User talk:Joolsbaker

Edit warring
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Bowen Technique. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

January 2012
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see little or nothing worth salvaging. Thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello Joolsbaker. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)



Edit warring once again
Please join the discussion rather edit-war. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions
You appear have an obvious conflict of interest with editing Bowen technique. It's a minor conflict that shouldn't be a problem unless you're unable to look beyond your personal perspective. The solution is to find sources for your perspectives and be able to neutrally identify the nature of those sources.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you have a disagreement with an editor, follow dispute resolution. Attacking other editors undermines your arguments and disrupts Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

September 2013
Please do not edit articles so they meet your own personal viewpoint in opposition to what reliable sources say. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To edit from a starting point of scepticism is not neutral, it's sceptical. Joolsbaker (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More battleground attitude.
 * While your labeling is irrelevant to any changes to the articles, do look at WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 09:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)