User talk:Nitrate10

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nitrate10, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot[edit]

Your recent editing history at Beetroot 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 article's 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. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nitrate10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am correct in my edit. I should not be punished because an editor less qualified than me has an issue with what is written. How can references from lower quality journals and even newspaper articles take precident over a paper that is on top of the hierachy of evidence? It makes no sense. I have improved the page and upgraded the section to help future readers. Other editors should be warned for clearly harbouring a grudge. Nitrate10 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits. You should read up on our policy, and then attempt to gain consensus on the article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--jpgordon - thank you. As you can see I did write on the talk page in an attempt to gain consensus. However, the same editor did not read it and chose to undo the edit for a third time. So if the talk page is bypassed what am I supposed to do? If this is how editors are treated what is the point in editing page in an effort to improve their credibility? I am attempting to provide information. Without it the page is dated and stays as a "don't use wiki as a source for your information" because other editors hold a grudge and aren't sanctioned. Nitrate10 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10[reply]

Nitrate10, about beetroot issue and the validity of meta-analysis you are right. [1] [2]. But please, read and respect Wikipedia policies to avoid future problems. You must wait to achieve a consensus on talk pages. It is a good idea to ask for opinions of other users or admins, as for example raising the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, do not enter edit war. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]