User talk:NoFortunateSon

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not made 3 reversions. Whereas user WLU, who happens to be on your side in this disagreement, has in a period of less than 24 hours. This was clearly stated on the discussion page of the article in question, which you have since commented on. You, however, have issued no warning to him. Nor have you referred to him (or yourself) being in an edit war.


 * You and I have each made an equal number of reverts in this period of time. As for seeking consensus, I am the only one of the three of us who *correction* has used the discussion page each time he edited.** Additionally I am the only one who has included the others' viewpoint in my edits. NoFortunateSon (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confident that WLU is aware of the three-revert rule and associated restrictions on edit-warring. I was not sure whether you, as the operator of a new account, were aware - hence the note. I don't think that revert-counting is the most useful justification, but I see you've made at least 3, and arguably 4, reverts in the past 26 hours or so. In any case, there are currently 3 editors objecting to your proposed edit on the talk page. At this point, the most productive course of action is probably to engage us on the talk page; if you find us unreasonable, then take a look at our dispute resolution pathway and we can look into getting some additional outside input. MastCell Talk 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule clearly states "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" So I have made two, in the history of my account.

I am already engaged in the talk page, and am in favor of reaching consensus, which I have demonstrated, and will continue to. NoFortunateSon (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing for  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
You're awfully familiar with the three revert rule for a new account.

Even if I haven't read your comments, I have read MastCell's comments and edit summary, and agree with them. Cherry-picking primary sources to support pseudoscience and extreme claims is not how wikipedia is meant to be built. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're more interested in commenting on my familiarity with the rules, than you are in acknowledging, or amending your violation of them.


 * Citing research that indicates ionized water is an antioxidant does not fit the definition of Cherry picking. Additionally the claim that ionized water is an antioxidant, does not fit Wikipedia's definition of pseudo science

NoFortunateSon (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm alluding to possible sockpuppeting, which is a violation of our policies and instantly blockable. Sometimes sockpuppets are scared away by this indication.  Apparently not in this case.  I'm not violating rules, in fact I'm far, far more familiar with them than you are.  Claiming that ionized water is an antioxidant in certain circumstances is possibly OK, possibly undue weight.  Claiming that there is any benefit to drinking ionized water because of a couple studies of rats and cells in a petri dish is something totally different and not OK.  In fact, citing specific primary studies that claim any sort of usefulness as if it had any relevance, particularly when there has been no program of research, generalization beyond single labs, consensus statement or other overall conclusion from the community, is undue weight and a gross mis-use of the sources, as demonstrated by several editors on the talk page.  Incidentally, how did you know what edit warring and the three revert rule was before you were blocked for violating it?  Your first contribution was two days ago, and those are fairly obscure policies for new contributors, particularly when you weren't warned for it before.  And how did you become aware of the use of citation templates including PMID numbers?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WLU's implication that I am a sock puppet is untrue, and unappreciated. It was no great feat to scroll up the page that I was editing and see how others had formatted the PMIDs.

WLU can be seen editing without consensus five times in a period of less than 40 hours HereHereHereHere and Here Additionally changes 1 and 3 were done without contributing to the discussion page, and additionally WLU can be seen Here admitting to making a major edit to the article without reading the discussion page

WP:CON states that "consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages."

WLU stated Here in the discussion of this article that "any medical claims should be sourced to a reliable source - in this case, pretty much only medical journals and statements from national or international governing or scientific bodies. The  'some guy' websites aren't appropriate..." Afterwards WLU has repeatedly, and without consensus reverted to (and added more)health claims, citing a personal website. A webiste that contains no research and that does not satisfy WP:MEDRS standards as a secondary source. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources" "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed.'''"

Worse still WLU has repeatedly used this unreliable source to cite claims not supported by the source. Two such instances can be seen Here and here and has done so, since this was mentioned in the discussion page.

WLU's message here marks the third time that he has objected to a study on rats drinking ionized water. His POV on animal testing aside this is a study which has at no point been used in the article.

The "cells in a petri dish" is a study on human lymphocytes published in a peer reviewed journal. When asked how "Pretreatment, cotreatment, and posttreatment with electrolyzed-reduced water enhanced human lymphocyte resistance to the DNA strand breaks induced by H2O2 in vitro"PMID 17159237 seems inapplicable to humans WLU did not respond, and continued to edit the article.

To say nothing of WLU's activity in this article in the 17 months prior to this. NoFortunateSon (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * 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

I presume that you're new to Wikipedia, which is why you have got into a content dispute at Water ionizer. Please take a look at the guidelines linked above in blue. This should help you to understand why the more experienced editors disagree with you about what the article should say. Please also look at the warning you received above. Edit warring is considered disruptive to the collegial process of building an encyclopaedia. Please stop it, and instead discuss the matter on the article Talk page. There will be plenty of time to correct the article content when editors have reached a consensus by discussion. If you continue to edit war without first gaining a consensus, you will be blocked from editing, to prevent further disruption. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel. Thank you for your friendly greeting. I have been active in the discussion and seeking a consensus, whereas WLU, has made reverts without reading discussion of change, and has violated the three revert rule. Thank you for your oversight in this matter, and your comments, I look forward to discussing the matter with you. NoFortunateSon (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) test


 * You may edit this page while blocked. That's it.  And to be clear, you have been making changes against clear consensus, not seeking it.  Seeking consensus means discussing changes before making them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that also apply to Administrators too or do they get free reign to abuse/block and generally use stand over tactics to bully others trying to be bold? If this editor is new, why not try to be 'gentle'. MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)