User talk:304isaac

November 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Jevon Carter, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I based it off the fact that he is the only West Virginia basketball player to play to play more than 300 games in the last 50 years, and one of few West Virginia basketball players to make it to the NBA in general. I completely understand though, and I will not do it again.
 * Thanks 304isaac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-12-Conference/3/West-Virginia/77/nba-players 304isaac (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara O'Neill\, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok I will leave a reason. 304isaac (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara O'Neill, you may be blocked from editing. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would just like to know how I’m “vandalizing”? I was told above that I added original thought in one of my previous edits to Jevon Carter, which I noted. How is the labeling of an individual’s teachings as “dangerous” not original thought? She is know for promoting alternative and plant-based medicine, as I stated in my edit. It is up to the individual to determine what is “dangerous”, especially when what’s “dangerous” has actually greatly benefited many people. I would just like some clarity as to how I’m vandalizing Wikipedia when all I did was remove the original thought and opinionated information from the page to add actual descriptive information. 304isaac (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not original research because it is well-sourced in reliable sources. You didn't just change the wording, you removed the sources that supported the original wording. That is vandalism when done repeatedly. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that there are more sources speaking against her than for her, but I believe this is a result of her going against the traditional medicinal practices of “big-pharma”, and that her teachings are not “dangerous” as they’ve helped many people.
 * For example, if I watch news network A, I would learn that political candidate A is evil, whereas if I watch news network B, I would learn that political candidate B is evil.
 * So what I’m gathering is that if I provide sources which don’t speak of her in such a negative manner, I can change the wording? Please let me know.
 * I must ask though, since you stated that I removed the sources AS WELL as the wording, if I changed the wording and provided the relevant sources, should I also leave the current sources which claim her to be “dangerous”?
 * Thanks 304isaac (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The sources are clear that she has been banned from practising because her teachings are dangerous. A few people may believe that they aren't but we don't do opinion and conspiracy theories here. The fact remains that she is banned from practising because her practices and ideas have been found to be dangerous in a formal process that applies to all medical practitioners in Australia, and that is what reliable sources report. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not a “conspiracy theory” that plant-based medicine has been known to help many people and isn’t dangerous. I understand where you’re coming from though, and that you must listen to what you’re told. I just think it’s ridiculous someone can be labeled as “dangerous” because someone says so, rather than providing facts and allowing the user to form their own opinion based on those facts. I thought Wikipedia was solely for providing information? 304isaac (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a conspiracy theory that "big pharma" is somehow trying to silence O'Neill. Plant-based medicine can indeed be beneficial. The issue is the claims that O'Neill makes about what they (and she) can do with absolutely no scientific evidence. It's not just "someone" who says her claims are dangerous. It's the medical authorities in Australia. They have made similar findings against practitioners who oversubscribe pharmaceuticals, for example. This is not some kind of witch-hunt. It's based on scientific findings. Those are the "facts". O'Neill makes dangerous claims (e.g. that she can cure cancer) which she cannot provide evidence to back up (because there is none). That is why she is banned from practising and why her practices have been deemed dangerous, and those are the facts that Wikipedia is presenting. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand where you’re coming from man, however, just for information’s sake, I want to let you know that there is evidence to support the claim of being able to “cure”/treat cancer. I know this isn’t a “witch-hunt”, but I also know the power of money and big corporations. With that being said, I know nothing can be done about the information on her Wikipedia page, since Australia deems her teachings as dangerous, but I recommend that you research this topic for your own personal knowledge/understanding, if you feel inclined.
 * Thanks for your patience 304isaac (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my personal knowledge or understanding. It's about Wikipedia policy. If you want to edit here you will need to follow policies. If you don't, you will be blocked.
 * There is nothing more to be said. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you don’t feel inclined or curious, unfortunately. I understand the rules man, I’m just speaking human to human don’t be such a drone. 304isaac (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say I understand the rules man, does that mean you understand WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE in particular? —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes 304isaac (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)