User talk:W3Dojo

WP:TPO
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not make edits like this again. It is widely considered inappropriate to alter, and change the meaning, of another editor's talk page — particularly when you are changing them to make claims that cannot be verified, while simultaneously tagging them as needing a citation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me, or another experience editor.Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Cordyceps. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. ''We don't accept traditional medicine practices or sources for medical content; they are quackery. Sources should follow WP:MEDRS.'' Zefr (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually what your doing is vandalism. You are not suppose to delete entire edits. If something is misspelled fix it. If somthing is wrong challenge it, bring it forward into open discussion. I have documented and cited everything I added. I have been through this before, you can't go around deleting other peoples contributions just because you say it is false. You have to say what you believe to be false. W3Dojo (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you pointed out something that you feel is not properly sources, or cited. You could also point out a study that I cited that you disagree with. I am willing to work with people, and do often on all sorts of sites. From looking at other pages, it appears that your not so much interest in the facts as much as your interested in getting your way. Try working with people. W3Dojo (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page for discussion of proposed content changes and sources to allow other editors to provide input. Your edit has no value in it, so is justified for complete reversion. Zefr (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cordyceps. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''This talk page topic is open for discussion. Go there to sort out your misunderstandings and poor choice of sources.'' Zefr (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Cordyceps) for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing, edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Enough already. Discuss on talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I only partly understood what I was doing. I didn't realize I was undoing and redoing stuff, and that you commented here. Or that pages had their own talk page. I was going to the wrong talk page. Futhermore, I was trying to help. I really don't have much time, nor do I have a horse in the cordyceps race. The other person claims human studys have never been done, and that is very inaccurate, if you google human studies w/ cordyceps, your querry will return several published papers. I was trying to include the study that appears to have been the most well known, documented, and well done. It was double blind w/ a plecebo, the results returned showed an increase in people who exercise, but only if they did not already exercisedd on a rigorous regiment before the study. I provided the citations, I don't understand why you feel that the edit was disruptive. How to you come to a conclusion like that? And honestly I know your Drmies, I am guess a Dr? but who are u to wikipedia? You guys need contributors more than other sites, this is well known. I contribute to other sites that have to do with software development, and often times they ask us to help here on wikipedia, but its clear now, why people don't help. The sites so archaic, the interface feels like windows when I was 3, you were sending me messages, and there was no running onInterval method to refresh the page to inform me I was getting messages, or that they were from a different person. Furthermore, my post was wiped clean, even though wikipedia docs says a person needs to give a reason for doing so? You might just think that I am upset that my revision was undone, and I was at first because no one explained why. But now, at this point, I just dont want to deal with this site, as a software developer, I know that there is a better way of not only implimenting an interface (and I know wikipedia uses the original wiki software that was developed in the 80's and and has updated it for decades). The community also is not helpful, there's no clear set of boundries or rules. Neither the person who undid my revision, or you, looked at the citations I left, yet you deemed what I contributed as disruptive? And IDK, maybe it was disruptive, but should I not be forgiven if it was disruptive, I am new to this community. Furthermore, you were more explainitory than the other persone, but you were vague about why you felt my edits were disruptive. I don't really care if the site includes the study or not, I did, but now I dont. Currently as it stands, there is a person who is using wikipedia to atest that no human studies have been done to show any proof. They are so definsive it feels like they have an alternate agenda to be honest. Maybe they hate eastern medicine, or are a doctor IDK. I personally wouldn't eat cordyceps to cure my cancer, but that doesn't change that there have been human trials, and wikipedia says there hasn't been. Its just false, and I got nothing but a hard time for trying to correct that falsity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110835/ W3Dojo (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to follow what you're saying in this one single huge paragraph, but what I see is you discussing content, which you shouldn't be doing with me but with all editors--on the article talk page. I am sorry, I guess, that you didn't understand article page, article talk page, user talk page, etc., but I hope you understand that now. That you claim you didn't understand you were reverting seems very odd to me--if you didn't know that, how could you be reverting so often? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)