User talk:Zefr

MEDRS tutorials for medical editors

Wikiproject Medicine video guide for new medical editors

• Why MEDRS?
• Plain and simple guide for new medical editors
• Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors
• Wikiproject Medicine resources summary
• Summary guide for expert medical editors
• PDF for editing Wikipedia articles on Medicine
• WP:MEDHOW: Useful Wikipedia tips for editing medical and general content
• WP:MEDMOS: Manual of style and guide for templated medical source
• 2017 Review of medical content on Wikipedia
• 2020 Review of Wikipedia as the world's leading health information resource

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Almond. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: In an edit summary you cited WP:BRD, but you made a bold edit and it was reverted; per WP:ONUS you should be discussing it and getting a consensus before continuously reinserting any newly added changes. Citing 3RR and immediately continuing to edit war yourself with the same number of reverts in the same time period is disruptive, especially when the onus is on you to justify the addition, not the other way around. - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did want to clarify however that you both have been introducing changes and reverting each other, unless it's being restored to a stable version, WP:ONUS applies to the disputed content on either side of a dispute over recently added content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aoidh - I appreciate the comments. As Talk:Almond shows, I had initiated two discussion topics over the past 10 days on expanded content in the article with additional strong sources - the stable version, which was challenged just today.

There was no collaborative effort or constructive feedback from the opposing editor who adheres to one point of view on a topic described in the literature both as a controversy and a riddle - the geographic origin of almonds specifically in Iran - when reputable sources state a more logical, wider geographic origin.

My edits were motivated by WP:BALANCE which the current version of the article contains, i.e., the dispute was over neutrality in the article on this issue, which should not be disputed. Rather than a temporary block, I think page protection and talk page resolution would have been a better outcome. Zefr (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable take, though blocks for edit warring are not focused on who is right or wrong in a dispute. Also, full-protecting the page blocks any editor from editing, whereas blocking two editors involved in an edit war only prevents those two from editing. However, if either of you can commit to using the talk page and not restoring any disputed content until there's some form of consensus for it (using WP:DR if necessary) I'm happy to unblock and/or if any administrator wants to unblock I have no objection. I'll leave a message to this effect at the other editor's talk page as well. - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoidh. I felt the discussion topics on the almond talk page are clear enough (and unanswered, so far) to allow further conversation with the disputing editor and other editors who may wish to engage to establish consensus.

As stated above, the current version of the article acknowledges both the controversy and hypothesis of origin across a wide region of southern Asia, yet even allows the opposing editor's view of a more specific origin in Iran. I feel constructive discussion can continue if the other editor keeps an open mind that a controversy exists and good sources state this. I am fine with submitting to DR if there is no talk page progress or further reversals of sourced content. Zefr (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have unblocked you. It might be a good idea to seek outside opinions via WP:CONTENTDISPUTE if it seems like there's no sign of agreement, compromise, or consensus.