Pryorka82

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Lyme disease appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please soapbox somewhere else

Pryorka I am really very sorry about your experience with lyme disease and doctors but Wikipedia is not where to take out your frustration, that is called soapboxing and Wikipedia doesn't let that go on. Your interpretation of the opinions of one attorney general isn't a reliable sources for Wikipedia. Self published guidelines of ILADS a small organization where you don't need to be a professional medical person to be a member, even one of the officers is a lawyer not a doctor, aren't reliable sources. The peer reviwed studies showing no evidence for the thing ILADS calls chronic lyme and no evidence that long term antibiotics help are reliable sources. One of the studies was even from a group under a "LLMD". The reviews citing them are reliable sources. News reports about large medical organizations with thousands of professional members that follow guidelines based on the evidence are reliable sources. