Hello, Sbelknap! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the Cochrane review without consensus. The other review can also be added. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

1. Use high-quality sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed.
2. Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
3. We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
4. Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
5. Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
6. Include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
7. Format references consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW.
8. Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
9. The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS.
10. Think carefully before working on featured articles (these have a gold star at top right). It is often hard to improve featured articles.
11. Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us. Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to get consensus before replacing "side effect" with "adverse effect". Both are fine per MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per a consensus of editors at this discussion, you are topic banned from all Wikipedia articles, pages, and discussions related to finasteride, dutasteride, or sexual health, broadly construed. Please note that violations of your topic ban may lead to more severe sanctions, including being blocked from editing. Please see the banning policy for more information, and if you have questions about this sanction you may ask for clarification here or at the administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied or adapted the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref supports this.[1] Best

For pyogenic spondylodiscitis due to staphylococcus aureus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655482

For bacteremia due to staphylococcus aureus: Russell, Clark D., Aaron Lawson McLean, Christopher Saunders, and Ian F. Laurenson. "Adjunctive rifampicin may improve outcomes in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review." Journal of medical microbiology 63, no. 6 (2014): 841-848. Note, however, that the ARREST trial calls this in to question Here is link to ARREST article and accompanying editorial: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361732456X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673617332944

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around a long time yet continue not to format references similar to the rest of the articles you edit.

Can you please follow WP:MEDHOW. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is you [2] then you should declare it as a COI. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this[3] JFW | T@lk 08:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disclose all my publications here: http://www.medicine.northwestern.edu/faculty/profile.html?xid=15577

My funding has been through the NIH, NSF, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and some smaller foundations, including the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. This is disclosed in my published articles, as above.

I do not publish on wikipedia using any other name, and I have never hidden (and have acknowledged) that I am an academic physician-scientist.

I have no other COI of which I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chlortalidone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isotonic (check to confirm | 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) 09:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Cole Hamels appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you might be willing to review and revise Minimal clinically important difference, improving the sourcing per MEDRS and the style per MEDMOS and MOS generally, and per the mission generally.

The creator and main contributor appears to be a real world expert, who more or less generated a literature review here in WP, with lots of synthesis and writing their own thoughts with citations stuck behind them. Not summarizing sources. That's what is there.

The key thing missing, is description of the extent to which this concept has been and is actually used -- or not used -- in regulatory approvals, generating clinical guidelines and literature reviews, reporting clinical trials, and the like. The reader is left not knowing if this is something some people advocate for, is central to all assessment of interventions, or somewhere in the middle. And no sense of whether the use or non-use has changed over time.

This topic seems very much in your alley, and could use Wikipedian expert improvement... Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. Thanks for the pointer.Sbelknap (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being willing! Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jayron32 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sbelknap. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... has been posted to WP:AN. I'm required to notify you here when a post has been made concerning you on that page. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Jim Edgar. Stop trying to cram this into the lead. It was a BLP violation when you restored it the first time, and couching it in terms of the "Edgar Ramp" instead of directly pointing the finger at Edgar is undue. If many people blame him then provide reliable sources that prove that. We discuss the ramp in the article and the fact that it was named for him because he was Governor at the time. That does not warrant putting it in the lead. The article is about the person, not the ramp, and your edit seemed to be implying that he was to blame. Meters (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please format this using "cite book"[4]

All you need is the ISBN plus page number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here[5] text was copied from here[6].

