User talk:Lynxpoint

Welcome!

Hello, Lynxpoint, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Coffee enema
Just to explain my reverts, WP:MEDRS says that we can only use very high quality sources for medical information--preferably, secondary review articles that appear in high quality journals. The website you added does not qualify. Actually, since that site is just a copy of "a newsletter published by Ralph W. Moss between 1989 and 1998" (quoting from the site itself), that doesn't qualify as a reliable source even for a non medical article. If you have any questions, feel free to post them here or on Talk:Coffee enema. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You should consult the sources provided with the quote "there are SEVEREAL death", so you will find out that very few death were related to the coffee enema, and only in the case of mistuse of the coffee enema.
 * Several means "more than 2 or 3 but not many", which fits the sources. Your version, "some rares", is apparently supposed to be "rare", meaning "not widely known". Given the number of sources, this is not accurate. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Consult your sources again: none of the sources cited included an autopsie, neither a serious medical investigation. Even further, half of these sources dosent even conclude to a direct link with the coffee enema. Mean that "some rares cases" would be more accurate. Either, you keep erasing my citations and sources wich are not less credible than yours, wich is agaisnt the law of this site. If 2 legitimates point of view exist on a specific subject, they should be cited together, especially in this case, were the coffee enema has been kept away from medical investigation in the USA to prevent finding proof that this is a very usefull therapy. Here you keep using a non objective point of view without any serious sources to give credibility to this point of you, so may I ask you this question: what are you afraid of?


 * Actually, no, it is very much against the "law of this site". That source does not meet the reliable sources guidelines. If you have a source that does, you may include it. Do not continue to attempt to include non-reliable sources in articles; especially, medical article sources are held to very high standards, per WP:MEDRS.  Furthermore, your comments about the sources currently in the article (that they didn't do autopsies for instance) are original research--we don't analyze the details of medical research--we rely on the medical community to do that.  Finally, you say that if there are 2 legitimate points of view, both should be cited. The problem is, your POV is base on self-published newsletters from one doctor; on the other side are The American Cancer society as well as a variety of extremely high quality medical journals.  That makes the POV you're trying to push fringe. Please note that Wikipedia is not a Place to Right Great Wrongs. If you want to show that the medical establishment has been intentionally kept away from medical investigation, feel free to do so somewhere (in medical journals, in the popular press, on your own blog), but you cannot do it here.  All we do on WP is report what reliable sources say in due weight to the prominence of those opinions.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Coffee enema. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that you cannot just keep trying to change the article the way you want it to read. That is called WP:Edit warring. If you continue to do so (especially if you revert more than 3 times in 1 day), you'll be blocked from editing.  Please, instead, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you attempt to insert your version again, which is both not what the sources say and against consensus, I will report you for edit warring and ask that your account be temporarily blocked. Editing on Wikipedia is a collaborative process--this means it's time for you to go to Talk:Coffee enema and discuss the issue. If necessary, we can involve outside editors, such as at WP:RSN or via dispute resolution. But edit warring is never the right path. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)