User talk:Paulmartin357

Welcome!

Hello, Paulmartin357, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alexbrn talk 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Notice
Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Naturopathy
Your recent editing history at Naturopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, there are no "alternative solutions" for vaccination which work, so Swiss naturopaths are still up shit creek. ("The majority of naturopaths are proposing alternative solutions, without denying evidence-based medicine." ) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, thanks for your fast warning. Saying that "there is not alternative solution to vaccination" is WP::OR unless you can provide a source. I know at least one solution that works by WP:UCS: quarantine. But this is not the topic and I don't want to discuss it further here. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quarantine is only practical during an epidemic, and it's unnecessarily restrictive and creates great hardship. In ancient times, before vaccinations, or in areas where they are not available, it's a good option. Vaccinations protect all the time, everywhere, for most people who receive them. (BTW, OR only applies to article content.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Final warning
You are edit warring and you are engaging in tendentious editing. Your sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to advocate for fringe medical practices. You have already been alerted ot the discretionary sanctions. The likely next step is a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am very suprised by your "final warning". Would you please explain what you are considering "edit warring", based on WP rules, knowing that I did only revert one single edit (from Trhermes) in the long term past. The definition of WP:EW is:
 * "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. "
 * I did not repeatedly override contributions. Instead, I tried to reach concensus on Talk page. How can you consider that "my sole purpose is advocate for fringe medical practice" ? Do you have one single example supporting your opinion ? Do you have one single example of "tendentious editing" ? I am advocating only one single cause: WP principles and quality of Wikipedia articles ! Too many statements in this article are obviously not following WP principles. This is a fact that I am demonstrating in the Talk page with clear and documented examples, without "edit warring". I did never engage into "pro" or "anti" fringe war. If you read carefully all the Naturopathy Talk page, you will even realize that I did explicitely refuse to enter into such a debate when some editors where trying to bring me into it. Please discuss your opinion with me, based on clear facts and WP rules, review your "final warning" or let me know how I can appeal against it. Paulmartin357 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know the problem. You are a single-purpose advocacy account engaged in civil POV-pushing on a fringe subject. You can play innocent and carry on, in which case the tea leaves show a short future on Wikipedia, or you can take heed. Up to you really, I'm not too bothered either way. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG, thanks for this reference. I am a newbie and I did not know SPA concept. Yes, you are right, my behaviour is looking similar to SPA, which is a shame. I am sorry for that. I did visit and edit a few other articles, I did even create well documented articles about art and music which have been reverted (few years ago). I am not a full time editor. I also have a "real life". I am not a "grasshoper" jumping from one topic to another. I am not able to maintain in parallel a large bunch of open dicussions on multiple topics. Once I will consider that this article is better aligned to Wikipedia principles, I will certainly spend time on the next one. Wikipedia is large enough for bringing contributions in many areas and in many langages, but one after the other, according to my style. I know that the arbitration committee does not care about the content but only about the behaviour. However, the content deserves some attention. How do you categorize editors who are systematically rephrasing and reverting in line with their own opinion, whitout caring about the source and about intellectual honesty ? How do propose to evolve from here ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle Picking
The Naturopathy page is for the moment a lost cause, it's become a ridiculous parody of repetitive rhetoric. Some time ago I even managed to convince one of the rare neutral skeptics that the references were mostly outdated or unfit. But alas one was not enough. I doubt many people seeking any real information would get past the first paragraph anyway as it reeks of unscientifically worded bias. Maybe one day this page will rise from the ashes, but today is not that day. You are much better working on other articles such as those dedicated to specific areas of expertise, practices, or medications, many of which balance the pros and cons. If however, you wish to persist on this Sisyphean quest and require help finding specific research, you're welcome to leave a request on my talk page, and if I have the time and energy, I'll see what I can dig up, otherwise I'm well out of it. I only check in from time to time to be awed by the extent of the cluster#&@% Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I was starting to feel really alone on Naturopathy, until I received your message. Thanks a lot for your support. This article is not only ridiculous, but it is also demonstrating very clearly some incredible infringements to WP:RP, my preferred one being "rephrasing the Constitution". I will keep this example for the "wall of fame" when I will have to explain what Wikipedia is made of.
 * I will follow your advice and give up for now on this article. I can't understand there is so much excitation for this article in English, while it is a very quiet article in other languages (French, German).Paulmartin357 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)