User talk:80.140.110.89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guten tag once again: you have removed three primary sourced references, and chosen to replace them with one secondary reference (the Mayo Clinic link is directly attributable to the Morgellon Research Foundation's original opinion piece, which is already cited - you do not link citations OF citations that are already linked!); this is inappropriate editing. I don't think you will find anyone who would call the journal Nature Medicine "dubious" - given that it is the premiere journal for clinical medical research in the world. What, specifically, do you find redundant or dubious in the other sourced quotations that you have been repeatedly attempting to remove? There is nothing "redundant" in making a statement and then giving a sourced quotation to support that statement - that is, in fact, one of the principal mechanisms used in complying with WP's attribution policy!

It would seem more like you were sincere about "collaboration" if you would stop editing anonymously from new IP addresses every few edits, and give an explanation and justification ON THE TALK PAGE for each individual citation you are attempting to remove (just stating that you think the entire introduction is "redundant" is NOT a sincere attempt at an explanation). The general rule of editing is to ADD text, not REMOVE text that is already present, and has been adequately reviewed and sourced. Dyanega 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)