User talk:Fsocc

@JamesBWatson

Maybe I missed something in your offer to help. If so, sorry. Completely reverting all my useful comments based on firsthand knowledge of the diet and its effects on my health did not seem helpful at all, since you decided you knew better. Do you have any knowledge on this subject? If so, please inform me. Do you have cancer?

Also, please explain, for example, why "proponents" of Budwig's diet mention 6 or 7 Nobel Prize nominations when 7 nominations are clearly stated on the book's cover but you reverted this completely to make it sound suspect to another person's account that apparently has none of the doctor's books and is operating from internet anecdotes as valid citations. The truth is that "critics" (apparently existing mainly on Wikipedia) have issue with the book's statement, yet this fact could not be allowed to stand, even though the un-updated online source was left intact. This "Nobel Prize" section of the article is actually useless and did not exist in earlier versions; it should be deleted outright.

Finally, please tell me what references you expect to corroborate the minimal extra information I included (they information is contained in the her two primary books: "Oil-Protein Diet" and "Flax Oil as ..."). If you knew anything about the diet, you would find what was reported in this so-called encyclopedic entry embarrassing. My point was to improve it so that other cancer sufferers would not be mislead into thinking this diet is some half-baked diversion and would seek out the books and learn more. Please tell me what your objective is and why.

I'm sure you might already know that Wikipedia has a bad reputation when it comes to objectively reporting health information that conflicts with so-called mainstream approaches. One full-time industry plant who was monitoring/editing Wikipedia articles (like this one) has already been exposed.

In any case, I hope your original offer was actually "help" as you stated and maybe this article can be improved by both of us. My suspicions were high coming into this proposed revision and when I saw immediate reversions, you can imagine my concern that all I heard was true.

UPDATE HOWEVER, since I find that I have been banned now, I think my point has been proven.

June 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Johanna Budwig. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also please note that Wikipedia articles should not be used to promote a particular opinion or point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines linked to above concerning reliable and verifiable sources. Amongst other things you will discover that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Also, whether the information has reliable sources or not Wikipedia is not for promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Johanna Budwig. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people&#32;as you did at User talk:JamesBWatson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to you why your edits are not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, but unfortunately you have responded with abuse, both here and on my talk page. I strongly recommend that you read the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources, and if you have such sources then please provide them. If you don't provide them then you will be likely to find that your edits will be reverted. If you want help in understanding how Wikipedia's guidelines and policies work then you are welcome to ask me on my talk page, and if you do so in a civil manner then I will try to give you the help you ask for. If, however, you continue to post abuse and attacks on other editors then you will very probably be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig
Johanna Budwig is controversial. I suggest you look at Talk:Johanna Budwig to see that other people hold equally strong opinions opposed to yours. Your conduct makes it likely that you will not be able to use the Fsocc account again, but bear this in mind if you wish to edit in the future. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for personal attacks on other editors in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for your block
Your comment above implies that you think your block is censorship. That is not so: you have been blocked for calling another editor a "sorry sleaze" and a "mindless shill", accusing him of being paid to distort information, and expressing the hope that "you and yours will have a real experience with cancer soon". This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and any repetition is likely to result in an indefinite block.

Before you edit again, you should read the following to gain some understanding of how Wikipedia works: JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Assume good faith
 * Bold, revert, discuss - if your edit is reverted, do not just repeat it, discuss it with other editors on the article talk page and try to reach Consensus; if you cannot, use the Dispute resolution process.