Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 23 April 2010

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ExpertResearcher, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SGGH 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Deodorant. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please don't edit war. See here (There's broad consensus there that FRINGE and UNDUE are not being respected.) Elvey (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer to your question at WP:ANI

Hi There Frank. I'll answer your question here in a second, after I've collected a couple of things. --SGGH 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It was User:Elvey who left you the message. In general, Misplaced Pages has the WP:3RR rule, which states that no user can revert an article (i.e. roll it back to a condition it was at a previous time, before an edit, say) more than three times in a 24 hour period unless they are undoing vandalism. It essentially prevents edit warring (which is where two or more parties keep reverting the content to a version they each agree with which in turn prompts the other party to do the same). User:Elvey presumably believes that this is what you (inadvertently) were doing at deoderant. I'll take a look at the article now and see what has been happened. --SGGH 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that User:Elvey believes that your changes contradict WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE which means that they may overly-highlight one part of the topic over another, changing the emphasis of the article as a whole so that it inaccurately represents the true situation, and that your changes are adding material considered to be largely unrepresentative of the broadly held consensus on what the topic is about, representing points of view that very few people hold. Both the policies I linked to above can explain it better. He states above that "here's broad consensus there that FRINGE and UNDUE are not being respected." I'll as him to provide you a link to where such consensus has been built. Regards, --SGGH 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, there you go. --SGGH 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this. I did check here. I don't know what was not being respected. Can you be specific. Deodorant was written like a child wrote it. I thought I did a respectful job with deodorant. ExpertResearcher (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a tag raised by the user to indicate that he or she believes the article to have problems with its "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV). I'll have a look in the talk archive, hang on. SGGH 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Elvey will have to show you because I don't know the topic well enough, but I have left a message asking him (or her) and they will get back to you I am sure. Sit tight, and don't let it dishearten you. Misplaced Pages likes good contributors but it can be difficult started. You should have seen my first article SGGH 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ExpertResearcher's edit summary was: "... removing unreliable sources including ... American Cancer Society and the Alzheimer's Association". I'd say NPOV:_Aluminum_neurotoxicity and Dubious are most on point.--Elvey (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)