This material was produced by "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation" who own the copyright on it. It is not produced by staff of the US federal government. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Pournelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need these for books so others can verify the text in question.[7]

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you are skeptical of the Prion theory, so am I. I found this article and thought you would be interested: there is a growing paradigm that the prion alone, even "co-factor prions" cannot explaine TSEs, especially the different strains. It is now thought by a growing number of scientists that a virus or bacterium encodes the different strains. https://www.dentistrytoday.com/news/todays-dental-news/item/3013-protect-your-patients-and-practice-from-prions-viruses-and-systemic-diseaseSpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) You know to use high quality secondary sources

2) You have been around long enough to know how to format your own sources.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first word of a heading should generally have a capital letter. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your reversion of my reversion of your edit to David Horowitz, you claimed that "The SPLC is now considered an unreliable source." I must have missed this memo. Can you point me to where this decision was made?--Masque (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear who you were targeting with this edit summary but it is an unacceptable personal attack - you should withdraw and apologise -----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable person might consider a "personal attack" to be "personal" (directed at a particular person) and an "attack" (doing violence to that person). There was nothing "personal" and there was no attack, so…? Stay well. Sbelknap (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable person would see you as making a general accusation against editors who have reverted you. You are heading for an ANI report if you do it again and you should apologise and/or make it clear that the accusation did not apply to the two editors involved. Unless of course you can justify it with specific evidence. Checking your history your attention hass alresdy been drawn to WP:ASPERSIONS in the context of your topic ban. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you have started up with the innuendo again; implying that your idiosyncratic edits are a result of some long term plan to avoid recognizing Heiddegger's Nazi past. You have refused to comply with a request to evidence that accusation or delete it. Your whole attitude on the talk page is to tell other editors they are wrong and not engage with them. Checking your history, your previous topic ban was based on concerns about obsessive editing coupled innuendo and personal attacks so you have history here. If it doesn't stop now then I am going to raise the question at ANI with a reference to the previous ban. You are raising a serious question as to whether or not you can engage with other editors in accordance with Wikipedia conventions on any controversial issue which raises a question or two about your continued participation in the project. I thought we had an agreement that you would raise any issues about the main body of the article and we would then look again at the lede. Instead, you are plunging straight into the attempt to attach a qualification about the Nazi qualification to any statement. I'd seriously suggest you find a mentor if you can't see the issue here. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats to refer me to an ANI seem out-of-bounds, as per WP:PA. You make many assertions, none of which are accurate. Please stay off my talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll confine myself to formal notices if they become necessary -----Snowded ^TALK 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Martin Heidegger 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 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should adopt the attitude of seeking consensus on the talk page first given the number of reverts you are getting. If not then accept a 1RR restriction at least. Slow edit wars are still edit wars in WIkipedia -----Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just broken a basic Wikipedia rule namely canvassing selected editors -----Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." This is precisely what was done. Again, please stay off my talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a policy notice Sbelknap, I don't want you saying you were not warned. If you had contacted everyone who edited the page or put a notice on a discussion forum that would have been OK. But you selected who you invited. Please read and attend to the policies cited. But it's your call, I'll stay away unless next time it needs to be an ANI reference -----Snowded ^TALK 17:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the canvassing policy. It seems crystal clear to me that my actions are entirely consistent with that policy. Frankly, I feel that you are harassing me. Please stop. Sbelknap (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK to be very very clear, You have edit warred, you have persisted in trying to get material inserted with all other editors in disagreement you have indulged in NPOV taging when you can't get support on the talk page. You have also canvassed. If this carries on I am going to put together a summary of this and request a topic ban at ANI. I really don't want to do that but you need to accept the position of other editors on the talk page. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you make many assertions about violations of wikipedia policy that are false. I have not edit warred, canvassed, or drive-by tagged by any reasonable definition of these term. I have made many high-quality edits to wikipedia, including a few on the Martin Heidegger page. I respectfully ask again that you keep off my page. Sbelknap (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll confine my self to formal notices as required by Wikipedia -----Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sbelknap. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Loeb's Laws of Therapeutics.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can make uncontroversial move requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you were only reverted as it was a cut-and-paste move. The article has been moved and I've merged in your edits :) – Thjarkur (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit to Robert A. Heinlein. When adding a reference to an article, please use the format that the rest of the article is already using, in this case Template:Citation. Thank. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rut (check to confirm | 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) 07:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the ongoing personal attacks, you are now making changes previously rejected on the talk page and/or which you know are controversial. This type of behavior has got you into trouble before. Please learn to work with other editors or you heading for a topic ban -----Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no personal attacks. My edits are good faith attempts to improve the article. I respectfully suggest that instead of making threats, you engage in the discussion on the talk page, where I have opened a subsection on the matter of improving the Martin Heidegger lede. I am engaged with other editors in the discussion on that talk page. Some editors agree with me and disagree with you. Sbelknap (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did and have continued to so. I don't think any other neutral editor would take them any other way. I've warned you, if you want to go to ANI just carry on -----Snowded ^TALK 16:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits and comments are focused entirely on improving the content of wikipedia. Your comment here is threatening. Please stay off my talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may not impose changes to Lou Dobbs absent consensus that these changes are appropriate; there has been extensive discussion of the "Deep State" issue and multiple editors have explained to you why the current material is reliably-sourced and relevant. Your choices are either to open an RFC to gain broader consensus, or to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. You may not simply ram through your changes no matter how deeply you believe in something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided explanation for my edits on the talk page. When it is clear that there is a POV problem in a wikipedia article, particularly a BLP, then we are obligated to fix these errors, with appropriate explanation on the talk page. That's what I did. wikipedia is not a place for you to provide your original research. Please rely on high-quality secondary sources, when these are available.Sbelknap (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you've "provided explanation" - you don't have consensus to make these changes to reliably-sourced material, and multiple editors have explained to you why your proposed changes are unacceptable. You can't simply force through changes to reliably-sourced content unilaterally - that's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, instead of edit warring, why not participate in the RfC so we can figure out some alternatives? I think that would be much more helpful and less likely to put editors on thin ice. Jdcomix (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that I've started a discussion on WP:DRN#Martin Heidegger, and I've mentioned you as one of the editors involved in the dispute. Feel free to comment there, and I hope it will lead us towards a resolution. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jonathunder (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around a long time. You have been requested to format references similar to how they are in the rest of the article. That you continue to use bar urls is disrespectful to the rest of us.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edits, you will find that I *do* format my edits as they are in the rest of the article. Do you have a specific example where I've not done that? Sbelknap (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chlortalidone&type=revision&diff=947805914&oldid=947676790&diffmode=source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits also constitute a violation of "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits consisted of adding a subheading and adding a single indisputable statement. What is going on here? Sbelknap (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of an "indisputable" statement is way off. This is just your opinion. Please see the talk page where I provided evidence that the Russian interference was not a hoax - and in fact has been reaffirmed by reliable, nonpartisan investigations. Don't add this again unless you can work out an acceptable, consensus wording on the talk page.. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misquoted a Senate report. You make assertions that the Russian collusion hoax is not a hoax and that it has been reaffirmed by reliable sources. You nowhere provide such sources. Please provide the sources that you claim to have. Sbelknap (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Talk pages are not articles, so external links do not work the same there. Ref tags will spill-over into other sections, and can make archives messy if templates are not added. Unless there is formatting that needs to be preserved, it's almost always easier to use direct links in brackets,[9] or as hotlinks on talk pages. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I thought that was not permitted. I'll do that in the future. Sbelknap (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Atorvastatin 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RexxS (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbelknap, I noticed you added a few lines to the Honeywell article in March. Thank you for your additions. I was doing some further reading into the story and noticed a small addition we could improve the article with. Honeywell's quantum computer may not be the largest, but will be the most powerful in the world. Would you be open to changing the word "largest" to "most powerful" in the last sentence of section 2015-Present?--Chefmikesf (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Make sure to cite the source. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbelknap I do have a COI with Honeywell so I will refrain from making the edit myself. Do you mind making the update? the Techcrunch article you provided uses the word powerful.--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid a pointless argument over at the actual article: I never said nor meant that you were wrong. I saw an unreferenced assertion (and also incorrect word order, should really be "mammalian megafauna"). Clearly the statement was correct, and you had a reference, I just didn't know about it.

