User talk:Maffty

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I just changed the order of the sentences. For the most part, that is. And MOS:PUFFERY. Why did you put it back? Shall we start the necessary discussions? --Maffty (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I searched the archives for the source. I also updated the date and time.--Maffty (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Other accounts?

For transparency, could you clarify: have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I created my first account for English Wikipedia.

What is your reason for revert? (#Notice) --Maffty (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: That does not answer the question. Which account have you created first at English Wikipedia and when was that? tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This account is the first. Maffty (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dietary acid load has been accepted

Dietary acid load, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Indiscriminate spamming of links

I suggest you stop spamming articles with inappropriate links to the new dietary acid load article, before someone reports the matter, and gets you blocked. The article is clearly synthesis, and a POV fork, and is almost certain to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It is not consistent with your statement.

When I wrote to Alkaline diet you said. "this article isn't about acidic diets." And you reverted my edit about systematic reviews.

I have created a new article summarizing the erased academic papers. World Health Organization's reports and systematic reviews have been restored. These are not sources like blog posts. --Maffty (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of quackery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not mention quackery? These are legitimate academic studies and scholarly discussions. I emphasized systematic reviews. These are WP:MEDRS. --Maffty (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't mention quackery. You are however promoting it. Go quack somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fear of the quack109.119.233.122 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

The reason for the block is disruptive editing. However, Star Mississipp states that: "I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment". It would be a reason for a wrong block.

I cited a systematic reviews as WP:MEDRS. I mentioned NPOV. However, They reject these MEDRS, and They suggested another article.

• Alexbrn then renamed the "Alkaline diet" to the "Alkaline diet (alternative medicine)" like Detoxification (alternative medicine). Alexbrn says "By mixing in irrelevant scientific research that is not about this topic you are becoming disruptive".
  • It seems that they have had this problem there for years. He holds the same opinion in 2017 "it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity." Alexbrn in particular has edited Alkaline Diet 50 times since 2013.
• AndyTheGrump says "this article isn't about acidic diets", And AndyTheGrump reverted my edit with MEDRS.
• Psychologist Guy says "this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet"".

Many of the papers were titled Dietary acid load. So I have created the Dietary acid load dealing with PRAL and NEAP.

Alexbrn says: "I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on dietary acid load as good sources are available". Alexbrn had the consistency of splitting articles. On the other hand, AndyTheGrump(1) and Psychologist Guy(2) began calling it Fork.

AndyTheGrump heated up and used Speedy deletion, which was rejected. AndyTheGrump and Psychologist Guy use the terms "unreliably" and "original research". This is exaggerated. It is not fringe or original research. I use the talk page and cite the review paper as WP:MEDRS. Please see Dietary acid load#References.

