User talk:4eyes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, 4eyes, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for registering an account.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Information icon.svg   Introduction

 5   The five pillars of Wikipedia
Crystal package utilities.png   How to edit a page
Crystal khelpcenter.png   Help
Crystal Clear app ktip.png   Tips

Cscr-featured.png   How to write a great article
Crystal Clear app kedit.png   Manual of Style
UncialB-01.png   Be Bold
Face-angel.svg   Assume Good faith
Presa de decissions.png   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC.
You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Ruby. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Essiac. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of my revert[edit]

I want to point out a few issues with this edit[1] to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. First of all, why did you remove the part that says "However, the scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism."? You seem to say this is "outdated information", yet it is sourced to a reliable medical source, and you did not cite a WP:MEDRS for the fact that "the issue continues to divide the scientific community". For more info on proper sourcing please see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

Also, it seems that and a video of the meeting are the only sources you cite for the sentence (you also cited the CDC's homepage but I am not sure why) "revelations in 2014 by CDC senior scientist and whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, provided damning proof that the CDC had doctored and hid findings showing the MMR vaccine was causing autism in children taking part in their CDC study" is not a WP:RS and it is WP:OR to draw these conclusions from a video of the proceedings, you would need to cite a source that said this was proof of a coverup. (and describing stuff as "damning" violates WP:NPOV)

Feel free to ask me any questions, I am not trying to confuse you, there are just a lot of different policies and guidelines to know about. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)