Not sure where you saw "original research" in my comment, but no offense intended. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Carry on. Peace. Sbelknap (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments at User:MelanieN. I contributed one hundred or so articles to the Citizendium, a decade or so ago. I interacted with Sanger, a number of times, and found him pretty reasonable. In particular, I found him willing to consider the possibility that he might be wrong, and his correspondent right. It is a quality I'd like to be able to count on here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [10] this: I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you of anything. You have demonstrated that is an impossible task and in any case it is not my responsibility. If other editors have more patience than me with your antics that is up to them, but it won't happen on my talk page. On a more general level regarding WP editing, remember each time you repeat an argument, it becomes weaker. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, just wanted to let you know that short descriptions do not have wikilinks (as they cannot usually be accessed) and do not have references in them (they cause errors in markup etc). Short descriptions are just concise descriptions of what the page is about.

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nkon21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, China, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is in the main body of the article. Before deleting something in the lead, please read the relevant part of the main article. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Whisky have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. The Banner talk 15:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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. Thank you. intforce (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Aldosteronism, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 09:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In recent literature, the term "Hyperaldosteronism" has been deprecated in favor of "Aldosteronism". I attempted to move the Hyperaldosteronism to the Aldosteronism article, with the intention of setting a #redirect from Hyperaldosteronism to Aldosteronism. I've moved other pages successfully, and these moves were correct and accepted by other knowledgeable editors. If you want to help with my effort (assuming you agree) then please help to get this done. I will endeavor to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding what appears to be your unduly harsh comment. Stay well.Sbelknap (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the article. End of story. The Banner talk 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect in "aldosteronism" in preparation to move the hyperaldosteronism article to the currently accepted name. I was unable to move the article for some reason that I don't understand. If you would be so kind as to assist with this effort, that would be great.Sbelknap (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you blanked the page. Wikipedia:Page blanking. The Banner talk 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to help you: Wikipedia:Requested moves. The Banner talk 20:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I have successfully moved pages on other occasions. Something went wrong this time. Frankly, your messages here don't seem productive to me. I'd appreciate it if you would stay off my talk page. Stay well. Sbelknap (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only show up here when necessary, and my earlier interactions were necessary due to your disruptive editing. The Banner talk 09:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no disruptive editing. Your messages on my talk page are now considered unwelcome. Please cease and desist.sbelknap (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:npa and wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This [[11]] is a violation if wp:blp, I have no idea what you think this would achieve, you may now take this as a warning, do not commit wp:vandalism on Wikipedia again.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was pranked by an acquaintance when I turned away from my computer. This was my fault, as I could have prevented this by signing out when I turned away. I apologize for the vandalism. sbelknap (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classic, but alas: Wikipedia:My little brother did it The Banner talk 19:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner, I don't find your comments to be productive. I've asked you to stay off my talk page. sbelknap (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your editing. Wikipedia appreciates your useful contributions. But please do not mark edits minor as you did in your edit to Caffeine unless the edits are superficial. And please leave an edit summary.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cocaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diplycosia puradyatmikai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tol | talk | contribs 20:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Coronation Island (Alaska) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about what content violates copyrights. sbelknap (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Curtis Yarvin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you would stay off my talk page. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a required notification. Grayfell has no discretion in the matter. Meters (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Gratuitous use of WP:ANI is also unwelcome. sbelknap (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbelknap, the template you added to Curtis Yarvin (Template:BLP), is intended for use on article talk pages. You might consider an NPOV template, like Template:POV. Many options are discussed here. To be clear, I oppose adding such a template, but I wanted to make sure you knew where to look. Firefangledfeathers 04:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Curtis Yarvin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

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.

