User talk:217.88.75.153

edit war
Please read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who reverted without talking/asking first, so its more up to you reading it, right? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are not allowed to revert more then 3 times, you have blown right through that. You may take this as a warning, do it as gain and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP policy says you shall talk first and then edit. You did not cope with that. And please explain what exactly you want to be removed as there are no fraudulent claims in the article. Let's talk! 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reference in the article to fraudulent claims as to heath benefits, thus health fraud.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is to show that there have been false claims made. The article does not take any of this and present it as that. Not the whole plant is a fraud, it does work indeed as a nootropic. So the category would be inadequate. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, it is an article that contains material about health fraud, thus fits in the category (at a guess between 10 and 25% of the article).Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * [] "illegally selling ", that is fraud.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But the category is mainly for things or persons who are frauds, not things that have been frauded. And "illegally selling " is not the kind of fraud we are talking bout here (at least I thought wwe were talking about medical claims fraud, not common one). 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "mainly".Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, mainly. If you choose to take this wide then you can most articles put into that category as almost anything can be frauduletly used. Thats not the point, the point of the category is that of fraudulent persons and things, not that they can be abused. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its when the fraud takes up a significant part of the article we add it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's not the case here. Here it's more of a detail. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Total word count (excluding lede) 293, section on fraudulent claims 56, or about 20% of the article. I would say that is a significant portion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand it is one sub-chapter and one sentence in the lede. That would be 3 and a half chapter vs. 1 sub subjectwise, makes 1/8 or 12,5%. But the problem persists that many other articles could be categorized similarily, especially nootropics and drugs. You want to put all of them into it? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How many have fully 20% of the body devoted to health fraud?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that the category is for frauds and not for things that are also fraudulently used; I could see it when something was mainly abused but this is not the case here. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mainly"Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, mainly. But Bacopa is not abused mainly. BTW, you cannot argument like this; if I would put some biological and other infos about Bacopi in the article (whih is no problem) the 20% would decrease rapidely.217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as done at Bacopa monnieri. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ST47 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.