User talk:68.6.36.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out the connection between niacin/nicotinic acid/nicotine you'd see what I mean. Anyone with intelligence knows that unfiltered beer retains B-vitamin.

Contents

[edit] Recent edits to B vitamins

The claim that beer and tobacco are sources of B vitamins is dubious and requires a reference to a reliable source. Please provide one if you wish to re-add. This information should not be added to the introduction of the article, but the "sources" section. -- Beland 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tobacco

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. Gzuckier 16:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tobacco, again

hee hee, secret messages via wikipedia articles. OK, thanks for the reference, I'll go check it out and see what I can get into the article. Gzuckier 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this work? I found an important referance.

[edit] Your Edit to Asthma

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Asthma. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Brainyiscool 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asthma

I understand that you may feel this to be true, but this is an example of what we call original research, which Wikipedia policy prohibits. It is not our place to draw conclusions or write our own opinions. Rather, we should report on what studies have shown and what experts have concluded, and so on. Therefore, this text was inappropriate for the Asthma article. Furthermore, it is not written in an encyclopedic tone. If you have some sources to back up these claims, preferably studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, please bring them up on the discussion page. However, I must ask you not to re-add the information; a number of users have removed it now. Also, you will be in violation of our three-revert rule, which prohibits a single user from repeatedly making the same change to an article in defiance of the others’ opinions. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is no funding for such research, then it will likely not exist. Without evidence to back up such claims, then, they cannot be used in Wikipedia. No, the example you cite is not sufficient proof for a number of different reasons. Even if it were, it is not up to us to draw these sorts of conclusions, since we are not qualified (as your confusion also exemplifies). Such claims as you are citing, especially since they are in contrast with standard medical science, would certainly need solid evidence before we could use them. Please reply on my talk page, not my user page (you may edit the section that your previous messages are posted in). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The study itself is not original research as defined by Wikipedia. However, you used it to support your claim “Tobacco is now being prescribed by physicians in Germany as the cure-all for asthma and other kinds of bronchial disorders. The basis for their prescriptions is the research shown here.” It does not support the claim, but rather, you use it to try to convince the reader that he, too, should believe in the benefits of tobacco for asthma, like the German physicians do (without actually providing any evidence that they are doing so). Furthermore, the study, while interesting, is no means conclusive; as it itself notes, “There is a need for further studies with a prospective design to certify the causal direction of this association.” And also, it provides no evidence that tobacco can be used to cure asthma, nor does it suggest that tobacco is related in any way to any other bronchial disorder. These conclusions were drawn by you, which is why it is original research. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not, for numerous reasons. 1) As you are aware, there is a considerable body of evidence showing health risks from cigarette smoking; there have been numerous peer-reviewed rigorous studies published in medical and scientific journals that document this. “Forces.org” is not a sufficiently reputable or rigorous source to use in a scientific article like this. 2) You plagiarized this text from http://www.forces.org/evidence/aussie/forest.htm. Not only is this unethical, it is illegal, as you are violating their copyright. 3) Even if you had written the text, it is still inappropriate. You are just copying an outside article and placing it in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not just a hodgepodge of disparate essays and articles mashed together into an article. If there is a specific point to make, you may make it, but this is far too much devoted to a single study. 4) Consider that your grasp of the medicine and science involved may be inadequate for editing technical articles like this. You do not demonstrate the understanding requisite to evaluating the literature. In particular, you seem to be unable to write without infusing a strong bias into your edits. 5) Your edits have been removed numerous times by multiple people. Your style of editing, by copying text from activist web sites and dumping them into Wikipedia articles, is not appropriate. Consider this your final warning. If you make any more inappropriate edits, your privilege to edit will be revoked. If you have something to change, especially in areas where you are unable to keep your biases in check, please propose it for review on the associated discussion page first. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Asthma, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As regards your message on my talk page, I'm afraid I must echo the sentiments of Knowledge Seeker on this one, sorry. Bobo. 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule --ArmadilloFromHell 05:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

The section you cite is written appropriately, with the claim being supported by the reference. On the other hand, my objections to your edits are that the studies don’t match the claims you are making, and the claims are just jammed in as if this were a web forum instead of a coherent article. As I suggested to you, you should post your ideas on the discussion pages so that others can integrate properly into the text if it is appropriate. Since you have continued with your inappropriate edits, I’m afraid I have to temporarily block you from editing Wikipedia. Please consider working with us rather than on insisting on doing things your own way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you!