User talk:Signimu/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your draft submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia&. If there is no response within seven days, the request may be declined. If this happens, please feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text   to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your draft submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia&. If there is no response within seven days, the request may be declined. If this happens, please feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text   to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 11:48am • 01:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Macabre constant, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Edit war warning
Enough already. If you don't understand MEDRS please ask.

Your recent editing history at Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease 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) 17:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're going a bit fast with your edit war warning... Since my message above where I noticed you were not a bot and that the journal formatting was not the sole issue, I did no other edit. Thus I don't think this edit war warning is warranted at all... I was simply not aware of the new disposition about acceptable references (and given the bibliography I am not sure they all fit this criterion). I will nevertheless apply these new recommandations. BTW I am not a bot either, a human message (instead of a copy/paste) would maybe be a more efficient way to communicate? --Signimu (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you thought I was bot. What I know is that you ignored the message above and kept trying to force badly sourced content into an article about health. MEDRS is not new and it has very broad and deep consensus.
 * I understand that you don't edit about health much. So please slow down and learn.
 * The key guidances are:
 * WP:MEDRS
 * WP:MEDMOS
 * and WP:MEDHOW has lots of useful tips. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional resources, I'm in WP since a long time but on various languages (and topics), so I don't follow the evolution of all guidelines, even if they are years old... So a little reminder is appreciated :-) About why I thought you were a bot, first because of the automated or copy/paste message, and secondly your name (with "dog"), I think it was a reasonable assumption even though it was false, as it did not describe exactly what was the issue. Also please do not invoke a false historic context: yes I tried 1 new commit with fixed journal formatting, until I saw your commits messages, which is when I posted the reply above and did not commit anything else in the article. --Signimu (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here: . --Signimu (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nothing more to say to you. The history at the article is clear as day that you kept trying to add badly sourced content. If you assume another human is a bot, that is your problem. Not mine. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the history is clear, and is exactly what I describe... Yes I did add badly sourced content but not only, in particular the last edit (which directly precede this warning of yours) is up for appreciation, since it follows the guidelines. Please excuse me for not reacting ASAP to your first few reverts, since they were so fast (a matter of seconds/minutes after my edits), I was still in the process of editing the article, I did not see the notifications. I think my good faith is clearly constituted with my replies and history, and I would appreciate if you could talk with me with not so much aggressivity. I think it would be best if we stop here and continue discussing practically about the references on the article's talk page. --Signimu (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits on Intermittent fasting
Hello. It is not the obligation of a technical editor to teach you English. You can get help with your sandbox practices here and here. --Zefr (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For your information, you were mentioned by another user (not me): . As I said, I am not a native English writer, but honestly if you think my English is inadequate to participate, I really hope you are wrong, as this would mean that a lot of the contributors should not contribute to this WP language. I am currently rewriting my contributions, I hope this is all a misunderstanding due to the poor wording, and that the new version will satisfy everyone. --Signimu (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hep.29367, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you very much, I fixed it :-) Have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Overlinking
Typically we only link a term once in a text. Also please read WP:MEDMOS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you! --Signimu (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have linked NICE like 15 times... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I understood, thank you for the suggestion. It's on my todo list, but I have exhausted my spare time for Wikipedia contributions for some time, so I will eventually do this but feel free if you want to do it before --Signimu (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good thanks... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Thank you for your patience! --Signimu (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I am very honored to receive this award and also from you! --Signimu (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Something to follow
--Signimu (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Fad diets list
See my note on the Fad diet Talk page about the existing List of diets article. David notMD (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I raised classification of Fad diet from Start to C because of your revisions. David notMD (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your review and advices! --Signimu (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Seriously obese"