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. JaggedHamster (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off-site you are a carnivore diet advocate, and you have written 1000s of crazy posts almost daily attacking plant-based diets and vegans on Twitter and promoting dangerous views about meat. There is clearly conflict of interest with your edits on red meat. Please see below.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no COI. I consider your wild accusations and numerous inaccurate statements about me to be harassment. Please stay off my user page. I consider further contact from you to be unwelcome. sbelknap (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously on this page (§ Is this you?) you made a disclosure using this external link, which is now a dead link. Can you please update it to a working page at that site, or provide a different disclosure? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no COIs. Please stay off my user page. sbelknap (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to take more care when editing. In you latest edits it happende two times that you put next text in front of references, which made it seem that these references back up the text you added. Also, please take some time to find the right place in the article. You tend to bomb paragraphs by adding your sources smack at the top even if there are much better suited places in the article. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my page. sbelknap (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Twitter you posted:

• "Plant-based foods are unnecessary for human health. Eat fatty meat, offal, eggs, cheese. That is what a healthy diet looks like. Plants are candy."
• "Plant-based foods are unnecessary candy. All of them. There is no strong research result supporting the assertion that plant-based foods are necessary for human health during pregnancy, infancy, childhood, adulthood, or old age"
• "Type 2 diabetics who eat a plant-based diet experience improvement or complete reversal of their diabetes when they convert to high-fat carnivore diet."
• "Eating plant-based foods increases the risk of scurvy. Carnivory is healthier than veganism. Plants are unnecessary for health."

What evidence do you have for any of these claims? 90.241.67.238 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on wikipedia content, mysterious stranger. sbelknap (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Fat. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:BOLD errors - Please read the manual of style so this isn't repeated. Zefr (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page. sbelknap (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been page blocked for three months from Red meat for persistent tendentious editing and edit warring against consensus, and also from Talk:Red meat for bludgeoning the discussion and a failure to ever drop the stick. Some of your editing seems to be based on misunderstandings, such as when an opponent of yours told you that "repeatedly edit-warring in these tags is getting disruptive", and you waved it away with "Edit-warring refers to changes in content". You are mistaken; edit warring also refers to attempts to force a POV (or other) tag on to an article against consensus. Note that you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia, though I'm also extending a warning for your only-too-similar editing of Saturated fat and its talkpage. Please demonstrate that you can edit collaborately at Saturated fat and you will have a better chance of being unblocked at Red meat also. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sbelknap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• There is a lot about wikipdia policy that I don't understand. As I misunderstand the use of article tagging, I agree to cease using article tagging forthwith. • I don't understand how my edits to the red meat article constitute edit warring. When the consensus opposed an edit, I dropped the matter. • I don't understand how my edits to the red meat talk page constitute bludgeoning. What did I do wrong? • i don't understand how my edits to the saturated fat article constitute edit warring. When the consensus opposed an edit, I dropped the matter. • It would be helpful if you could explain what I have done wrong here. I am shocked that you took this action. sbelknap (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't really an unblock request. Bishonen explained the reason for their block above, if you have additional questions about it, please ask them directly. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are shocked, yet you have been warned and advised many times, see for example the five sections immediately above, all from this month. That's not mentioning the posts you have blanked. You have engaged with none of them, typically instead responding with "Please stay off my talk page". They are all from experienced editors (except perhaps the IP). It's a pity it took a block to make you take an interest in learning about the policies and the culture here. You have rebuffed all attempts to inform and/or discuss; wasting the time of other editors in that way is almost a block reason in itself. As Hipal told you recently, "Working cooperatively with others is required" (you promptly removed that). There is also an informative collection of diffs concerning Saturated fat on Hipal's page, which Hipal told you about a couple of days ago (information also removed by you).

