Also, when you post on
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-18-3, a copyright journal article. The material has since been removed by another user, but I would still like to remind you that copying copyright material to this wiki is not allowed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa Understood, is this the case for the 2017 review that was just added to the effectiveness section under low back pain by "Quackguru"? He quoted the study, which is something my addition was previously removed for doing. I'm just curious if he did something differently than I did.
Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the cervical radiculopathy source you are trying to add at the spinal manipulation article is reliable and fine for inclusion. I also suspect that the roadblock is a result of editor bias more so than any wikipedia policy. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. You can see it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:75b7:9b00:a5fc:56e7:d1a6:3966 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do read the
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Spinal manipulation that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know the policy and guidelines. I heard most editors are against the rules. If it is a violation of
Hi Jmg873, I think that you are doing a fine job! All of your comments contain reliable sources and quotes from those sources and you have not sunk to discussing other editors rather than edits! You are well on your way to being a great contributor. You will find that editors will often game the system, relying on your lack of knowledge on policy, and even resort to bullying (like telling you that you are an SPA, like that is not allowed or something). I find that these tactics are most prevalent when the other editors have no source, or policy-based arguments, but still want their POV to be promoted. In addition to your great use of sources, you should get to know policy and guidelines much better to help you avoid being 'wiki-lawyered'. The most important guideline to know for editing health related articles, in my opinion, is
In this edit you removed content saying it was not based on a review. However the source is a review (as confirmed by PUBMED classification). Such edits with incorrect summaries are damaging to the project.
Please carefully read this information:
The
I could not reply to your query on my talk page because the bots keep seeing it as vandalism and removing my reply, so I am posting it here. First, let me note that the above warning does not imply that you have done anything wrong. Note that the first sentence suggests "it does not imply misconduct". Anyone who edits at an article that is under sanctions should receive that message, so they can held accountable if they break the rules.
With regard to your question: There are no rules against being an SPA; unless you are pushing a POV without any supporting high-quality sources, then you will have a problem. If you are concerned, familiarize yourself with
You can always try to get additional opinions, that what noticeboards are for. For example, I posted our query about the secondary sources for knee OA at the 'project medicine' talkpage (see
Just a short while ago I made the project active. It would mean a lot if you signed up on the members tab to help out. The main page has a list of objectives, feel free to add what you want out of the project, I put down some of my preliminary thoughts over the past few days while it was in draft-mode. There's a lot to cover and we'll need more people to help out. Thanks! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2017 (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
For additional information, please see the
–☖ 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]