What is this? What is the exact quote? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I found it in one of the recommendations (I think AsiaPacific, I'll check), but I've found in Younossi2019 (added today) that it's in fact the terminology defined by the WHO, although I did not find the source yet. From what I understood, the terminology is: overweight, obesity, serious obesity, morbid obesity. I'll try to find the WHO source now. --Signimu (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh, no need to go far, it's described here Classification_of_obesity, and it should be "severe obesity", not serious. Might be my mistake or a source's, but nvm I'll fix that right away, thank you for point that out! --Signimu (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Your recent editing history at Intermittent fasting 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.''You should let this topic rest for awhile; you need to have talk page consensus among at least 2 other editors, WP:CON, to make the changes you want. And you are blatantly edit-warring; WP:3RR notice. '' Zefr (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are here abusing of this warning. There was no edit warring on this particular edit, as the reason for reverting was dubious. There was no attempt on your part to discuss it either. --Signimu (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Intermittent fasting‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Hello, could you please clarify for what edit exactly are you issuing this edit war warning? Thank you in advance. --Signimu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You reverted twice within the space of a few 80 minutes ( first, to remove the "fad" description again ). Are you not aware of this? Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC); amended 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that you edit war warned me for: 1. an edit I made and reverted by you several hours before your warning, which you chose to add in the same section created by Zefr (is it because you are both using the same editing software?), 2. for a disputed weakly sourced content that you already tried to push in 2017 with no source whatsoever. --Signimu (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So long as you are (now) aware of WP:EW policy, then that is good. I suspect Zefr (like me) uses WP:TWINK to issue warnings. As to your accusations of my "pushing" a category "with no source whatsoever" I see that again you are making factually incorrect statements: consulting the version of the article at the time shows that the "fad diet" category is certainly sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are both using Twinkle, it's appended at the end of both of your edits. About the fad diet not being sourced, you are right, point taken, sorry. Nevertheless, it was still disputed over the history, showing there was no consensus. Anyway FYI, I have found much better sources, so I can (now) in fact improve the qualification of fad diet. --Signimu (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "You reverted twice within the space of a few minutes (to remove the "fad" description)" --> This is false, here are the two commits, 13h apart --Signimu (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was looking at the wrong diffs, sorry. The two reverts (within 80 minutes) are these. The warning was appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you Alexbrn for clarifying, but so you have issued me a warning for the same diffs as Zefr (who also warned for the "Mechanism" issue). Is doubling warnings for the same issue ok in the R3R rule? --Signimu (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can issue warnings - it's really no big deal. The purpose is simply to make sure editors are aware of the relevant policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Confused about "fixing" Indentation
What do you mean by asking me to correct my indentation and then saying that you "fixed" it. ?

This may seem like a trivial thing, but I am concerned about what is starting to look like a pattern of incorrect accusatory statements. Or have I got something wrong? If so, please show me the diff where I did something wrong which needed you to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are trying to WP:Wikilawyering here? A space before/after the OD allows to better see it's a different message. I hardly understand why you are trying to focus on such a negligible aspect of the discussion (for both me and you) where the incorrect behavior you displayed (such as insulting me) are duly referenced in the incident. I might be a proponent of WP:Wikilove, but I am starting to regret my proposition for a peaceful resolution. --Signimu (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about this. I asked you to show me a diff why *I* did something incorrect that needed you to fix (and justified your complaint). If I made a mistake, please give me that diff. Or did you make a mistake? Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The diff is already provided above. I prefer when code editing is made easier by proper spacing between paragraphs, particularly after a line return. I did not enforce you to do it, I applied this negligible fix. If that hurted your sensitivity, I am honestly sorry, and you can consider I did here a mistake. --Signimu (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I'm even more puzzled. Why say "please fix your indentation" ? And why are you adjusting the indentation of my edit in this diff anyway? Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I did not see the OD, that's why I initially indented and later found that there was an OD with simply a missing space to make it readable in code mode. --Signimu (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Aha! So there was nothing to fix. In future if you make a mistake like this it is better to strike your erroneous comment (using the &lt;s> ... &lt;/s> tag pair) than try to rescue it by morphing it into a spurious complaint. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Always more worried about the form than the content, eh? --Signimu (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Filing substantially duplicate reports is disruptive, especially when it is clearly the wrong venue. This is a content dispute, it belongs at Talk, and if you can't agree then WP:DR is third on the left down the hall. If you continue in this vein you may be blocked for disruption. Guy (help!) 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)'' Guy (help!) 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Can you please point to what diff exactly this warning is pertaining to? --Signimu (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See "Filing substantially duplicate reports is disruptive, especially when it is clearly the wrong venue". See also "WP:DR is third on the left down the hall". Guy (help!) