User talk:SurgeonRT

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Zefr (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the welcome! I sure I’ll be asking your advice and getting tips on certain things. I truly appreciate the welcome SurgeonRT (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soursop edits[edit]

I’m curious as to why my edits were removed. I cited one source which was already used on this page but was presented extremely one sided missing important information from the the source. The other information was much more recent and relevant to the state of soursop in terms of clinical research in which it came from more than 1 source with pier reviews. Including published at oxford u SurgeonRT (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My revert here had the edit comments, "too preliminary - sources are primary or unreliable - Hindawi journals are predatory; see WP:CITEWATCH." The authoritative sources for the "bogus" description of so-called "anticancer" uses are the FDA and FTC which monitor consumer exposure to false health claims; see here. We don't use animal or in vitro studies to indicate a cancer treatment, as the studies are far too preliminary, i.e., unencyclopedic, described in WP:MEDANIMAL. The review you cited is based on such lab studies. Hindawi Publishing Corporation generally publishes weak science, identified here. Take a browse through WP:MEDHOW and WP:WHYMEDRS. These will explain why high-quality reviews published in reputable medical sources are needed to discuss human health and disease for the encyclopedia. Good luck! Zefr (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My bigger issue was the cherry picking of what to reference from some of the sources while leaving out important statements made in those same references that elaborate on the possibilities of this chemical SurgeonRT (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SurgeonRT, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi SurgeonRT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Important notice[edit]

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.

— Newslinger talk 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at CNN, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to One America News Network, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are going to last long here[edit]

so long as you take your odd view of sources. I ask you to see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and use that as your guidance. I know that the far right thinks CNN is far left (which is weird as I've never seen them calling for the overthrow of a government), but we don't. Unless you can get the decisions that led to the listings of sources on that page changed, you must not blank text because you don't like the sources. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because I present a neutral non blinded point of view with actual sources which aren’t from agenda driven sources? SurgeonRT (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is further left than Fox News is right. The fact I can say fox is far right and cnn is far left and you can’t, really says a lot about the person you are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ SurgeonRT (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows neither as far anything, and CNN not as far to the left as Fox News (not Fox) is to the right. Of course that's 6 years ago. No way can I say that Fox News is far right, it isn't. Oh, and read assume good faith. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. This is why Wikipedia gets a bad rep as being extremely biased. CNN is extremely biased, anyone with an ounce of honesty and credibility would agree. Funny you comment on sources as half the sources used are from extremely left wing views like the Washington post. Your blind bias is disturbing SurgeonRT (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at The Epoch Times, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your last chance so far as I'm concerned. I did warn you above and you ignored me. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what Wikipedia was about it’s about, it was founded on the basis of bringing an unbiased truth to topics. How this has gotten lost over the years is extremely disturbing. When you are using references of companies who are known competitors to epoch and using them as sources, that is an issue. It is yellow journalism promoting only one side and allowing it to stay. SurgeonRT (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Known competitors" is laughable. The difference is huge between NBC News and the various Falun Gong media. Not a chance in the world that NBC considers them as competition. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 Falun Gong. 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Proud Boys, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are also warned for abusing talkpages as fora for personal expression. Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikipedia was created for editing with a neutral point of view with no angle or agenda. How did I abuse any talk page? What I did from that page should have been done from day one. You can not reference sources who have a known agenda as well as sources who are known not reliable. SurgeonRT (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand our NPOV policy. We do not "give both sides" of a question. We neutrally report what independent reliable sources say. Reliable sources say the Earth is spherical. We say the Earth is spherical. Reliable sources say the Proud Boys are a far-right neo-fascist organization that promotes and engages in political violence. Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports the Proud Boys are a far-right neo-fascist organization that promotes and engages in political violence.

Article talk pages are for discussing sourced improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. Edits like this and this do not discuss sourced improvements to the article in any way.

Additionally, you seem to disagree with Wikipedia's assessment of reliable sources. In general, the criteria are outlined at WP:RS. Specifically, some sources have been discussed often enough with a clear enough consensus that they are judged to be reliable sources for most information (such as The New York Times, NBC News, and CNN, all "generally reliable"). somewhere in the middle (Fox News is "generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science") or rejected outright (such as The Epoch Times - "an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories....it can never again be used as a reference for facts."). Some of these are listed at WP:RS/P. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 22[edit]

You need to read wp:soapmand wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 18:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at David Gilbert (activist). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. EDM fan 2 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]