User talk:User109012

January 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nicotine; 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.''You should hash out your dispute on the talk page. Further reverts might well lead to a block. Thank you.'' Drmies (talk) 16:27, 29 January 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.
 * I am all for resolving disputes but the editor did not yet state reasons why he/she believes my edit does not satisfy a policy.  User  109012  (Talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You must not have read the talk page or the edit summaries. If you don't like the arguments, that's fine, but you're still edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've stated I am all for resolving disputes, which always involve arguments. I looked at the talk page of the article, it didn't have anything to do with the core of my edits. I am new, so didn't realize I had to post to the article talk page when reverting.  I am replying to the article talk page now.  User  109012  (Talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User109012, your edits that I've read show a level of skill that is really useful to Wikipedia. Wikipedia editing for research scientists contains some introductory information which you might find of use; if you need specific information, things like posting to the NPOV noticeboard are good, but you can also ask informally where you think it better. Socially, you've walked right into one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia, more or less up the steepest part of the learning cliff. The rules (policy and social) are often strange, and I often found it hard to understand them until I saw them in use around the place. We have all the usual conflicts of a democratic society, with bureaucrats, elected officials, political opponents, you name it, in an idiosyncratic culture with members with all sorts of backgrounds and opinions (but it makes our content better ). Academic debates in a text-only communications medium have a tendency to be difficult, especially as people often come off as more hostile than they intended to; it's easy to hear disrespect where none was intended. There is some information on techniques for avoiding this sort of miscommunication at Civility. We lose too many editors because tensions escalate and editing becomes socially unpleasant. Best of luck on the cliff, it's less turbulent at the top. HLHJ (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS
Doc James brought this issue up with you previously. I did prior to your most recent reverts in nicotine. You need to understand that you risk being blocked if you ignore this policy and continue to add this material in articles despite being reverted.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc James referred to a completely different issue of COPD research, that's fell under MEDRS because it is about a medical condition. Nicotine research in question here is NOT medically related and so does not fall under the MEDRS policy.  You have changed the template for a chemical to a template for a drug.  At the top of the article it clearly states it is an article for a chemical, and the research in question is about the chemical's effects on biological systems.  It is NOT health related.  If need be, I can add a separate section for Biological non-health research to ensure clarity.  All this is in accordance with the Wikipedia's good faith policy and all other policies. Next time please state reasons in your comments why you believe your revert is justified.   User  109012  (Talk) 17:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)