User talk:Gcherrits

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

Hello, Gcherrits, 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

March 2011

[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to James O'Keefe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Truthsort (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 James O'Keefe, you may be blocked from editing. TMCk (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Keefe

[edit]

I've responded here.TMCk (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should intro be changed to reflect that her public persona is becoming defined by her notorious promotion of a fraudulent and discredited medical idea.

[edit]

There's an overwheliming codemnation because her advocacy is causing harm and even death. All these ideas are in multiple highly respected souces.

McCarthy's advcacy began with research that the author had admitted is fraudulent. She wrote the foreword for the book and it sustains and faulty case. Almost countless responsible, respected scientists point out the completely bseless, discredited claims that McCarthy makes. She's becaoming more notable for her notorious vaccine advocacy then by all her previous work. This vaccine-autism issue should take more prominence and also be careful to avoid falling in the he said - she said, false objectivity trap that ends up giving any credence at all to McCarthy's vies. There is no contorversy. McCarthy's views are dscrdited, based on fraudulent researh and have no support from the scientific community. I propose we return to my first edit but sharpen andmake its case in a less strident manner. But we should shift tbe enphasisonto McCarthy's misguided promulgating of false science. Gcherrits (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Business Forum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Gilbert. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Harald Malmgren shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gcherrits, I don't think your edits necessarily should be completely reverted, and have tried to add a bit that maybe balances out the article a bit more. see here. What do you think? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

[edit]

In response to this edit, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policy here concerning personal attacks and aspersions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what person is responsible for what's ended up on the page. There's been so much fireworks lately that I can'r see through the fog of editing wars. So it's not personal at all. I'm just looking to see if people agree with me that the page needs some rethinking. nothing personal. Sorry if I've offended. Lots of people are working quite hard to be part of the solution. Gcherrits (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that editors' actions could be designed to obfuscate is clearly personal and an assumption of bad faith, so I again ask that you become familiar with the Wikipedia policy WP:PA. With respect to fireworks and editing wars, whatever, if anything, they have to do with the article in question (and note that contentious discussions are daily features for many topics on Wikipedia), if they distract you to the point that you make aspersions against other editors, I suggest that you simply step away from the project for a little while. Most editors need a Wikibreak now and then. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my.
I'm trying to say that something about Elizondo, Putoff, Malgren get al. seems to have stirred up quite a few angry, ad hominem,editing warloving craziness. You, Jojo, are obviously not a part of that but others are. it's a bummer. Gcherrits (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]