User talk:Bugatti35racer
Welcome[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Bugatti35racer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
References[edit]
We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. 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) 05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc James thanks for the invite and info. A lot of the med related articles are quite imformative, I think. Looks like many of the very very many medical articles are so far out there wild west, do whatever one wants, that requesting citations for some of the more questionable "facts" are a good start. Likewise for outrageous "facts." With so many facts here, I wonder how it can be policed by actual medical people with credentials, etc. as well as citations, and cites accessed by people without elaborate MD or hospital type accounts so one can actually read all these cites? I think clinical trials or studies should be differentiated from double blind and peer reviewed type studies. Clinical studies can be such tripe! Unfortunately, some of the stuff is so far out there that it really must be removed by knowledgeable people and corrected to the extent possible, and hope someone as yourself has the time and interest to back up the corrections, etc. with cites you have much easier access to. At the very least the outrageous stuff should be somehow brought to somebodies attention, I think. Patients often have vast knowledge of their diseases, for instance. Though not medical experts with libraries to back up what they have learned over the years, it often can be a starting point for a better article. I am not endorsing making stuff up, rather getting rid of fake garbage in some of these med related articles when I'm aware fake garbage exists. And setting course towards more accurate info. you know?Bugatti35racer (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Sunshine! | |
| Hello Bugatti35racer! Bugatti35racer (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bugatti35racer (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) |
December 2015[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to Dead Sea Scrolls that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine if your experience editing Wikipedia shows that to be a correct move on your part. Should not the majority viewpoint always be open to fine tuning or inclusion of logically stable new ideas that have an overwhelming degree of potential? Fringe? What good is an alleged neutral POV if that point of view does not allow for any discussion? ARCheology by its nature is never a closed book, and it is the Science most often found to be faulty. Archeology is a unique science, and treating it as if it where some sort of Scientifically verifiable and repeatable Science is folly.Bugatti35racer (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
March 2018[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Last chance. "Senior Wiki editors for the most part are Hitler worshippers and Nazi lovers, as well as trust fund babies" ?? Knock it off.[edit]
And I see you've also called individual editors Nazis. Next time you will probably be blocked, definitely if I see it. Deleting this shows that you've read it and of course section headings remain in the history. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Well Doug, when you have certain senior editors claiming (for instance) only Nazi Luftwaffe pilots in WW2 were any good, and the top British Aces were just lucky bums, you should really wonder. This same editor in question makes threats just like you, so you are in sketchy company. Same editor likes to erase well referenced and valid and interesting info on British Aces and their achievements, yet includes every bit of inane drivel that can be found on German pilots, and has a tantrum when useless facts like idle RPM of an ME-109 is questioned for relevance in a general article.
Instead of treating me like the vandal you are, why not look into some of these Nazi loving editors? I can give you a list of names if you like? When senior editors refuse to acknowledge legit sources that contradict their demented view of the world, and allow fringe lunatic sources to be admissible because they agree with their world view, that should be seen a a problem. Don't you agree, Doug? Next you and your ilk will be falsely claiming I hate all senior editors, while I specifically only pointed out a very few.Bugatti35racer (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's a shame you went about it this way. I've made sure that at least one pro-Nazi source was removed from WWII articles. If you're right, and you might be, I've heard the same thing from others, you've hit an own goal. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- What Doug says. We don't want WP articles to be vehicles for Nazi glorification, but you've drowned out positive suggestions with shrill denunciations of other editors and with promotion of outlandish conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)- Attacks like this [1] and the rant you posted above are wholly unacceptable outside a Usenet flame war. Acroterion (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- [2] also noted. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)