User talk:Belteshazzar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belteshazzar (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 24 May 2020 (→‎Edit-warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Belteshazzar! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT

It may help if you really do read this. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought my previous comment hadn't appeared, since your response was very similar to your previous one, and I thought it was the same one. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That link is just to a section of the whole document. It isn't a particularly big section. Slightly further down the page is a section on how editors like me should deal with disruptive editors like you. Do please read WP:DDE as well. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement." I've been trying to do that. For example, "ineffective" might be OK if it is qualified somewhat. Although overall I regret restarting that discussion, as this led to useful content being removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Content That should never have been there in the first place. Anyway, I’ve had enough of your nonsense. Do not expect to hear from me until you go up before the community at ANI for sanctions. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would be a good addition to IDHT? That seems to be more or less what has happened here. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bates method, you may be blocked from editing. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply applying WP:SYN as it seems to be understood. The source doesn't appear to mention Bates or his theory. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Regarding your recent edits, especially [1]: Please revert and work to get consensus. Otherwise I think it's very likely you're heading for a block or ban. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a quote whose source no longer contains it, removed verbiage from a description of Bates' techniques, and edited out a section whose content was redundant or better fit elsewhere in the article. The physiological issues are covered in "Underlying concepts", sunlight exposure is covered in "Sunning", and the danger of neglecting conventional eye care is covered in "General criticisms"; all three are also mentioned in the intro. I did move two things to other sections, and if you think I removed something else that should have been kept, that can be reintegrated into the appropriate section.
Another point regarding the "Effectiveness" section: from the history, it appears its main purpose was to report on a study which was later removed.
If you're referring to the intro, I think my edits there were at least constructive. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert and get consensus on the talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to restore a quote which no longer has a source (and the WebMD article is apparently considered somewhat questionable anyway), and a redundant section which no longer has a purpose? After my explanation, I was honestly expecting an apology. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to restore the article to the last good version and work from there. I started this discussion to see if we can do so without you being blocked or banned in the process. Your cooperation is essential. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "last good version"? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that looks like it was WP:STABLE would do, if you think we might be better off reverting further. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should not restore a redundant section which has no purpose. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you can't take a step back from your personal opinions and instead work cooperatively with others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, but I don't see a mass revert as a positive step here, given the problems with the previous version. It's a simple fact that the Accommodation quote is not in the current WebMD article. It's a fact that the "Effectiveness" section had redundancy to the "Underlying Concepts", "Sunning", and "Avoidance of Conventional Treatment" sections, which are also summarized in the introduction. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that How about now? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And don't make assumptions about or misrepresentations of editors in edit-summaries.[2] All you're doing is projecting your own biases. That's what's going to get you banned or blocked if you can't reel it back. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what else I was supposed to assume, given your comments here. The edit summary explained the reason for going and digging up an old version of an article which now exists in a different form, as that might appear odd otherwise. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume. Don't focus on editors.
What version did you revert to? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert to any version per se. For one thing, no previous version contained the archived WebMD link, even though the quote came from the 2007 edition of that article. Also, I simply cannot see how restoring a redundant section would be good. In short, there was no (remotely recent) good version to revert to. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My normal solution to a problem like this is to go back to where the disruption began, then restore the revision before that. I think it began here, so... -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any mass revert would restore a fair amount of disjointedness, verbiage, and redundancy which has since been improved. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to work with others in a cooperative manner, then a block or ban seems necessary. Please revert, and work cooperatively to create consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in talk why my edit was good. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Belteshazzar&oldid=958611335"