User talk:Atchoum

Asselineau and p.r.u

Sources et respect the source's contents please. --Francis Le français (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Your edit to Probiotic has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Do not copy from published material. That is both plagiarism and a copyright violation. This can get you blocked from editing. Read and rewrite conclusions from your own writing. Zefr (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory journals

Frontiers Media are not a reliable source of journals, neither are MDPI. There is no point in adding Frontiers reviews, they are not a reliable and will be removed by experienced medical editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Parkinson's disease. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Your writing in English is below the standard to maintain high-quality of the English encyclopedia. Please edit in your own language; see List of Wikipedias. Also, you rarely provide an edit summary, and your choice of sources is often from low-quality journals. Check impact factor and Medline indexing before you make a source choice. Zefr (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the reference of your book to make progress. Atchoum (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Parkinson's disease shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Health effects of tea and Parkinson's disease, you may be blocked from editing. You not only write illiterate content, but you do not follow the WP:MEDRS guideline for choosing sources for remarkable content, like a large unproven effect on cancer. You are in danger of getting reported to admin for blocking. Zefr (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fenugreek. ... black tea, Parkinson's disease et al. You see "meta-analysis" or "umbrella review" in the title and see a good source without reading the source. A review of observational studies for topics of food, herb or beverage consumption is a low-quality source for the enyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts?

Hi,

I have noticed your unusual editing, layout and other bad editing is very similar to this account DietCokeFeast. You should disclose if you have been using any previous accounts on here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane adds to various articles

I appreciate your contributions and find them valuable. Cochrane collab really does provide useful stuff. But I would ask you to more carefully review what other editors have done to edit your contributions and bring them up to Wikipedia's standards for content. Adding many multiple cochrane cites to lots of articles can be helpful, but should be done with more care. Particularly when it comes to copy-editing, grammar, and making sure the claims are specific and compliant with WP:MEDRS. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Atchoum reported by User:Zefr (Result: ). Thank you. Zefr (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Withania somnifera, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. Zefr (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]