User talk:Jazzix: Difference between revisions
→Discretionary sanctions: new section |
→Edit war warning: Ignorance of admin and abuse of user |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
||
Admin Jtydog and User Ronz continues to misquote source on Velvet Antler page. For the removal of this source and blatant misquote I have received this warning. |
|||
A review published in 2012 summarized results from seven clinical trials, including three that assessed sports performance (Syrotuik, Sleivert, Broeder). "Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials."<ref> {{cite journal |vauthors=Gilbey A, Perezgonzalez JD |title=Health benefits of deer and elk velvet antler supplements: a systematic review of randomised controlled studies |journal=N. Z. Med. J. |volume=125 |issue=1367 |pages=80–6 |year=2012 |pmid=23321886 |doi= |url=}}</ref> |
|||
Proper quotation is actually - "Claims made for velvet antler supplements do not appear to be based upon rigorous research from human trials, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise." |
|||
Obvious misquote. |
|||
== Discretionary sanctions == |
== Discretionary sanctions == |
Revision as of 01:00, 25 September 2017
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.BATTLERS, CYBERBULLIES AND JUST PLAIN RUDE PEOPLE ARE NOT WELCOME TO POST HERE. |
|
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Velvet antler 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 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.
Admin Jtydog and User Ronz continues to misquote source on Velvet Antler page. For the removal of this source and blatant misquote I have received this warning.
A review published in 2012 summarized results from seven clinical trials, including three that assessed sports performance (Syrotuik, Sleivert, Broeder). "Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials."[1]
Proper quotation is actually - "Claims made for velvet antler supplements do not appear to be based upon rigorous research from human trials, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise."
Obvious misquote.
Discretionary sanctions
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 that 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.