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. It's not really duplicate since there are new elements (confirmation of POV-pushing, due to new edits meanwhile). For the board's choice, I thought that since there is a harassment aspect in this dispute, the incident board was more appropriate, but I may well be wrong, in that case I will accept any sanction. --Signimu (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also note that's my last post anywhere about this issue. I just think harassment is unacceptable and my request should at least be read, but I won't spend my life on it and rather continue contributing. --Signimu (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The "new elements" are irrelevant to the similar elements, namely a long rigmarole heavy on WP:ABF about a content dispute that does not require administrator attention. Guy (help!) 17:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blaming the victim is not that great... If you check my history, apart from the incidents posts, I NEVER assumed bad faith (for them and others co-editors!), whereas these two users did on several occasions. Anyway the case is now closed. So much for WP:BRD, avoiding discussion and then issuing (duplicated) edit war warnings work better apparently than seeking discussion... --Signimu (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Disputing your edits is not harassment and doesn't make yo a victim. Done here. Guy (help!) 06:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blaming me for WP:ABF when I did nothing of the sort (I gave proofs, not just accusations, on ANI-board), whereas they did, is blaming the victim. I understand the ANI board was not a pertinent choice for this type or level of dispute. --Signimu (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hey man sorry you’re having a hard time at ANI. For what it’s worth, I think per the talk page rules you are free to remove warnings and other unfriendly from your page.

You don’t need ANI approval to take them off, so I would encourage you not to return there with this same dispute until after you’ve gone through the dispute resolution and given it a chance to work. Let me know if you need any help with that, by the way. I haven’t been around very long but I’ve seen a few dispute resolutions work out. Michepman (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I'm honestly a bit disgusted that the warnings were not even reviewed for validity, but directly assumed to be correct because of the ratio (2 against 1). My case is however relatively minor, it won't prevent me from contributing according to WP:BRD as best I can. Thank you for the offer, I will certainly ask for a 3rd-party resolution if things go wrong again (which I hope not). Have a great day --Signimu (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're still not getting it. We do not review warnings for "validity". It has nothing to do with the ratio. It's because it's a completely dumb utter waste of everyone's time to worry about whether a warning is valid. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not worry about whether or not some dumb warning is valid. I can understand why it may annoy you to receive a warning you feel as invalid but ultimately it's a moot point. No one cares as it makes no difference to us and it should make no difference to you. (I'll make a disclaimer here for talk page watchers that if someone persistently or egregiously misuses warnings then yes we may care but that requires something very very wrong or a consistent pattern of misuse and is not something you should concern yourself with if you're still struggling with the basics.) As I said at ANI, you should take the information of the warning on board because whether or not the warning is valid, you need to know the information to edit here as you will be blocked if you violate our policies and guidelines excessively. But stop worrying about pointless things like whether or not a warning is valid. It helps no one least of all you. In fact, I presume in part because you were so worried about something that no one else cares about, you nearly got yourself blocked because you kept opening pointless threads at ANI. Amply demonstrating the harm from worrying about silly things like whether or not the warnings you received are valid. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify, as indeed it didn't click. I now understand the loss of time it was, I'm honestly sorry about that. Part of my misunderstanding comes from the fact that on french Wikipedia, only administrators can issue such warnings, and they are followed by effects (2 or 3 leads to block). I read the doc here, but it was not very clear about this issue. So if I understand correctly, here the warnings can be issued by anyone (and look very much like admin warnings on french WP), but it's separate from WP:AN/3RR, where admins will evaluate and may or not take the users issued warnings into account. --Signimu (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Talk:Intermittent fasting, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Looks like an illicit copy of a textbook you linked to - be cautious about doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Thank you for fixing. --Signimu (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thank you, I feel very humbled by your reward, this motivates me to try my best to spread wiki love, thank you! :-D --Signimu (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much, I'll continue doing my best! Thank you for kindly enhancing my rough attempts at redirections :-D --Signimu (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Same Issue
Hi Signimu,

The same user who followed you around reverting your edits is doing the same thing to mine on Apple and An apple a day keeps the doctor away claiming that only 1 primary study should be included, instead of a literature review of dozens of studies. He followed me from the first article to the second, after ignoring an edit request I made on the first article. He constantly deletes his talk page so it is difficult to find patterns in his behavior and pinpoint problems with his overzealous deletions. I think this user should be reported, but I don't know how to gather the necessary information to make a good claim. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear, it is true that some editors are more difficult to work with than others. However, we must remember the end goal is to produce more accurate articles of higher quality. Although some editors do make mistakes, escalating to a noticeboard is i think premature and unconstructive. I would suggest to try to find more/higher quality sources, and ask a third party opinion. I will check these articles when I'll have some time. Hope these issues can be resolved constructively aed peacefully, have a nice day :-) --Signimu (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing
Signimu: please don't leave messages on my talk page. You are not welcome there. Henceforth, I will delete any talk page message from you, and will not respond unless there is a valid discussion on an article talk page.

You said: ''I'm wondering if maybe our divergences might not be rooted in a difference in how we perceive how articles should be edited: I think (and I'm probably not the only one) that a gradual increase in quality is acceptable, eg, for an article where there is mostly animal studies, removing to replace with human primary studies is already an enhancement, or placing reviews without detailing the content (because the editor is not an expert or does not have the time to dig) is good for future editors so that they can expand. But it fell on me that maybe you could expect edits to always meet the highest quality standard, whatever the current state or quality of the article. Is my intuition correct? I am not making any judgement, I can understand this viewpoint, it's just that I did not think of it and I'm trying to better understand your editing process to better collaborate.''
 * I'm glad you're trying to collaborate because your recent history indicates you have not been collaborative, but rather are creating obsessive arguments and long-winded rants on many articles and talk pages. You are obsessive in edit numbers and non-encyclopedic details. Read WP:5P1 - the guide says that not everything about a topic needs to be included. Read WP:MEDMOS for 'common pitfalls' and 'writing style', particularly "Most readers access Wikipedia on mobile devices and want swift access to the subject matter without undue scrolling." Your edits work against this. Most Wikipedia visitors read only the lede, and don't need all the details or your unsourced opinions for present or future users that you want to add, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6-8. You have edited well outside most of these guidelines, and when you do, other editors have to provide cleanup or reverts. --Zefr (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I tried... Too bad you seem to prefer to personalize and antagonize, as I am sure we could have worked together to great effects, instead of against :-) --Signimu (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (for other users: all of this is totally unfounded, just more accusations without any diff... Hence my kind but non-naive reply to someone who prefers to close his talk page). --Signimu (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfounded? Any Wikipedia editor can review your history of disruptive and misleading editing, clearly laid out above among several other editors, including your edit warring and WP:DE over the last two years. My talk page is not closed (except to you), and Wikipedia preserves all history of discussions. --Zefr (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Laugh out loud at the "Henceforth, I will delete any talk page message from you," Zefr, seeing as you delete your entire talk page anyway! It's only too bad wikipedia editors cannot as easily review your history of disruptive and misleading editing,    given you blank your talk page after every warning, block, notice, and message, instead of archiving as is the norm. And there's even more results to wade through | at the archives of the WP:ANI Call me 24 24.217.247.41 (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref
Regarding

Would be better to reference something other than medicalxpress... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree but actually it's written by the EASL (it's written just below the header), but I'll try to find another place where maybe they published the same thing. However it's not necessary in the worst case, the EASL own website already says most of the same thing :-) --Signimu (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree by the EASL. Best to cite there site directly... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Thank you and have a nice day!  --Signimu (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Apple
This is an example of your reckless, impulsive editing behavior and misunderstanding of what the sources say. In writng for Wikipedia scientific content, competence is required, WP:CIR, and you appear incompetent to assess scientific sources. There was no specific study of apple or polyphenol consumption - only inconclusive associations about fruit consumption generally - and no quantitative proof in any source that polyphenols from apple survived digestion intact and had any specific physiological or general health effects. No studies exist to prove any health effects of polyphenols from any food source. --Zefr (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you consistently WP:Cherrypick. Not only you regularly fail point 3, but you forgot to read other points, such as: «It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful.» I can perfectly well read and understand scientific literature (contrary to some of your edits), but I am indeed no expert in these topics, as I avoid contributing to my expertise topics as stated in my userpage to reduce bias. Same for the polyphenols: 1. the literature I have provided is not solely about antioxydants effects (in fact I did not even care to read their hypothesis of the mechanism, since what they studied are the associated effects - and they are systematic review in good journals), 2. