User talk:GodGnipael
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Moscoto
Your edit [1] does not follow the manual of style for how to correctly create wikilinks; and there is not reason not to have a link to Muscat. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think your edit is improving the article on its talk page: Talk:Moscato. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sign your comments
As a courtesy for other editors, kindly observe Wikipedia guidelines and sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. For further info see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attack warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 03:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Melatonin
Hi there. Please have a look at our neutral point of view policy. "Dangerous Side Effects" is not an appropriate section heading; it is unnecessarily sensationalistic. Facts speak for themselves—there is no need to editorialize. I won't revert your edit, but I would appreciate it if you could help make content more neutral and impartial. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. Fortunately or unfortunately, it isn't really Wikipedia's role to...protect readers, rather to present verifiable information in a neutral manner. There's no reason to remove information backed up by a reliable, scholarly source, but even such information must be written in an impartial manner, and wording shouldn't be meant to "scare" or "warn" potential readers. This page provides some interesting guidance on how to be mindful of the NPOV policy and how to make wording more neutral; if you take issue to the focus of an article, or feel it is biased, you may also want to leave a note at the article Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it is non-negotiable. Yes, articles such as income tax or Abe Lincoln should follow it; so should every other article, and all content for that matter. You note that "if there is supporting evidence of harm or potential danger, then that information is not opinion or biased[...]" I agree; that's exactly why there is no need to qualify such information with wording like "Dangerous Side Effects". Have a look at the Side effects section of rosiglitazone—we don't need to say "rosiglitazone is dangerous" (that wouldn't be accurate), or even "there are concerns that rosiglitazone may be dangerous"; the data speaks for itself.
-
- I will post your response at WP:CLINMED. Many of the project's participants are administrators, as well as being involved in editing medical articles. Having said that, I must reiterate that the use of a neutral point of view when contributing is non-negotiable, regardless of the content of the article. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi GodGnipael. Please discuss your changes at the article Talk page as you say in your edit summaries instead of simply reverting, and be mindful of our three-revert rule. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will post your response at WP:CLINMED. Many of the project's participants are administrators, as well as being involved in editing medical articles. Having said that, I must reiterate that the use of a neutral point of view when contributing is non-negotiable, regardless of the content of the article. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. David Ruben Talk 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Melatonin. Thank you. David Ruben Talk 00:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:RxCOTW
Hi! Thanks for supporting Melatonin for collaboration of the week. However, I noticed that many of the comments you left there are not really applicable to the article's nomination for collaboration, and are more comments related to improving the article itself, so they should have been added to the article's talk page (although be careful not to include too much "personal experience" information when talking about drug-related articles -- wikipedia is not a blog). Dr. Cash 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