But I'll briefly answer your specific queries above:

• "I don't understand how my edits to the red meat article constitute edit warring". After removing a large chunk of material on 20 December, where you removed a lot of high-quality sources (along with some low-quality ones) and introduced Zeraatkar's review as a source for your statement that there is "only low-quality evidence regarding the relationship between eating red meat and death". Compare Talk:Red meat, pretty much passim in its current state: there is obviously consensus against using Zeraatkar. That did not stop you from re-introducing Zeraatkar repeatedly. That's edit warring. Then you tried to force a POV tag onto the article by edit warring, which you apparently now understand was a bad idea; again, it's a pity it took a block, as it was certainly explained to you clearly enough before.
• "I don't understand how my edits to the red meat talk page constitute bludgeoning". So did you look up WP:BLUDGEON? People provide you with links for a reason. Your refusal to drop the stick in the Failure to Present WP:NPOV section appears designed to wear out everybody else. I'm not saying that was your actual intention, but you need to respect the time and patience of other volunteers.
• "I don't understand how my edits to the saturated fat article constitute edit warring." No, I don't think they did, much. My warning about Saturated fat referred more to your aggressive editing of the talkpage, such as this.

I didn't mention personal attacks in my block rationale - can't mention everything - but this is a pretty appalling example. "Vandalism"? "Time to take a break"? Nice. (Here I see you also telling Hipal to take some time away from Wikipedia.) Bishonen | tålk 18:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I consider your decision to block me to be inappropriate and counter-productive to the mission of wikipedia (in a limited way, I'm just one editor). Your claim that I removed high-quality sources is false. I reviewed (or had previously reviewed) each of the sources that I removed from the red meat article; each had been deprecated or was of low quality. Many of the reasons given by other editors for reverting my edits seem specious to me. What I've learned is that there is a plant-based bias that extends over many wikipedia articles—more than 100 and counting. I've learned that many other editors have noticed this bias and have attempted to correct it and failed. (Look through the archives for articles adjacent to veganism or carnivory and see for yourself.) This bias is so pervasive that it seems unlikely that this is occurring without the implicit support of wikipedia administrators and leadership. Further, I learned that many wikipedia editors do not follow wikipedia policies and guidelines on matters adjacent to veganism or carnivory. That is interesting and useful information. I am optimistic that this serious flaw in wikipedia can be fixed. I remain committed in my efforts to improve wikipedia. Perhaps approaches such as these would help [12]sbelknap (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AXE. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROPORTION sbelknap (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROPORTIONal coverage for the "plants is candy" viewpoint is no coverage. See WP:FALSEBALANCE; next section down in that policy. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Friend. Stay well. sbelknap (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isle of Man, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jerry Pournelle, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Pournelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inferno.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Note that although your edits may not have been to the page discussing fad diets or specific fad diets directly, any edit that may be construed as skewing content in the service of advocacy for such, even indirectly or incidentally, is considered to be under the umbrella of such contentious topics. jps (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion at Special:Diff/1179493586. Please note the "all pages", that includes article and personal talk pages, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the Special diff clip. Please explain.

Thanks for your time. sbelknap (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The special:Diff link takes you to Doug Weller's close of the ANI thread, wherein he explains the sanction he's imposing. Perhaps a permanent link to the whole ANI discussion will be more helpful to you, since I will be urging you to study that discussion. Here it is. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Sbelknap. I thought I'd suggest a few points to you in relation to your topic ban. First, if anything is unclear now, or if you later become uncertain as to whether or not you may edit a particular page, please consult Doug Weller or ask at WP:AN. Note also that there are no restrictions for how you can edit the sister projects. The ban applies to the English Wikipedia only. Assuming that you will want to appeal the ban down the line, there are several things you can do right now to have the best chance of a successful appeal:

• During the ban, make a point of editing in other areas. Even better, if you're inclined to edit biomedical subjects in other wikis, doing that successfully would be a very good thing to have to point to when you appeal.
• Don't appeal too soon - the community will be more likely to accept an appeal if you have taken some time to show you can and will edit collegially in other topics and other wikis. I'd wait at least three months if I were you.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do - merely sharing what has, in my experience, worked for other people. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Please explain what I've done wrong in my edits on the talk page for the saturated article.

