User talk:Dizzybee

Welcome

Hello, Dizzybee! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Thanks for the offer to help me negotiate the world of wikipedia! I am putting together a response to your reply to me earlier today however I am not sure what is the best way to go about it. Should I continue to add to the conversation thread on the homeopathy talk page? Should I communicate directly to you on this page? Should I submit another edit request? Let me know how best to proceed? (I feel submitting edit requests may start to get tiresome...)Dizzybee (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dizzybee, it's best to keep conversation in one place. It would be best to stick to responding at Talk:Homeopathy. If you post a response there and you are concerned that the person you are trying to talk to has not seen it, you can add a talkback request to their user talk page. You can do this by following the information at Template:Talkback. Pol430 talk to me 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Pol430 has it right. You're best off responding on the article talk page. If we can find some good reliable sources, I'm sure we can incorporate the new material in the article. No need to make another edit request, since there are a lot of editors already watching the talk page that can participate. Talk to you again soon! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just a heads up: articles like Homeopathy can get a little heated sometimes; it's just the nature of contentious topics, especially when we have editors from so many different backgrounds. Don't be discouraged by more confrontational replies you may find there (like the one before mine). It's sometimes best for brand new editors to work on a tame topic where there aren't vested emotions for a while (like your favorite dog breed, or your old high school, music/art, etc) until they learn the ropes and feel more comfortable. I'm only mentioning this for future reference; if you end up finding the topic is too heated for your tastes, that might be an approach you can try for a little while, if you decide. Also, if you get very invested in that article now, other editors are going to eventually point you to WP:COI. As such, I'd suggest reading it whenever you get a chance. Good luck. Looking forward to working with you! — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Jess for the information. The COI page is very helpful. I realize that, as a CAM practitioner and researcher, I am in potential COI. I do feel however that I have a lot to give to make wikipedia better and more accurate. I will do my best to maintain a NPOV. Dizzybee (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi. Just noticed your comments in the wiki article on Homeopathy. I agreed with your assessment and added my own comments. Looks like the skeptic/debunkers are a bit out on a limb and the article could really use some more well-informed input before it gets locked forever into 'gold' status.

Kannon McAfee (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kannon and thanks for the kitten and your comments. There are a few things on the page that I think are inaccurate so hopefully we can bring something to the page. I am looking forward to visiting your fine city in a few months - I will be in town for the Integrative medicine research conference in mid May. And i love Portlandia...

Apologies!

Sorry for reverting an edit of yours in the homeopathy article. I agree with you, I got it all wrong, I saw you edit as the exact opposite of what it was - ie adding the words not deleting them... less coffee for me tomorrow! Cjwilky (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]