User talk:Sardmeta1

Welcome!
Hello, Sardmeta1, 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 talk 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! bobrayner (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2012 (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)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

EBM
I was delighted to see a recent edit you made to the Evidence based medicine page. Imo, this addition provides a much needed starting point to reframe a page which I feel desperately needs the right sort of attention. The content you added still needs a few more supporting citations to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I've also taken the liberty of doing some copyediting, which of course you're free to retweak. If you haven't already found your way to WikiProject Medicine (WP:MED), I'm sure you'd be made very welcome around the doctor's mess (WT:MED). Best regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dehydration
Any drastic moves, such as you did in page Dehydration must be explained in article talk page. In addition, if two articles are synonymous, in wikipedia the correct hadnling is merging of articles, rather than deletion of one of them. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, this is not how wikipedia works. Please use talk:Dehydration to present your specific objections. Please don't write to my talk page. Article content is discussed in article talk pages. User talk pages are used to discuss users and their editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dehydration. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Corn cheese (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Dehydration with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dehydration shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. + Crashdoom  Talk 23:17, 13 November 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) 00:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that adding to talk sections last edited over a year ago most probably will be unnoticed. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dehydration cleanup
I have started cleaning up the mess at the dehydration page, and I saw your sensible comments on the talk page. We definitely still conflate dehydration with hypovolemia in places, but I think some of the sources do as well (WebMD quality - for popular consumption). I am still going through the sections, but your help would be most welcome. FiveColourMap (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Dehydration page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=687339617 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F687339617%7CDehydration%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Meta-analysis 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block - it really does not bother me at all. Its probably better to be blocked so that when I see all this nonsense about ELs in reference to software lists I know that I am blocked and have the peace of mind knowing that I cannot do anything about it anyway! Sardmeta1 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * take a look at the post I left on Talk:Meta-analysis. Also take a look at WP:BRD I think this could probably be resolved without anyone being blocked. Try to establish a WP:Consensus before restoring the other version. Also its worth noting that edit warring isn't just violation of the WP:3RR rule, that is just a bright line rule. Administrators may still block if it appears as though it is a slow moving edit war.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)