Stefan-S

03:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Exclusively my mistake... The Banner talk 15:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:The Banner, don't say sorry to me, say sorry to user:Orangewarning! --Stefan-S ^talk 00:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Stefan-S. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alexbrn:, I can assure you that I have no COI for low carb! Funny that you should ask me that since Im pretty sure that the paper is written with COI. Why do you ask me? How would I even have a COI with respect to Low carb? It is normally the medical industry and food industry that have that COI. but that is so well hidden that we still use their references. --Stefan-S ^talk 10:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response. It just seemed odd to take an interest in an ongoing legal action on this topic, suggestive of "an external relationship with the people, places, or things" in play. But if you don't you don't - so ignore me. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alexbrn:, I have a personal interest in the topic, but no COI. I'm very interested/fascinated that something I and almost all of humanity have been told all of our lives don't seams to hold up to good science. How a industry seems to have been able to trick most all of humanity for so long. And I do try to right what I think is wrong, but I'm also well aware of wikipedia rules and try to follow them to the best of my ability. And in this instance, I think it would be better to remove this reference, if we think we have to we can add another, but this one is a bit to tainted for my liking. --Stefan-S ^talk 12:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your last two comments at talk were near or actual violations of BLP - you need to be way more careful about stating conclusions about living people in Wikipedia, with out reliable sources to support them (yes, even on an article talk page). I am providing you notice of the BLP DS below. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: But, I have NOT even edited???? I just discussed! --Stefan-S ^talk 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK Im busy now, I guess I need to put some references on my talk page, give me a few day. --Stefan-S ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not going to take action based on what you have already written at the article talk page, but please stop doing it. You seem to be giving up objecting to the review in any case. I hesitated over whether to post this at all, but I wanted to make sure you aware that it is not OK to make the kind of claims you have been making about living people without reliable sources for them. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: You could have told me in a less drastic way! Do you want me to remove the text? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I had already warned you about BLP after your first comment and you went deeper yet into that territory in your second. So your saying I "could have told you" is groundless. I understand that DS notices feel drastic but they are a necessary component of the whole system of discretionary sanctions. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: OK, sorry for some reason I missed the first warning, my fault, again, do you want me to remove the posts? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not interesting in digging into what has already happened, please just stop doing it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stefan. At my Talk page, you said: You reverted [this] stating 'not WP:MEDRS', sorry please help me explain why it is not MEDRS, I can't figure it out after spending a fair amount of time reading it? It is a review of multiple studies! Is the journal not good enough, is it not peer review? Where do I see which journals are good enough and if they are peer reviewed?? do we have a list? and why do you keep the old statement that I in the comment I stated don't even mention cancer?? surely that is even worse? I'm confused! Please help me understand, thanks! From the source used here 1) "29 animal and 24 human studies were included in the analysis. The majority of animal studies (72%) yielded evidence for an anti-tumor effect of KDs. Evidential support for such effects in humans was weak and limited to individual cases, but a probabilistic argument shows..." animal studies are not an appropriate MEDRS-quality source to interpret human cancer; 2) the author states "weak" human evidence that was "limited to individual cases" (i.e., very weak, unusable evidence); 3) the author calls the analysis "probabilistic", and otherwise in the abstract uses vague uncertain statements - none of this is consistent with WP:MEDRS where a systematic review and/or meta-analysis of multiple large scale, quality Phase III clinical trials would be needed. Such conclusive work has not been done on the ketogenic diet in cancer patients. I see you have removed the statement and source today, with which I agree are not on topic, and the deletion was justified. Fyi - the topic is under study, here and here, but conspicuously from these reviews the concept is not yet adequately studied to be MEDRS or suitable for discussion in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Zefr: Thanks, I understand that maybe the study is to weak, thats why I tried to write it in a very weak way, since I thought that it could be of interest, but I respect you call. But, 1) You state 'animal studies are not an appropriate MEDRS-quality source to interpret human cancer', I agree, but I did not write that, I wrote 'The majority of animal studies (72%) of ketogenic diet has yielded evidence for an anti-tumor effect' and MEDRS state ' in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings', I never stated that the animal studies had any effect on humans only animals. 2) Diet (nutrition) as per wikipedia applies to 'In nutrition, diet is the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism' which means that it is in topic to describe diets effect on animals and cancer in the article? So I would like to keep the first part 'The majority of animal studies (72%) of ketogenic diet has yielded evidence for an anti-tumor effect', add in animals to be very specific. What do you say? --Stefan-S ^talk 23:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. See WP:NOTJOURNAL - an encyclopedia does not need to cover all background as a journal article would. When discussing a human effect, lab animal studies are not a legitimate source, as defined by WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Zefr: but I was not discussing a human effect, I was discussing the effect of diet on cancer in anamials, the page is about diet and its effect on cancers, diet is defined as the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism ',all the pages talks about now is which diet have a risk for cancer, this single statement talks about the effect of reducing cancer, although in animals, I thought that was more than enough to be of interest???. --Stefan-S ^talk 00:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The effect of diet on cancer in animals (supposed; no research on this is definitive) is irrelevant in an encyclopedia mainly pertaining to and read by humans. You can solicit other input from people at WT:MED, but I don't think you'll find many supporters. --Zefr (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Low-carbohydrate diet; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
Why are you just repeating your bad edits and not engaging on Talk? Alexbrn (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Alexbrn: I did not repeatedly changing content back!

Why are you just repeating your bad edits and not engaging on Talk?? When did I repeat my bad edits? Show me the link to that edit?

Why did you revert a good faith edit? Read Wikipedia:STATUSQUO!!! It states "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. ". So you reverted without trying to improve or understand what I tried to say, I wrote a edit comment "removed, since sources dont apply. Ketofad dont talk about mortality at all! Ting uses Seidelmann as ref , Seidelmann have 37% carbs as his lowest data point, that is NOT ketosis, therefore the source is wrong" for my edit [1] you left a edit comment for your revert "Nonsensical changes / departing from source" [2]. You can be vlocked for reverting good faith edits also, you do that often, you have now updated the page and taken my considerations into account, which shows that you agree that they where NOT nonsensical. Next time, please dont just revert good faith edits. I know that we dont beleive the same thing but I honestly is only trying to write what the source say. But you are wasting so much of my time with aggressive revert, please try to explain in more details when you revert people that have shown that they try to make an effort to improve Wikipedia. --Stefan-S ^talk 13:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am interested to learn you have "beliefs" about this topic - it explains a lot. I have explained why (most) of your changes damaged the article on the Talk page. It was useful to clarify the 40% figure though, so that is good! Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Taxon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plantdrew (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stefan-S! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply