User talk:Aerobil

Welcome!

Hello, Aerobil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Dawn Bard (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Essiac
Hi there. "Citation needed" tags are added to articles that make claims that are not sourced. Your repeated addition of "citation needed" tags to the Essiac article is therefore unnecessary, because all of the information in the paragraph in question is confirmed by the cited source. The fact that the company name is not at the source is irrelevant, because the article isn't naming a company. If the Wikipedia entry named a company, but the source didn't, a "citation needed" tag would be appropriate. In light of this, it would be appreciated if you would remove the tag. I will initiate a conversation on the talk page; your insight would be welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

I understand your reasons, although, what is irrelevant to some people can be relevant to others. My action was aiming for more transparency within the article. If the company name can't be verified, how about adding something like: "In 1977, Caisse gave the essiac formula to a Canadian company (which exact name remains unpublished for unknown reasons), which attempted to commercialize the product." What do you think?

aerobil 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Essiac shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. ''If you come into a disagreement, it is expected that you discuss on the talk page of the article instead of reverting to your preferred version. Please join the discussion on the talk page if you have more concerns.'' Yobol (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)