User talk:Sayerji

Sciencetalker said:(Per ELNO #13, only tangentially related to naturopathy. Please take to talk page and get consensus before re-adding.) What I do not understand is that the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database has an external link: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database: Unbiased, Scientific Clinical Information on Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Therapies and yet this is an entirely user-restricted paid site. Also, it contains quite a lot of secondary and tertiary interpretive overlay on the original 1st hand peer-reviewed research. My link, however, is an entirely evidence-based "Natural Medicines" database with over 17K naturopathy-associated studies which is entirely free to use and yet it has been deleted. Please explain this decision?

Conflict of interest policy
Hello Sayerji. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)



Thank you for this post. I was not aware of these restrictions. I will definitely comply in the future, as my only intention is to improve the information quality on Wikipedia and not self-promote.

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Naturopathy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Correction noted. The intention was not to start an edit war, only to add a relevant link. I will comply with expectations without further problems.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.