User talk:Cdowney

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Cdowney, 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! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (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

NVIC
I notice that you've been editing the National Vaccine Information Center article. It's always been a battleground and strangely enough the massive amount of criticism against the organization has hardly been mentioned, so the criticism section is actually relatively small considering the influence which the NVIC wields within alternative medicine circles and ill-informed mothers. Since this is a biomedical subject, content that mentions biomedical information must follow our WP:MEDRS guideline and the mainstream position must be prominent. The NVIC, as a fringe organization, is still allowed to have its basic position presented, but not in a promotional or unduely self-serving manner. You will note that I have reverted some of your edits, retained others and wish to avoid any edit warring. The way we are supposed to write the WP:LEAD means that significant content should be mentioned in the lead, which is why there is some duplication from the criticism section. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, are you still active? I have some questions about some of the research you posted in the Talk:National_Vaccine_Information_Center page RockRollOver (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring: 3RR violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Barbara Loe Fisher. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been advised several times to not revert but to discuss this matter on the NVIC talk page. Instead you have engaged in an edit war by not following that simple advice. Too bad, because this is going on your record here. Now undo you own revert and avoid a complaint for 3RR violation, or you'll probably get blocked. That's not really what either of us wish. We'd rather you discuss the matter as advised. Try collaborating for once. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, alert me on my talk page when you have self-reverted so I can stop my preparations for reporting you so you'll get blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not collaborate on improving the page, with strict adherence to Wikipedia standards, while erring on the side of adding to global knowledge? I'd like to understand the reasons for redirecting Barbara Loe Fisher. What other examples on Wikipedia can you provide that show an influential and controversial thought leader whose page has also been redirected?  I see that Barbara Loe Fisher has been in existence since 2005 - for 5 years.  Please explain to the community why it should be redirected after five years. -- Cdowney (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are three very important things that are your "currency" here: reputation as an editor, collaborative ability and having influential admins and editors as allies. (Fringe editors as allies will only get you tarred and feathered along with them.) You need to learn and demonstrate a positive learning curve. You're a newbie here and you need allies. You're not going to get them by not cooperating and learning how we do things. You have made two mistakes right now: (1) you have replied here instead of the NVIC talk page as requested several times and (2) you haven't reverted your revert. That means I have to waste time getting you blocked, but that's what I'll have to do. That will establish you on our permanent record (which every editor will know about) as a disruptive editor. That's not good at all. Just keep it simple by doing exactly as requested, and doing it quickly. It won't hurt and you'll get much better results. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tonight is the first time I've tried to edit a wikipedia entry and I'm just learning what it seems you've already learned from what I read on the discussion page. I was upset to read the NVIC entry and find Michael Spector who slanders and disparages the organization (and parents who worry about vaccine safety) and misrepresents the NVIC mission in his book --listed in the second sentence description of who they are! They were founded 30 some years ago in the 1980s to promote vaccine safety yet somehow his book "Denialist" is allowed to redefine them on wikipedia?? THere are many other books/authors/doctors who praise the NVIC...why is the one who is slanderous of them the only one mentioned?    they reinserted the words parents who "blame" vaccines as opposed to "parents of children who experienced severe side effects" which is descriptive of the facts. Blame is an uneccessarily pejorative term. (As is "Denialists")  ANyway, I am hoping that you can convince the editors who for whatever reason seem to have more power than the others to keep the entry honest. It should be first and foremost a description of the charitable, nonprofit organization, right? The NVIC gathers a growing body of evidence of adverse reactions to vaccinations and works for full disclosure of risks/benefits of each vaccine, alone and in combination, (to the healthy and to the medically vunerable)   consumers. (The latest vaccine with the greatest number of serious side effects is the Gardisil HVP vaccine (a large bad batch was recalled in Spain after death/injuries . It says right in the vaccine insert that those are the risks.) The NVIC is a clearinghouse for a great deal of information on  vaccine safety information for consumers.  why can't wikipedia print that? It's a fact.   Thank you. Improves (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)signed, "Improves"

P.S. Where on earth does BullRangifer get the perjorative term "fringe" organization and such bullying language, "Just keep it simple by doing exactly as requested." No mistakes allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improves (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)