This is simply a heated discussion. We are actively discussing the issue in Talk:Dietary acid load#Acid-ash hypothesis is not PRAL. Maffty (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The reason for the block is disruptive editing. However, Star Mississipp states that: "[[Special:diff/1100196168|I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment]]". It would be a reason for a wrong block. I cited a systematic reviews as [[WP:MEDRS]]. I mentioned NPOV. However, They reject these MEDRS, and They suggested another article. *Alexbrn then renamed the "[[Alkaline diet]]" to the "[[Alkaline diet (alternative medicine)]]" like [[Detoxification (alternative medicine)]]. Alexbrn says "[[Special:diff/1099971693|By mixing in irrelevant scientific research that is not about this topic you are becoming disruptive]]". **It seems that they have had this problem there for years. He holds the same opinion in 2017 "[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alkaline diet/1|it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity.]]" Alexbrn in particular has edited Alkaline Diet 50 times since 2013. *AndyTheGrump says "[[Special:diff/1099970761|this article isn't about acidic diets]]", And AndyTheGrump reverted my edit with MEDRS. *Psychologist Guy says "[[Special:diff/1099951718|this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet"]]". Many of the papers were titled Dietary acid load. So I have created the [[Dietary acid load]] dealing with PRAL and NEAP. [[Special:diff/1100085455|Alexbrn says]]: "I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on [[dietary acid load]] as [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22dietary+acid+load%22&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview good sources] are available". Alexbrn had the consistency of splitting articles. On the other hand, AndyTheGrump([[#Indiscriminate spamming of links|1]]) and Psychologist Guy([[Special:diff/1100166159|2]]) began calling it Fork. AndyTheGrump heated up and used Speedy deletion, which was rejected. AndyTheGrump and Psychologist Guy use the terms "unreliably" and "original research". This is exaggerated. It is not fringe or original research. I use the talk page and cite the review paper as [[WP:MEDRS]]. Please see [[Dietary acid load#References]]. This is simply a heated discussion. We are actively discussing the issue in [[Talk:Dietary acid load#Acid-ash hypothesis is not PRAL]]. [[User:Maffty|Maffty]] ([[User talk:Maffty#top|talk]]) 23:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason for the block is disruptive editing. However, Star Mississipp states that: "[[Special:diff/1100196168|I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment]]". It would be a reason for a wrong block. I cited a systematic reviews as [[WP:MEDRS]]. I mentioned NPOV. However, They reject these MEDRS, and They suggested another article. *Alexbrn then renamed the "[[Alkaline diet]]" to the "[[Alkaline diet (alternative medicine)]]" like [[Detoxification (alternative medicine)]]. Alexbrn says "[[Special:diff/1099971693|By mixing in irrelevant scientific research that is not about this topic you are becoming disruptive]]". **It seems that they have had this problem there for years. He holds the same opinion in 2017 "[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alkaline diet/1|it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity.]]" Alexbrn in particular has edited Alkaline Diet 50 times since 2013. *AndyTheGrump says "[[Special:diff/1099970761|this article isn't about acidic diets]]", And AndyTheGrump reverted my edit with MEDRS. *Psychologist Guy says "[[Special:diff/1099951718|this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet"]]". Many of the papers were titled Dietary acid load. So I have created the [[Dietary acid load]] dealing with PRAL and NEAP. [[Special:diff/1100085455|Alexbrn says]]: "I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on [[dietary acid load]] as [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22dietary+acid+load%22&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview good sources] are available". Alexbrn had the consistency of splitting articles. On the other hand, AndyTheGrump([[#Indiscriminate spamming of links|1]]) and Psychologist Guy([[Special:diff/1100166159|2]]) began calling it Fork. AndyTheGrump heated up and used Speedy deletion, which was rejected. AndyTheGrump and Psychologist Guy use the terms "unreliably" and "original research". This is exaggerated. It is not fringe or original research. I use the talk page and cite the review paper as [[WP:MEDRS]]. Please see [[Dietary acid load#References]]. This is simply a heated discussion. We are actively discussing the issue in [[Talk:Dietary acid load#Acid-ash hypothesis is not PRAL]]. [[User:Maffty|Maffty]] ([[User talk:Maffty#top|talk]]) 23:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason for the block is disruptive editing. However, Star Mississipp states that: "[[Special:diff/1100196168|I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment]]". It would be a reason for a wrong block. I cited a systematic reviews as [[WP:MEDRS]]. I mentioned NPOV. However, They reject these MEDRS, and They suggested another article. *Alexbrn then renamed the "[[Alkaline diet]]" to the "[[Alkaline diet (alternative medicine)]]" like [[Detoxification (alternative medicine)]]. Alexbrn says "[[Special:diff/1099971693|By mixing in irrelevant scientific research that is not about this topic you are becoming disruptive]]". **It seems that they have had this problem there for years. He holds the same opinion in 2017 "[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alkaline diet/1|it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity.]]" Alexbrn in particular has edited Alkaline Diet 50 times since 2013. *AndyTheGrump says "[[Special:diff/1099970761|this article isn't about acidic diets]]", And AndyTheGrump reverted my edit with MEDRS. *Psychologist Guy says "[[Special:diff/1099951718|this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet"]]". Many of the papers were titled Dietary acid load. So I have created the [[Dietary acid load]] dealing with PRAL and NEAP. [[Special:diff/1100085455|Alexbrn says]]: "I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on [[dietary acid load]] as [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22dietary+acid+load%22&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview good sources] are available". Alexbrn had the consistency of splitting articles. On the other hand, AndyTheGrump([[#Indiscriminate spamming of links|1]]) and Psychologist Guy([[Special:diff/1100166159|2]]) began calling it Fork. AndyTheGrump heated up and used Speedy deletion, which was rejected. AndyTheGrump and Psychologist Guy use the terms "unreliably" and "original research". This is exaggerated. It is not fringe or original research. I use the talk page and cite the review paper as [[WP:MEDRS]]. Please see [[Dietary acid load#References]]. This is simply a heated discussion. We are actively discussing the issue in [[Talk:Dietary acid load#Acid-ash hypothesis is not PRAL]]. [[User:Maffty|Maffty]] ([[User talk:Maffty#top|talk]]) 23:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}