User talk:ScienceLogic40

March 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Traditional Chinese medicine. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Your content also appears to be promotional, WP:PROMO. Please don't edit war, WP:WAR. '' Zefr (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Traditional Chinese medicine, you may be blocked from editing. '' Dont lie in your edit summaries '' Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC).


 * The changes I have made are in accordance with scientific best practice. Please give specific details of where you believe this has not been the case. Do not accuse somebody of lying without providing any evidence. Your comments are offensive and inaccurate. I have added cited research and it has been removed, it appears that somebody is vandalising my credible posts. Dr Logic the Scientist. ScienceLogic40 (talk) 12:44, April 16, 2020‎ (UTC)
 * No, other editors are making proper corrections to your improper edits. When this happens, per BRD, do not restore your edit, but go to the article's talk page and start a discussion about the matter.
 * Also, sign EVERY comment you make on every talk page with your proper signature, which includes a timestamp. That is done by adding four tildes at the end of your comment. I have done it for you this time. (The "talk" part will appear black when on your own talk page, but will work everywhere else.) -- Valjean (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC).

I added research that was published in the journal of the American Medical Association in the efficacy section of Chinese herbal medicine and somebody removed it. I then remove a quote from an editorial in a magazine as unscientific personal opinion and this Roxy the Dog starts accusing me of vandalisation and lying. An editorial is personal opinion and is not scientific information which is required (especially when this page makes statements about the scientific process, pseudoscience etc) ScienceLogic40 17th April 2020
 * I thought it might be useful to show you your "wilfully lying edit summary" as follows -


 * "updated to reflect accepted scientific reporting standards . Of utmost importance when examining medical issues."


 * This was your dissembling edsum. Buck up your ideas, or you wont have a happy time editing here. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC).

My reasoning was completely accurate. If you think that an editorial is acceptable scientific or medical evidence then you have no business even commenting in this field. if people of your calibre are editing medical information pages then Wikipedia can never hope to be a relevant reference source. ScienceLogic40
 * Please use a proper signature with timestamp. This is NOT optional. You must do it. Either adapt or suffer the consequences. -- Valjean (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

Valjean the keyboard warrior to the rescue, laying down the law and living in some fantasy world. Fuken looser

Minor edits
Many of your edits are not "minor edits", yet they are marked as if they are. Please go to your settings and change that setting. There is no real reason to mark any edits as minor, and incorrectly marking some as minor can be seen as deceptive and will get you into trouble. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC). No Problem, I can mark the edits differently. User:ScienceLogic40 17th April 2020


 * That is not a proper timestamp. Use four tildes and it will be done properly. -- Valjean (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 (2)
Your recent editing history at Traditional Chinese medicine‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. McSly (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Traditional Chinese medicine. ''There is no consensus on the talk page for your point of view that would justify such a large section removal. See WP:CON. '' Zefr (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaries & vandalism
This edit does not match the summary at all. It was pure POV vandalism. -- Valjean (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)