User talk:Bokidam

CS1 error on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, 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. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #76251

is closed. User needs to discuss proposed changes on the talk page and seek WP:consensus. Decline carried over below. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

PLEASE see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a WP:content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page.

If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek WP:dispute resolution.

Points to PONDER:

WP:EDIT WARRING is wrong even if one is right.
ANY ARGUMENTS in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
CALLING ATTENTION to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior. To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what this all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding you demand that others give reasons for reverting yoiu. The onus is on you to justify your changes Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin, I may wind up increasing the duration of this partial block as a discretionary sanction. Or asking someone more familiar with the ins and outs. Bokidam, please tread lightly going forward. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked an IP for block evasion [1] Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Acroterion:, it's a partial block for the article and we expect Bokidam to discuss. @Bokidam: please be sure to log in when editing so it does not look like sock puppetry. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I misread the block notice. @ Bokidam, please log in if you want to edit the talkpage. While you're at it, please review WP:MEDRS and the talkpage archives, where the same issue has been addressed numerous times. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited evidence from primary and secondary studies in peer-reviewed journals, and two cases where EHS was upheld as a reason for workers' compensation or disability in two countries from a book that cited these occurrences.

Please let me know what else you require from me to justify my changes. Bokidam (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page, after reviewing WP:MEDRS and the talk page archives. You are new to Wikipedia, and should probably gain experience in areas that are less difficult and contentious. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states that evidence should come primarily from secondary sources. Evidence for EHS comes from the secondary source (Pall, 2016) I cited. Pall summarizes the most common symptoms following EMF exposure from 22 epidemiological studies. Some of the most common symptoms were among the most common reported by EHS sufferers in Roosli (2004), as referenced in the existing Wikipedia article. These included sleep disturbances, headache, fatigue, concentration dysfunction, and dizziness.

As for the melatonin studies, I can remove them, as they have not been directly linked to EHS. Bokidam (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but you need to post this to the article talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]