User talk:65.7.144.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Infant formula, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AndreNatas (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

There is a Three-revert rule on wikipedia. Please discuss issues before reverting again.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia, and to see if you'd like to share with me your goals for the infant formula article. Any particular reason why you care about this article? You can reply here if you want: I'll watch this page. (I may not see responses until tomorrow morning, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think there's a lot of "missing information" on that page. For example, it lists all these diseases that are related to formula feeding -- but leaves out the context, like you have to have more than a million breastfed babies to prevent a single case of leukemia.[1] (Are you familiar with the number needed to treat statistic?) I suspect -- given that you've somehow managed to get ClueBot's attention (it's just a piece of software) -- that you'll want to avoid deleting anything for a while. But there's no reason that you couldn't add the missing information, if you were so inclined. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Doh! I wish I read your note earlier :( Ahh well, lesson learned (I hope :)). I didn't know about the number needed to treat and number needed to harm pages (or the NNT calculator) but they're both excellent. They kind of look like a better way to express the "small scale effects" idea. A million babies just to reduce a single incident of leukemia? Wow. I wonder if the state of the art in epidemiology is even capable of teasing out causality when it comes to numbers that small (I hope it is but that's a very small number....)65.7.144.194 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Infant Formula

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. I recently reverted a lot of your edits to the Infant Formula article. I did this because it appeared to me that you are deleting major portions of the article and rewriting others contrary to wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. When the neutrality of an article is disputed, the preferred approach to resolving the dispute is by reaching a concensus on the article's talk page. When I reviewed the talk page for the Infant Formula article, it appeared to me that despite an ongoing discussion a consensus had not yet been reached, yet you were still deleting very large portions of the article and rewriting others. If you feel my reverts were unfair, please let me know either here or on the Infant Formula article's talk page. Thanks and, again, welcome to Wikipedia. croll (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Infant formula. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Infant formula, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Infant formula was changed by 65.7.144.194 (u) (t) deleting 25879 characters on 2008-03-20T22:57:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Rudget. 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was trying to restore an NPOV to the Infant_Formula wiki. I didn't do this in isolation; the talk page has a long history of complaints against the lack of NPOV. I listed reasons for the edits on the talk page (e.g., why is there more breastfeeding content on an Infant_Formula wiki than content about Infant formula?). Can anyone look at the Infant_Formula wiki as it stands today and seriously say that it isn't heavily slanted against use of infant formula?"


Decline reason: "The three-revert rule prohibits repeatedly reverting an edit, even when you are sure you are right, because Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus, and not by edit-wars. If you think the change should be made, seek consensus on the talk page or use an appropriate attempt at conflict resolution rather than edit-warring.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The edits that I removed were added against the consensus on the talk page (and prompted several complaints including Talk:Infant_formula#Comment_2, Talk:Infant_formula#NPOV, Talk:Infant_formula#Off-topic.2C_NPOV.2C_Several_sections_better_suited_to_separate_wiki, Talk:Infant_formula#Sigh.__What_to_do_with_a_huge_list_of_highly_selective_citations.3F, Talk:Infant_formula#POV_vandalism_esp._involving_citations). I've suggested that most of the material in support of breastfeeding would be more appropriate on either the breastfeeding wiki or a new wiki comparing breastfeeding to use of infant formula. The section "risks to formula fed infants" is filled with references to articles that are either commentary or make no mention of formula at all but since many of these articles are not publicly available, the quantity of them leads an unjustifiable weight to the section. I urge you to reconsider."


Decline reason: "Again, the three-revert rule prohibits repeatedly reverting an edit even if "you are right". In the future, discuss disputed changes with the involved user(s) rather than constant reverting. Edit warring, which is evident from your contributions is disruptive. — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

65.7.144.194, you were blocked for too much reverting. POV and NPOV in the article are not relevant here. When you ask to be unblocked, you would help yourself if you say you have read about 3RR and you now understand the problem and won't do that anymore. Instead, if you revert and someone reverts your revert, you will talk it out on the talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I'd like to apologize for violating 3RR. I've read WP:3RR, WP:EP and perhaps most importantly, WP:EQ. Sorry all, this was my first real foray into editing a non-technical article and I got carried away. I won't do it again and will get better at contributing to Wikipedia.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

OK, get to it! And no more edit warring!

Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your comment

Please see WP:TALKPAGE. Also, I have a complaints system, for future reference. IMHO I believe the article is better with that section. Sorry if I am wrong. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk page

I don't mean to "but in" but using the unblock template more than 2 times a year can get your talk page protected. Just a reminder ;)--I am sooooo cool! 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)