User talk:Newnamenow
References
[edit]
Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. 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 build 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Doc James Naturally, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources for medical information. The reference I included https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea is not a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial published in a peer-reviewed journal or medical textbook. My edit merely reported a proposed hypothesis, called itself a hypothesis, made no claim of being anything other than a hypothesis, and stated that empirical research is needed for confirmation of the hypothesis. I'm not questioning Wikipedia policy that prefers high-quality sources for medical information. Quite the contrary, I agree that high-quality sources should be preferred. That is not the issue. Wikipedia Guidelines state that such preferences and ideals are not "laws." Why wasn't my edit marked or modified for improvement rather than being deleted completely and as quickly as possible? Newnamenow (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Newnamenow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First note that I am not a reincarnation of User:Researcher159. I used to be User:TeacherinItaly but forgot my password so I became User:Newnamenow. If that was the reason for the block then it was a mistake, so please unblock me. If that wasn't the reason, please tell me what the problem is and I will respond to it. I am here to build an encyclopedia that is accurate, balanced and comprehensive. Newnamenow (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, you're blocked precisely for what it says: promoting fringe views with badly refernced information contrary to our mission. Max Semenik (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|reason='Ok, I apologize and promise to use only high-quality references in my future edits, rather than the reference I cited [1] which I have now learned is not acceptable by Wikipedia's medical standards. I also apologize for suspecting a Wikipedia editor of being motivated by personal ideology or political expediency for having reverted my edit. Although I said I would give her the benefit of the doubt, I should not have doubted her motives in the first place. In some rare cases a human editor might allow her personal feelings to interfere with her role as editor, but I should not assume that happens often or actually happened in reverting the highly controversial hypothesis I reported in my edit. That was my mistake, and I promise not to make that mistake again. Thanks for your fair and kind treatment of my mistakes. ~~~~ Newnamenow (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)'}} Newnamenow (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)