User talk:Cyintherye

Welcome!

Hello, Cyintherye, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You need to discuss your changes on the article Talk page. They are not being accepted. The wrong thing to do, is try to force them in.

Your recent editing history at Rolfing 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. Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark and "Dr."

On Wikipedia, please don't use "®" See WP:TRADEMARK: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context. Also, please don't prepend "Dr." to people's names. See WP:CREDENTIAL Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note about sourcing

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your "majority agreement" comment

Note that Wikipedia does not function by vote: WP:WIKINOTVOTE. Consensus has to be formed in line with the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, your user and Wiki talk pages and contributions contain comments by multiple editors feeling dismissed and bullied by your revisions. A common theme is the request that you take into account a broader perspective of research and scientific ethics. I urge you to reconsider the impact that your contributions have and could have on the community and the body of knowledge that Wiki represents. You may want to talk a closer look at WP:con and actually engage in the consensus process beyond simply stating and restating your opinion, and reverting the page to something unethical you happen to prefer, while deriding others' contributions. Cyintherye (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good number of the editors who complained ended up blocked or banned. Edit according to the WP:PAGs and all shall be well. It seems you're here to advocate for Rolfing (any WP:COI to declare?) and WP:ADVOCACY is incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring NPOV would only look like advocating to somebody set out to disparage a topic. "value-laden words" (like quackery) "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" WP:terrorist. I think 3 reliable sources from the past decade would be adequate to demonstrate "wide use." I am - as ever - open to evidence. Cyintherye (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this at the article Talk page. Rolfing is obviously quackery so only a featherweight source is needed really (we have better though). You still haven't replied about your WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]