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but thank you for proving me the links, I have updated Health_effects_of_natural_phenols_and_polyphenols to the latest evidence, which shows that some of the claims have some credence, the EFSA having recognized the claims for 2 specific products + new research of polyphenols benefices for metabolic syndromes. If you disagree, I would advise to first update the related articles, since most of the links are pre-2010 (research progress in 9 years you know). --Signimu (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Signimu is correct here. Zefr has a history of WP:CHERRYPICKING ("Do not cherrypick. When selecting information from a source, include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source."). He edit warred to keep out the second finding from a 2015 PRIMARY study that he inserted into the An apple a day keeps the doctor away page, that found apple consumption was associated with fewer prescription medications. In fact, on the Apple page, there is a 2004 NutrJ literature review that he is also attempting to CHERRYPICK findings from re "Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits" https://doi:10.1186/1475-2891-3-5 claiming that this source says there are unknown effects of phytochemicals. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I understand that Zefr has very high standards for the articles he monitors. In particular for what he considers "extraordinary claims", he requires as strong sources (but for non extraordinary claims such as "this does not have any beneficial effect", his quality standard is lower, which is logical and per WP:MEDRS and WP:RS). So this might produce a superficial bias when primary studies are accepted for some claims, whereas reviews are not enough for others. I would prefer to include all these sources with an appropriate description (of their pitfalls), but Zefr prefers to delete In any case, I think it's better to raise the bar rather than lower it, so in these cases where we disagree, I would favor looking for much stronger sources (like for Intermittent Fasting or Health effects of phenols and polyphenols), and if there aren't any, just let it sleep until maybe they appear someday.  --Signimu (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at An apple a day keeps the doctor away, you may be blocked from editing. ''Your edits seem intentional to mislead the user into believing health effects you want to promote when the sources did not evaluate the topic. This is "synthesis" which is a misleading original research issue on Wikipedia, WP:OR. You make this same error on numerous other articles. '' Zefr (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of trying to scare me (which does not work), why don't you file an admin request if you think you can prove your baseless accusations? Contrary to you, I have never been blocked for edit warring, and I am not currently involved in multiple conflicts (I only have one with you, despite my efforts to make things better unfortunately...). You should focus on improving WP instead of pursuing other editors. --Signimu (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll kindly (although you'll probably shrug off what I write as usual) point that you here did a mistake. You are involved in a lot of conflicts currently. I would advise you to reconsider what you are doing and maybe take some distance to think about it. I am still open to collaborate with you if you honestly stop trying to make it a personal vendetta, my history shows I am reasonable and accept arguments and reasoned reverts. --Signimu (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Intermittent fasting, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * For context, this warning happens after 1 revert on my part. Quite fast on the trigger That's after 2 weeks of trying to discuss, including a 3O and WP:DRN, with this user who talks only through diff messages... --Signimu (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Intermittent fasting, you may be blocked from editing. ''All you are doing is trying to insert your opinion - multiple times, while not gaining any support for this conjecture on the talk page. Please stop and move on. '' Zefr (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Ah, I did not see this nice accusation. Going further down the rabbit hole I see. --Signimu (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intermittent fasting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Healthy food ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Intermittent_fasting check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Intermittent_fasting?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting meta-links

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing#Wikipedia_became_battleground_playpen --Signimu (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice to meet you!
