| Revision as of 16:29, 9 June 2015 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,177 edits →Friendly request to stop edit warring: sigh← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:33, 9 June 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits →Friendly request to stop edit warring: I don't understand how you can't see the blatant factual inaccuraciesNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| Your sourced material is inaccurate as proven via ] so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | Your sourced material is inaccurate as proven via ] so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :You have now repeatedly inserted your preferred version, so it is ''you'' who is edit warring - and edit warring in poor content too. After the amygdalin episode I wonder if you're being deliberately disruptive or if you really just lack clue. ] (]) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | :You have now repeatedly inserted your preferred version, so it is ''you'' who is edit warring - and edit warring in poor content too. After the amygdalin episode I wonder if you're being deliberately disruptive or if you really just lack clue. ] (]) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Your relentless and unwarranted hammering over the Griffin incident is tiresome and proves nothing. It's actually a form of harassment. I suppose it doesn't really matter since I can't be baited by such childish nonsense, especially considering the extent of disruption you've been involved in one way or another. {{P|smile}} Regarding the Kombucha article - extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources which is exactly what I provided. I'm somewhat surprised that you can't see the blatant factual inaccuracy of the cited book's claim in the lead. It is not supported by the source that was cited. Oh my, have I been giving you too much credit for knowing such things? There is clearly a pattern of rather disruptive behavior whenever you are involved in editing articles that are evenly remotely associated to CAM. It may seem exaggerated to me right now because of your battleground behavior and edit warring; I'm not sure. Curious - do you consider yourself a CAM-hater? --<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:33, 9 June 2015
 | “For any neutral statement of objective fact, someone will interpret it as taking sides in an argument of which you were probably not aware.” — Richard Dawkins |
| This is Bon courage's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
Please comment on Talk:Acupuncture
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Creatine
Hi Alexbrn, could you give me more details about the reason why you reverted my changes in this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. I found quite a few reliable sources so in my oppinion that section should be added. Totocol (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there - yes, Misplaced Pages sets the bar very high for sourcing on matters of human health - see WP:MEDRS. A primary study and WebMD aren't really good enough for our purposes. WebMD is sometimes okay but not here in my view. If you want to discuss further please drop a note on the Creatine Talk page so everyone can join in! Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Please see Misplaced Pages:AN3#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). I think you are already aware, but this means anyone can clearly see you were notified. I have no opinion on the report and haven't looked into it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - yes, I was aware. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Friendly request to stop edit warring
Your sourced material is inaccurate as proven via WP:V so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. Atsme 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- You have now repeatedly inserted your preferred version, so it is you who is edit warring - and edit warring in poor content too. After the amygdalin episode I wonder if you're being deliberately disruptive or if you really just lack clue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your relentless and unwarranted hammering over the Griffin incident is tiresome and proves nothing. It's actually a form of harassment. I suppose it doesn't really matter since I can't be baited by such childish nonsense, especially considering the extent of disruption you've been involved in one way or another.
Regarding the Kombucha article - extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources which is exactly what I provided. I'm somewhat surprised that you can't see the blatant factual inaccuracy of the cited book's claim in the lead. It is not supported by the source that was cited. Oh my, have I been giving you too much credit for knowing such things? There is clearly a pattern of rather disruptive behavior whenever you are involved in editing articles that are evenly remotely associated to CAM. It may seem exaggerated to me right now because of your battleground behavior and edit warring; I'm not sure. Curious - do you consider yourself a CAM-hater? --Atsme 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your relentless and unwarranted hammering over the Griffin incident is tiresome and proves nothing. It's actually a form of harassment. I suppose it doesn't really matter since I can't be baited by such childish nonsense, especially considering the extent of disruption you've been involved in one way or another.