, 2010. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Milk Sucks". Retrieved December 9, 2009. United States. Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Calcium. 2013. Web. <http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/>. Feskanich, D.; Willett, WC; Stampfer, MJ; Colditz, GA (1997). "Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study". American Journal of Public Health 87 (6): 992–997. doi:10.2105/ajph.87.6.992. Carroll, Aaron E. (November 17, 2014). "Got Milk? Might Not Be Doing You Much Good". New York Times. Retrieved November 19, 2014. Sahi, T (1974). "Lactose malabsorption in Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking populations in Finland". Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 9 (3): 303–8. PMID 4852638. Zero Lactose – Enfin une solution pour les intolérants au lactose. Zerolactose.be. Retrieved on November 24, 2011. Lactose Free Milk. Real Goodness. Retrieved on November 24, 2011. "Yogurt and Other Cultured Dairy Products", National Dairy Council, 2000.
Most of them, the ones on favor of milk, are from actually corporate institutes, like the National Dairy Council. Others are research funded by such corporate institutes. But, I tried to put one single article in the Milk section, peer reviewed and published in the most preeminent Men's Health Journal in the world, and it kept being getting kicked out by a user that as kept the same corporate, non-scientific quotes on. Just because someone is in Wikipedia for long that shouldn't give them the right to be right. If someone is keeping science away from Wikipedia that someone is a cancer to the project itself and a demotivator of future contributors.
- Noise, you're new here, so it's best to start slow. Remember to check WP:MEDRS like I mentioned earlier. Just because something is peer-reviewed does not automatically make it a good source. Part of the problem is that no one as a Wikipedia editor is qualified to assess whether a primary study is legitimate or not. For those of us who are scientists, we know that primary literature is not intended for general audiences, but for other scientists in the field to pick apart and challenge. Here at Wikipedia, we wait until we can show an idea has gained acceptance in the scientific community, and that's why we typically stick to review articles. Are you familiar with what review articles are?
- I'll also point out WP:ADVOCACY. When I see editors come in commenting on corporate, etc. they've usually got an ax to grind about something. We're supposed to be check that kind of point of view at the door when we log in to Wikipedia. All in all, I really suggest slowing down and reading our policies and guidelines, namely the Five Pillars I posted at the top of your page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)