I have been following your article improvements these past few weeks. Thanks for all you are doing to improve Med articles on Wikipedia. I appreciate your positive attitude and enthusiasm on the talk pages! Happy editing! Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for the kind words! We are all in the same boat trying to make this encyclopedia more complete and accurate, that's a lot of work, so we might as well spend a good time working together  Thank you too for your great work, I've only recently learnt about the Wikipedia-Cochrane initiative, and I think it's awesome!  Have a great day! --Signimu (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this reply. I noticed today your super positive and helpful email to a brand new editor who forgot sources. Thank you for all you are doing on Wikipedia! Finding this balance is difficult but I know that the students will appreciate our patience and kindness as they navigate this to the best of their abilities. Re: Cochrane. Yes, we have been having quite a few Cochrane community members who are interested in helping to improve Wikipedia, and many more that I don't even know of! I have been developing this resource, hoping that it will help people who are transiting from academia to Wikipedia (and back) navigate and use their expert knowledge to help find high-quality appropriate sources and improve what people access online. I am always open to feedback and once again, it is a pleasure to be editing with you! JenOttawa (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The pleasure is mine! --Signimu (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help cleaning up the Caffeine article after the students. You did a great job!JenOttawa (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, it's not much, your students and you are doing a great job --Signimu (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Trivia
WP:BRD sometimes gets tossed around as if it is the only proper way to handle a dispute. It's not, and I find that a lot of people who invoke it don't actually know what it means. I'll give you a nutshell version:


 * In some disputes, you can't be all things to all people. If you want to make progress, one thing that you could try is to identify *one* person who disagrees with you.  Make an edit that you think is good ("bold").  Wait to see who reverts you ("revert").  Then talk to *only* that one person, to sort out a change that the two of you can live with ("discuss").
 * Now repeat this individual, one-by-one negotiation of differences as many times as necessary, with as many people as come by to revert you, until everyone is satisfied.

This should give you some idea of the caveats: You shouldn't be using BRD if the other guy is reverting copyvios or libel back into an article, right? You actually can't use BRD if you self-revert (because you'll never be able to figure out who is the *one* person who disagreed strongly enough to revert your change, if you self-revert). BRD is inherently a one-on-one negotiation process, so you shouldn't try to use BRD if there are so many people involved that you can't realistically talk to just the one person who reverted you. You shouldn't be using BRD if you don't know what you're doing and have the patience and other personal qualities that make it possible for you to win friends and influence all the people who want to revert you. (That's one reason that BRD has long said that the technique is only recommended for experienced editors.) And there are many other situations in which BRD is either pointless or inappropriate, a number of which are documented on the BRD page itself.

I think that most editors learn about BRD by word of mouth, and quite a number of them get a completely wrong impression. Specifically, most editors learn about BRD when someone invokes it as an excuse to revert their changes – sort of in a "Nyah, nyah, nyah, BRD says I get to revert you, and now you have to start a discussion!" way. Unfortunately, there's no practical way to prevent editors from misapplying and misciting advise pages, but we can explain, and now you know more about BRD than the average editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the interesting thoughts! You are right that a lot of editors misuse policies such as BRD, by using them when they fit their own interpretation, instead of trying to understand their essence. I for example don't like that Wikipedia has to follow the mainstream view, but that's how things are, and I have no better systemic solution to offer, so I follow this consequence of the policies. I try to understand the policies essence, but of course we all make mistakes  I agree that other consensus forming processes such as BRR are totally viable, but only as long as there is no stalemate such as edit warring when causing no content evolution. I would thus argue that BRD is in fact even more indicated when doing a many-to-many negotiation process, particularly when there is a risk of edit warring, as seems to be the case on MEDPRICE. From my understanding of BRD, discussion is not only to convince your contradictor, but also more systematically a way to reach a global consensus using the collective intelligence of the community, hence its high indication in many-to-many negotiations. Of course, not everyone will read the opposite's side arguments, but I trust that most will take both side's arguments into account, and if not, then Wikipedia is simply not yet ready to implement such a change, as its community cannot agree on it (even though it may be the correct call in the absolute). In this particular case of MEDPRICE, I see no easy solution, but it clearly needs another open discussion seeing how the MED community is divided on it, and I strongly support such a discussion, I think it is an important question. --Signimu (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BRD isn't a policy.
