User talk:Scientificrigor12

Welcome!

Hello, Scientificrigor12! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dolos, T&F, etc

I get it that you feel strongly about Dolos. Well, create an article on it with reliable sources independent of the subject that show that this is a/ notable and b/ reliable. I predict that you'll fail at both a and b, as Dolos is quite clearly the work of a crank/fringe person. The "diploma" displayed on the website does not resemble anything like an official French academic diploma. In addition, "professeur" is a job title (for teachers from primary school to university), not a title bestowed upon someone by some organization.That info on Dolos is shared on ResearchGate is interesting, but nothing more than that. Anybody, qualified or not, can join RG, even this self-styled "professor".

The text that I removed from the articles on T&F and Critical Reviews in Toxicology is problematic, because it goes way beyond what the sources say. We are not supposed to insert our own opinion in articles, but solely reflect what reliable sources say about the subject. What the Center for Public Integrity had to say about the journal, for example, is much more nuanced than even the current version of the article presents.

In short, please stop reverting and take your case to the talk page or, for Dolos, go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask the experts there whther in their opinion this is a reliable source.

Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello,

I'm sorry, but what you call nuance is to promote predatory journals. For professor's degree of Alexandre George, I refer you to his website where he provides his diploma that you can download:

https://www.professeur-alexandre-georges.info/information-and-documentation

The english version of the diploma comes from a sworn translator, expert at the Douai Court of Appeal.

Wikipedia is not a place where pseudoscientific journals are promoted.

Regards,

Scientificrigor12

You have added this material to these three articles and this was challenged. Per WP:BOLD, you should not start an edit war, but take this to the talk pages of these articles, where you should present cogent arguments why this material should be included (and in the case of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, why you remove the sourced information that I have added). I maintain that Dolos is not a reliable source and you don't present any evidence to the contrary. Whether or not its creator is a professor or not is immaterial (even though that rather ridiculous "diploma" that you keep referring to, issued by an organization that Mr George claims to head, proves nothing). Please stop edit warring and start discussing this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Critical Reviews in Toxicology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Longhair\^talk 18:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also appear to be edit-warring at Predatory open-access publishing. Please stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you are closely associated with Alexandre Georges' "Dolos list". Do not insert your own POV in articles, we require reliable sources, not personal conjecture. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]