User talk:Jjreedreed

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jjreedreed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Morgellons have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Morgellons. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alexbrn. Now noted.--Jjreedreed (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jjreedreed reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am new here and have begun engaging in discussion on the talk page. --Jjreedreed (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

It is frowned upon here to write about yourself and your friends. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, To what are you referring? --Jjreedreed (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that I disagreed with you on an edit so you immediately accuse me of conflict of interest. Nice guy, and super professional.--Jjreedreed (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is this [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, on ecosexuality. I was invited (by email) to edit the entry for correctness. Now I see that since my name is used, WP guidelines consider it a COI to edit. I'll remove it. Thank you for bringing the policy to my attention. Interesting that you're stalking me as a new user WP:DONTBITE after disagreeing with me on a different WP entry. Take care.

I see that you already took the liberty to delete all traces of my name and references there, including those added by other users. Big man. --Jjreedreed (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith of a new user is evident in your behavior towards me on multiple pages. --Jjreedreed (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI[edit]

You are new here - please do take the time to read WP:MEDRS, which is described narratively below.

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I am learning the format as I am used to performing academic literature reviews and writing encyclopedia entries based on an overview of scholarly studies in a topic area.

You would probably find WP:EXPERT helpful. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks[edit]

Please discuss content, not contributors. This is a basic principle here.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Morgellons that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Please feel free to re-post the rest of what you wrote, leaving the comments on contributors out of it. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time contributors can stalk and attack new users on other WP pages in retaliation for disagreement about content edits on a completely unrelated page; users are unable to comment on this bullying practice in the talk section. That's called collaboration. Got it. --Jjreedreed (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of collaboration, where do I report such behavior? --Jjreedreed (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the argument a five year old kid makes. Not interested and neither should you be. Don't attack other contributors. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your question at the talk page that you are thinking of going to ANI. This will probably blow up in your face with what we call a WP:BOOMERANG. fwiw I strongly suggest you slow down and learn how this place works before going ballistic. You will do what you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my short time here, I have unfortunately found the principle to assume good faith to be sorely lacking among some contributors. --Jjreedreed (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Morgellons[edit]

You've been warned per the outcome of this complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert again at Morgellons unless you have received a prior consensus on the talk page. Morgellons has been the subject of dispute in the past, and a new fight there is likely to be widely noticed by administrators. You've been editing the lead so as to change the high level summary of how Wikipedia reports on this disease. I hope it is not a surprise that a change like this needs broad consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am new to WP and have found the principle to assume good faith to be sorely lacking among some contributors. I have experienced immediate hostility rather than education toward inviting collaboration. --Jjreedreed (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should not come as a shock that you were reported for edit warring (you *were* edit warring). If you try hard to follow our policies people will probably become nicer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No shock at all now that I understand what edit warring even means in WP terms. The concern extends to being followed by long-time editors from that page to another page that is out of their normal topic areas. Rather than informing me what a COI means in WP terms and simply reverting my recent edits, they completely deleted content posted by other users that referred to my work. Is that a common or acceptable form of retaliation toward new users? --Jjreedreed (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]