 * I think that for many-to-many discussions, especially when you're not dealing with people who trust you, then "discuss first" is often the least disruptive approach. To use MEDPRICE as an example, SandyGeorgia and I could probably hash things out without touching the talk page, except that we tend to use the talk page partly to show that Yes, It Was Discussed™ (because there are so many less-experienced editors who can't really believe that WP:PGBOLD is a policy, even though it's been an official policy for years and years and years, and partly because recording intent and examples can be helpful later).  If I don't like what she wrote, I'll just revert it and try my own version, and she would do (and has done) the same for me.  Colin, on the other hand, deeply dislikes reverting other people's edits, so if he and I were re-writing it, we'd use the talk page a lot more than SG and I would.  Doc James and I might sort it out by me editing the guideline and him saying what he liked or didn't like on the talk page.  It's not that his ideas are worse (or better) than mine, but I happen to be better at this style of writing than him, so why not play to each of our strengths?  You can come to me if you need a carefully punctuated sentence in a Wikipedia policy, but I'd recommend heading his direction if you have a medical emergency.
 * But it's not just the two of us at this point, so we're talking a lot more and letting the guideline sit on The Wrong Version. Until Doc James made a small change yesterday, nobody except QuackGuru had touched the guideline for more than a week now.  The current version just isn't important while we're talking about what we want to achieve.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok to be more accurate, BRD is not a policy on its own but is part of the consensus policy. When I use BRD, I don't mean to follow exactly BRD as a cycle, but mostly to focus on the discussion. Of course I agree with you to be BOLD even for policy editing (and actually that's part of BRD, editing should almost always start by being BOLD!), but since several editors have raised concerns, now the most elegant way to proceed would be to revert back to the previous state and discuss further changes, until an agreement emerges. Because at this point, the alternative is that an edit war ensues, and that would look very bad on the MED community (and I would further hate that any of the very experienced editors involved there gets banned over an ultimately meaningless dispute compared to what the significant contributions they do everyday)... Signimu (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BRD is linked in the Consensus policy. It is not part of the consensus policy.  I put that link there myself, so I feel pretty confident in interpreting its meaning.  We used further and not main because the meaning is "you might be interested in this, too", and not "Get the full explanation of this entire section in this other page".
 * The most elegant way to proceed is to not revert back to some hypothetical status quo ante version during the discussion (have you ever noticed how often the One True™ "status quo" version is the one that the editor demanding the reversion agrees with?). The most elegant way to proceed is to believe that everyone in the discussion can have that discussion no matter what the current version of the guideline happens to say.  All of the experienced editors involved in that discussion are capable of remembering that the current version doesn't perfectly reflect reality while we talk about how to fix it up.  There can't be an edit war if nobody's editing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , come on, that's nit-picking! The essence of Consensus is to explicitly reach consensus through discussion when implicit consensus through editing cannot be reached. So it's not exactly requiring BRD per se, but the idea is the same, just without a specific protocol. Furthermore, in both WP:CONLEVEL and WP:CCC and WP:TALKFIRST, all of them advise that generally any policy change should be done by discussing first (an exception to WP:BOLD in some sort). As you mentioned, there is WP:PGBOLD as an alternative possibility, but it states that editors are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR and WP:0RR. Then again, it's all flexible guidelines, and there is WP:IGNORE, so these can be ignored if we so want, just like any policy, but in WP:MEDPRICE all these general advices were trespassed lately, that's not a good sign, it's risky, and that's not an elegant way to proceed IMHO... Signimu (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: for the statu quo ante version, I agree with you that generally it can be very blurry and a way for the reverter to get their way, but here it's a lot clearer since we have a recent enough RfC on the same question, so the statu quo ante version is obviously the one accepted in the RfC. That's not to say that I agree with it, but boldly editing through and reverting to maintain a version that goes against the previous RfC is not the best way to convince the community to accept the change, if anything that's doing the opposite. --Signimu (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of policy writing. Nitpicking is sometimes necessary to prevent problems.
 * In re "it's not exactly requiring BRD per se, but the idea is the same, just without a specific protocol", I think you've forgotten that BRD is exactly "a specific protocol", so that thought amounts "it's BRD without BRD".
 * Also, are you talking about the 2016 RFC? That's three and a half years ago, which is a very long time in Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and yes I don't think three and a half years ago is so old, in any case time does not make a previous consensus irrelevant (or did I miss a policy stating that somewhere?). About BRD without BRD, yes that's exactly my point  Discussion is a primary avenue for consensus building on Wikipedia, whether or not we follow BRD, and I think that's a sensible policy  --Signimu (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)