User talk:Dunbar/Archive1
Please stop pushing the alkaline diet. You were told this multiple times. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 00:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Stop censoring material from peer-reviewed medical science journals that have a respectable impact factor score. Impact factor scores are a measure of how frequently other journals cite the journal. You are acting in an unreasonable, stubborn and autocratic manner. Dunbar (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your edit was poorly formatted and was intersecting a section I just made. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 00:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Style over substance logical fallacy at best. You also removed my material so it could not be seen. You are not making a strong case of why you deleted it. Dunbar (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your edit was poorly formatted and was intersecting a section I just made. --It's-a me,
My material was not readded. If you are going to delete evidence-based posts from respectable science journals that are on talk pages, then until the material is restored, I will just edit Wikipedia where reliable sources and science is respected. This website is more authoritarian than Wikipedia. Dunbar (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're broscience-ing the scientific articles by cherry picking articles that bring up the diet without really reading what they say. And the Wikipedia article on the alkaline diet
is as critical as ours, so your last little taunt was pretty much a bunch of brainless bullshit. I'd like to see you try. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it was readded. The other content was simply duplicate from another post (you posted the abstract twice), so I added it after the first time you quoted the abstract. Wikipedia will also not accept your edits either, as their viewpoints echo ours. The very journal you cited, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, was also stated to be a junk journal in the talk page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am out. You are doubling down on your authoritarianism and your disrespect of science and a good-faith editor.
- Yes it was readded. The other content was simply duplicate from another post (you posted the abstract twice), so I added it after the first time you quoted the abstract. Wikipedia will also not accept your edits either, as their viewpoints echo ours
- I am not hassled at Wikipedia. I have cordial discussions at Wikipedia on talk pages. My talk page edits are not censored at Wikipedia.
- Good luck in growing your editor base if you are going to continue hassle good-faith editors posting content from science journals with respectable impact scores.
- I don't want to be hassled by authoritarians. Bye. Dunbar (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- My content was gutted on the talk page. You removed the bulk of my content on the talk page. Maybe you made a mistake in your restoration, but I am skeptical at this point. If you restore it fine. But if you don't I am out. If this is how you treat new editors, they are not going to stay around. Dunbar (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You were not hassled at RationalWiki and your edits were not "censored" either. Your edits were simply scrutinized, formatted for readibility (as I explained already, you posted the abstract twice; the second time had added content, so what I did was remove the duplicate content and restored the added content and readded it to the abstract you already posted; this is evident from the diff I linked here), and we concluded that your sources do not hold up nor are they adequate support for your claims. Wikipedia also agrees with us, as stated earlier and as I've cited explicitly one experienced Wikipedia editor who rejected your same journal someone else had shared, so do not be under mistaken impression they will accept your edits. Again, please stop the accusations. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You were not hassled at RationalWiki and your edits were not "censored" either. Your edits were simply scrutinized, formatted for readibility (as I explained already, you posted the abstract twice; the second time had added content, so what I did was remove the duplicate content and restored the added content and readded it to the abstract you already posted; this is evident from the diff I linked here), and we concluded that your sources do not hold up nor are they adequate support for your claims. Wikipedia also agrees with us, as stated earlier and as I've cited explicitly one experienced Wikipedia editor who rejected your same journal someone else had shared, so do not be under mistaken impression they will accept your edits. Again, please stop the accusations. --It's-a me,
- My content was gutted on the talk page. You removed the bulk of my content on the talk page. Maybe you made a mistake in your restoration, but I am skeptical at this point. If you restore it fine. But if you don't I am out. If this is how you treat new editors, they are not going to stay around. Dunbar (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to be hassled by authoritarians. Bye. Dunbar (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you're going to act so sniffy and immature (and bonus points for threatening to leave in a snit), you are obviously not acting in good faith here. Good luck pushing your agenda elsewhere. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The alkaline diet is widely considered pseudoscience. There is a mission statement on the home page of this website. You should read it. It explains why people are not plussed when you barge in and promote pseudoscience. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you're going to act so sniffy and immature (and bonus points for threatening to leave in a snit), you are obviously not acting in good faith here. Good luck pushing your agenda elsewhere. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an agenda. I was intending to have a discussion about the alkalinity issue. I was about to post a PubMed article showing that an alkaline diet does not seem to help cancer patients.
Wikipedia is less authoritarian, more cordial/welcoming and more open-minded.
I am not going to try to change your toxic culture. Difficult people are usually the last ones to see their bad behavior. Bye. Dunbar (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're in support of the alkaline diet, even if you believe it's ineffective at cancer treatment. You are very mistaken with Wikipedia, and this has been said at least four times to you now. Please try to convince Wikipedia editors using your same sources and arguments if you do want us to change our attitudes toward your posts.
- Again, stop with the accusations. Last warning. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
How convenient after I blocked this user for confirming my suspicions, Ken reregs accusing me of censorship and slander and writes an essay that's copied nearly verbatim from his last edit that gave this account away. I always suspected you were Ken from the beginning, just from the way you typed. It's just that I didn't care about your act. You could continue LARPing as a alkaline diet promoter in another account, or LARP as someone else. You'd do a bad job at it, of course, but I wouldn't block you. Others might, but I wouldn't care to unblock you either. Now that the record is set straight, can Dunbar stay blocked? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus to remain blocked was attained. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)