User talk:Water Ionizer Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Water Ionizer Research, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we sort this out please

I have nothing to do with [1] and if you look through the article history you will see I did not add this link. Yet you continue to allege that I am a 'linkspammer' and that this is 'my site'. You have blanked these messages on your talk page and worse, you have edited my edits to make them say something different to what I wrote. This is not done here. Please look at my contribution list [2] and you will note that I cannot be considered a link spammer as I hardly ever add any external links to anything!

I have been reverting your additional site of [* http://heartspring.net/water_clinical_studies.html A collection of research abstracts about electrolyzed-reduced water.] Heartspring because it appears to exist to promote water ionizing, the sale of the gadgets and to bring people to the site for Google Adsense. Further it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL. I am not claiming that [[3] meets the requirements of WP:EL completely - I haven't analyzed this site - but it doesn't advertise anything or promote anything. So thus it is different.

I have reverted your addition of Pubmed links because any research can be reported on Pubmed. Being on Pubmed provides no credence to the research and the links you have added simply replicate what it in the Heartspring Site. So it is simple duplication. I am also concerned (given your name) that you have problems with WP:COI. I'd appreciate your response to these comments without you vandalizing my edits or ending up in a revert war. Gillyweed 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truce

I will not revert your changes to Water Ionizer for a period of a week, whilst we both consider whether our activities are the best for Wikipedia. May I ask you once again to review WP:EL and also further consider whether deleting my comments, or amending them is fair and reasonable. Gillyweed 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have continued to alter my edits for your own strange reasons. And who the hell is Stephen Lower? Oh I see, he runs the website that you don't like. Not pushing a POV are you? Have you looked at the edits that I make? I have nothing to do with that website. Has it occurred to you that Stephen Lower is a Canadian and I am Australian? Anyway, I shall continue the truce in the hope that you will be reasonable. But seeing that you still insist on vandalising my responses on your talk page I am getting less and less hopeful that you will be reasonable. Gillyweed (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Water ionizer. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Water Ionizer Research. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I took the liberty of removing the comment above, as I'm sure you don't want a potentially blockable item hanging around your user page.

You may want to have a gander at the simplified ruleset and this essay for noobs to get a better sense of what to expect, what to do, and what to avoid on wikipedia. The last is a blatant spam of my own work, but several experienced editors and admins have said they thought it useful. Acrimony should not be a part of the process, though all too often it is. Please try to remain civil and assume good faith; wikipedia should work towards consensus and even if you were responding rather than initiating, you're still better off staying cool. I made a similar comment to Gillyweed, please let it stop here and work towards a proper page - the current and recent versions are both quite poor and could use contributions form knowledgeable editors. Please help us build a good article! WLU (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)