User talk:Motorola12

December 2012
Hello, I'm Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Zymurgy (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Homeopathy with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zymurgy (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? What are you talking about? Did you read the talkpage ? I have explained the reasons there. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism, but you are edit warring. Please read WP:EW carefully. You should discuss the issue on the talk page, and not make changes to the article until consensus is established. WP:BRD is generally a good principle to follow in these cases.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Did not make any changes. I started a discussion according to the wikipedia guide and the same time I nominated the article to be checked for tis neutrality, --Motorola12 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Use this template to request that an article be checked for POV ("Point of View"). The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." --Motorola12 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's correct. Generally speaking, there should be consensus on he talk page that an issue exists (or at least no consensus) for a tag to remain. When you are reverted by adding a tag, WP:BRD, WP:EW, and all of our other policies still apply; edit warring over a tag is still edit warring. By the way, have you had an account here before?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw your note in the talk page you left about my "vandalism". I was wondering though : why did you say I was edit warring?  - I tagged the article, I gave my reasons in the talk page, and someone reverted the tag writing it was vandalism. He or she never participated in the discussion  I started;  his or her single role was to revert the tag. Who is wrong here?  I justified my edits, started  a discussion and someone reverted twice without participating  in the discussion just calling me a vandal then someone else ( you ) said I was edit warring. Keep in mind that no one else was editing at that time. --Motorola12 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Motorola. I answered your question on my talk page, just because the question you asked there was slightly more detailed than this one. I hope that helps! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Pseudoscience topics
See also the Arbitration Committee's decision at Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, which places the topic of homeopathy under the remedies of the Pseudoscience case. Thank you, Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, if you spam, or if you constantly edit the same page (this includes "edit warring"), you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Binko71100 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont understand. Can you explain what do you mean? Do you know what are you doing ? Spam? --Motorola12 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You were constantly posting on the Homeopathy talk page. I'm sorry, I could have personalized the template a bit to point out your action in detail. -- Binko71100 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this wrong?--Motorola12 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, Binko, that's not the right template for what's going on, at all. Please be very careful about what templates you include in warnings. Using the wrong template can scare editors away, and is sometimes sanctionable. @Motorola, I responded to you on my talk page. I'd suggest taking the other advice you've received (from me and Andythegrump) seriously. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Motorola12", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because It has the word Motorola in it, and which makes a clear reference to the company. I don't know if this was intentional, but it becomes a clear case of WP:CORPNAME. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This user's name does not violate WP:CORPNAME. This user's name is Motorola12, not Motorola. That policy says a username may incorporate a business name provided it does not imply shared use, and there is no implication of shared use here. Motorola12, you can confidently ignore the above warning. If you get any more threats or trouble with regard to the user name, would you please contact me on my talk page? (I'd avoid editing Motorola with this account, if I were you, though.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not a warning but a notice :) I said it "may not meet" the username policy, not that it doesn't. I hope Motorola is having a fun time in Wikipedia and, yes, avoid editing Motorola. — ΛΧΣ  21  17:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

AGF on Talk:Homeopathy
On Talk:Homeopathy, you said "they just dispute the H equals placebo Shangs study findings - but you don't want the readers to know about it right ?" That's out of line. You need to read WP:AGF and work collaboratively. You've been skirting dangerously close to this line recently, and have made more than a few comments which have crossed over. That trend needs to stop. I've been quite supportive of you, so take what I'm saying here seriously: jabs like that are unacceptable. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this wrong? I do not get it. I assume good faith and I question my collaborators to justify why they do want the readers to know about that rhetorically ? IS this offensive? I masking you in good faith.  --Motorola12 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happier? (: ? I changed it --Motorola12 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate because you are suggesting that editors are here to suppress information, which is a gross violation of AGF. Making comments like that ensures that other editors will not work with you going forward. You're already seeing that effect since a few days ago. Changing 'you' to 'we' just takes it away from the personal attack side and into a general comment about editors working on the article, which is still violating AGF and still entirely unnecessary. At this point, I would advise you to look into WP:MENTOR. Someone there may be able to help you get things back on track.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jess I do not accept that. It is my personal opinion ( and a fact ) that information is being suppressed not because the editors are evil or bad but because of bias.  It is complicated to explain and I have the sense that you agree with me but you cannot say it in this space.  Best.--Motorola12 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can accept it or not, but that doesn't change how wikipedia operates. AGF is a fundamental pillar, and ignoring it to take jabs at editors will make your time here frustrating and short. I'm saying this as a tenured editor in good standing for your benefit as a new editor, unfamiliar with our norms. You're going to end up at ANI if this sort of trend continues. Look, I've been sort of watching over you and helping in the hopes that you'd acclimate, but some problems are getting worse, not better, and I can't keep doing that; I have a life, and articles I'd like to spend time editing in peace. Go get a mentor; there's a long list of them, and you can take your pick. They're volunteers just waiting to help you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand that. I have the right to have my opinion on the homeopathy article; I stated my opinion clearly using reliable sources, other editors did not accept them - I cannot force them to change their opinion or the article( even if I think it has no foundation on reason and/or sound arguments ). I m allowed to have my own opinion about the established editing mode in the homeopathy article. Again I do assume good faith, I think everybody does his her best  but this does not mean I find the article neutral.  I asked a rhetorical question and later  I included myself - in the question. If someone asks a question in the article I would say my opinion citing sources - If I have an opinion. If I don't,  I will not say anything - for instance now I m not interested in participating in the discussion and m  not saying anything,. Frankly, I do not think that I m doing  anything  wrong according to wiki guide unless it is not allowed to say that there is bias in certain articles. I asked Jimbo his opinion and I m waiting for a response if he feels he has an opinion.  --Motorola12 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say you cannot have your own opinion. Re-read what I wrote.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)