User talk:TineIta

Welcome!
Hello, TineIta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Friendly Advice
TineIta, You seem to be trying to bludgeon, which in a nutshell means,  If many editors have replied but your comments take up 50% of the text, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear the conversation at Homeopathy. If you continue down this path sooner or later you will be blocked from editing or at least topic banned. You seem to be an intelligent editor who has decided to jump into a very heated area of editing on your first try. What I suggest is you step back from trying to edit homeopathy or other, "fringe" topics, and edit something less controversial while you learn the processes.

I do not want to see you blocked from editing, I believe you can add a lot to wikipedia if you follow the advice, that others and I have given you. If you have any questions please ping me on this talk page. Just include user:Viewmont Viking at the start of the post, this will notify me that someone has pinged me. VViking Talk Edits 21:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks I certainly do not have the time and/or the intent to take up the space - are you sure that 50 percent of the comments are mine? Anyway I will leave certainly space and time to people to respond. I can not force them to change it... I know they typically don't allow to people with different point of view to edit --even the talk page - no matter  how much reliability their sources  have.   --TineIta (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What an interesting opinion! What makes you believe this is the case? VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, TineIta, 50% of the comments were yours. I just checked.  Specifically, in the ""evidence of two new phenomena, both totally unpredicted, in homeopathic dilutions" ?" thread, at the time when Viewmont Viking posted the comment above, there were 40 posts, of which 20 were yours, so - yeah 50%.   (One new post got added since then so now it's only 48.78% - congratulations).


 * More to the point, there were 8 editors on that thread telling you that you were wrong, and not a single one coming to your support. That's kindof a hint that it's time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass...which is what you should have done about four posts into that 40 post thread.  And one post into the 34 post thread you started as a direct result of completely ignoring (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) what everyone told you in the first 40 post thread.  It shouldn't take ten editors and 74 posts to convince you that you're wrong.  This is why we call your behavior "disruptive editing".  Because while those people are trying to explain to you that you're WRONG, they aren't doing useful editing on Wikipedia.  That's clearly a disruption to improving our encyclopedia - and on fringe topics, where we're fully aware that advocates for the craziest notions come along specifically to create disruption - we don't allow it and we must defend our otherwise productive editors from the consequences of it...period.


 * So, take the hint.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is clearly abusive, of course -- I suggested specific edits copying  from  a reliable source accepted and already  cited in the article and suggested by another editor. The editors who want me blocked did not make even one specific comment or use any reliable source in the discussion. VQuakr asked before if I was sure that this is the case. --TineIta (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I do want to say that I was sorry to see this block come through after I requested your response on the article talk page. It was not my intention to "trap" you into violating discretionary sanctions. I see that your posts on the article talk page have not only continued but have become patently absurd ("all meta analyses say it is not placebo" really, all?), and I can only echo the others' suggestions that you try editing an unrelated, less controversial topic while you learn the fundamentals. VQuakr (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant the meta analsyes I cited--- not all. Speaking of absurd things ---Can you tell me how many meta analyses say = Homeopathy = placebo ? Read what I wrote. Regarding blocking - it  is part of the abusive style who have adopted many editors here--- if you cannot see that in the talk page  - I think you should read more carefully.   --TineIta (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can only respond to what you write, as I am unable to know what you mean to say but do not write. I have avoided replying to your post on the meta-studies for the reason I listed in my last reply here. The three meta-studies you cited are quite old, which is an immediate red flag. As higher-quality primary studies, which are less susceptible to publication bias due to the resources required, have been performed in the last 15 years and reviewed in meta analyses, the trend has been that the best studies have the most conclusively null results. Focusing only on the oldest meta analyses seems pretty intellectually indefensible. We cover this, in some detail, already in the article under the "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" section. None if this changes the fact that homeopathy is unambiguously pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I m telling you what I meant. What higher quality sources have been performed in the last 15 years and reviewed in meta analyses, the trend has been that the best studies have the most conclusively null results? Can you be specific? I don't think this is the case. By the way Shang meta analyses reviewed almost the same sources with Linde - using different methodology - so almost everything is "old". --TineIta (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)