User talk:Jazzix

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Velvet antler shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * Admin Jtydog and User Ronz continues to misquote source on Velvet Antler page. For the removal of this source and blatant misquote I have received this warning.

A review published in 2012 summarized results from seven clinical trials, including three that assessed sports performance (Syrotuik, Sleivert, Broeder). "Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials."

Proper quotation is actually - "Claims made for velvet antler supplements do not appear to be based upon rigorous research from human trials, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise."

Obvious misquote.

Discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Admin Jtydog and User Ronz continues to misquote source on Velvet Antler page. For the removal of this source and blatant misquote I have received this warning.

A review published in 2012 summarized results from seven clinical trials, including three that assessed sports performance (Syrotuik, Sleivert, Broeder). "Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials."

Proper quotation is actually - "Claims made for velvet antler supplements do not appear to be based upon rigorous research from human trials, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise."

Edit warring at Velvet antler
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Velvet antler. ''Returning from an edit-warring block to re-start your edit warring is probably not a good idea. '' Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)