User talk:Jbozz21

Kombucha
With reference to the Kombucha article, please read Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Primary sources concerning studies on rats are not acceptable sources for claims about supposed benefits to human health. I suggest that rather than trying to edit-war material into the article, you read the talk page archives, and then discuss proposed changes on the article talk page, as Wikipedia guidelines recommend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, until I have time to read the page or have more time to do research, let's make a compromise. The way that that sentence is read is inaccurate. "Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by scientific evidence." Just because there is not enough scientific evidence to prove kombuchas health benefits does not mean that the claims about it's benefits are not supported by science. I believe that the sentence should read: "Kombucha is claimed to have numerous health benefits, scientific research into those claims are still under way." This way we do not give the reader the impression that science has disproven or found no health benefits to drinking Kombucha, which is the inaccurate assumption that the previous statement was implying. Because as I had posted in my edit, there is quite a bit of research which suggests that kombucha has numerous health benefits. Jbozz21 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The best place to discuss this is on the article talk page, where others will see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I will post my comment on that page then. Jbozz21 (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see someone has already gone through this with you. You seem to want to control the page to indoctrinate people, is that it?

Your recent editing history at Kombucha shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing those sentences back to the way they are? You know they are very misleading.Jbozz21 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)