User talk:Arachnoid007

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BigDunc Talk 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits  have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre
Hello there. The key phrase you use there is "I'm making a totally valid point, all I'm saying is ..." - Wikipedia isn't about individual editors making their own points, it's about quoting points from reliable sources. (I'm sure you can appreciate how chaotic a controversial article could get, if any editor was allowed to add their own personal thoughts and rebuttals.)

If Goldacre's psychiatric background is genuinely regarded as hypocritical by "a growing number of people", all you need to do is dig out a quote (from an established authority, as per WP:RS) that makes this point, and it can go in the article. Let me know if you have any questions about how to find and cite a source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal  chat  18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you pasted your edit into the middle of a reference, which messed up Wikipedia's display of it. (If you ever do something that messes up a Wikipedia article, you can always just open the "history", click to view the version before you edited it, and have another go.)

Another editor has since reverted your change for being drawn from an inadequate source; I assume this is because it's not clear who actually wrote the whale.to article, and it doesn't appear to support the material you added (the whale.to article makes no mention of "a growing number of people" feeling anything about Goldacre, and only offers a passing mention of psychiatry).

Take a look at WP:RS to see what sort of sources Wikipedia regards as appropriate. If whale.to is written by an authority in the field of alternative medicine, that's fine, and we can quote them, so long as we're careful to stick to exactly what the source says. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)