• Why was the ban so broad? This is a broad, indefinite ban from the area where I have the most to contribute.

Thanks for your time. sbelknap (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your input on Talk:Saturated fat is repetitiousness and intransigence. You can learn much about the problem people see with your way of contributing if you read the ANI thread with an open mind, rather than dismissing it as "a pile-on". Failure to listen and "Soaking up other people's editing time" are big points made by several. Even the lone opposer of sanctions, Carlstak, concedes that "Maybe the user is disruptive".

The reason the ban is broad is no doubt that quite a few experienced users in the ANI thread argued for an indefinite siteban per WP:NOTHERE. Some only wanted a limited ban from saturated fat, some a broader topic ban; what you got was something in the middle, i. e. the third of these alternatives, as the closer said.

BTW, do you know about pinging? It's a widely used system for alerting people that you have a question for them. Please see WP:PING. TLDR version: If you link to a username in a comment and sign in the same edit, like this [[User:Bishonen]], that user will receive a notification that you want to talk to them. If you had pinged me, I would have seen your questions sooner. Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

There's another way to ping, maybe easier, see Help:Talk_pages#Getting_started. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen

Thanks for telling me about pinging; that does look useful.

You are correct that some others (many of whom were not involved in the back & forth on the saturated fat talk page) claim repetitiousness & intransigence. That does not comport with the facts. I've seen many lengthy discussions on talk pages that often (eventually) result in consensus. It was my understanding that this is the very purpose of the talk pages. The idea that I am wasting the time of other editors seems absurd to me. I am sincere about wanting to improve the nutrition & health pages and I have something to contribute in this domain.

What has happened on the saturated fat, taurine & red meat talk pages is that when I present a high-quality secondary source article, others reject it with a specious argument, such as an ad hominem against the author(s) of that article. When I explain why the objection is specious and ask for either consensus or some substantive non-specious objection; even more specious arguments are presented! In my view, the repetition is due, at least in part, to the specious objections. Often the dismissal of my point is from an editor who seems to have not read the high-quality source I've presented. Am I to understand that when only specious argument(s) are presented, I am to cease discussion and consider the matter closed?

Regarding the ANI thread, I note nutrition & health content raises issues related to religion, veganism/carnivory, animal rights, global warming & social equity. There is a pattern across at least two dozen nutrition & health wikipedia pages where high-quality citations and content are suppressed. It seems that wikipedia has policies on contentious content that are not applied to nutrition & health—perhaps this area is not on the radar. I am not dismissing the ANI thread. I am asking that you & other wikipedia leaders consider that the WP:NOTHERE problem lies elsewhere than with me and that ideology is driving some editors on content decisions about nutrition articles. Nutrition does appear on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues but it doesn't seem that the safeguards used for other issues is applied to nutrition.

I appreciate your engaging with me in discussion on this matter. sbelknap (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sbelknap. Thank you for your work on Salix martiana. User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi there, thanks for your contribution but this appears to be a synonym of Salix humboldtiana var. martiana

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to what you say. This was a tough one. I eventually settled on Salix martiana as the preferred specific epithet based on my perusal of the botanic literature. See my reply to discussion on the new Salix martiana talk page.

I'm open to whatever we can find as authoritative.

It's quite an interesting tree.

Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hornbeam, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find out all the information about a book at WorldCat from its isbn. See for example, this search: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=bn%3A+0754830349. To search for any book by isbn, just replace the digits at the end of that string with any ISBN, or just go to www.worldcat.org. Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried all my usual sources and could not find this.

I didn't know about Worldcat. I'll clean this up. sbelknap (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hornbeam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alectryon macrococcus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jim Edgar, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Esterel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Racket.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]