User talk:Eroz7

Edit Vandalism at Homeopathy
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Homeopathy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That was absolutely not vandalism. Please refer to this discussion on the homeopathy talk page, which was initiated prior to my edit. One of the three sources mentions nothing about quackery or fraud, so I removed that source as it contained nothing relevant to draw the conclusion of the preceding content. The other two didn't mention fraud. I'm not being unconstructive, I literally just did a little cleaning up. Please be careful with user warnings and take perhaps 15 seconds to understand what I'm trying to do, before assuming anything about my edit's intentions. I have reverted your edits, before blindly re-reverting and falsely accusing me of vandalism, please see the discussion and the sources. Eroz7 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So sorry about that. I didn't see the discussion. I was sitting under a tree watching our chickens and your edit popped up on my phone. It looked like the typical vandalism we see at the article. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Eroz7 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you got a warning below, and that is actually correct: "Talk did NOT reach a conclusion in favour of removing fraud." Whenever one of your edits is reverted, don't restore it. Follow WP:BRD and just discuss while you seek a clear consensus for your proposed change. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies for restoring. Regarding my edits, I merely made bold edits, as was suggested to me in the discussion. Didn't know that a consensus had to be reached before I could change anything. Plus, the revert was quite knee-jerk. Anyhow, I'll continue to discuss. Regarding the removal of the category, I am happy to seek consensus. However, I doubt there will be any disagreements in the changing of the lead. It merely removes an improper source and a word that is not used in cited sources. Unhappy that it's being treated as though I'm disrupting the page. Eroz7 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Homeopathy, you may be blocked from editing. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Please be civil and take your time to understand my edits before plaguing my talk page with a warning. I'll refer you to this discussion above so that I don't have to repeat myself. Eroz7 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Tip
Although intuitively it might be, adding or removing categories is not a minor edit, just so you know in the future. ByVarying &#124;  talk  17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)