User talk:180.148.123.68

January 2022
Hi 180.148.123.68! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only person in this edit war, and I don't know how to get the other two people stopped. I'm reasonably sure I'm in the right here, rules-wise, but simply having two opponents makes this very difficult. The issue I'm trying to correct (non-neutrality, treating a somewhat controversial field as thoroughly discredited) is not one Wikipedia is well-equipped to address - not least because of how Wikipedia is *structured*. A significant minority of the treatments classed as alternative medicine definitely do something - chiropraxis to fix whiplash injuries, for example - but the very fact of it being classified as non-mainstream means there's an English Wikipedia norm of calling it *unscientific*. I do not have the time and emotional energy to fix this myself.180.148.123.68 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vision therapy. CodeTalker (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * How was I the one in violation? This is legitimately unclear to me.180.148.123.68 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 04:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)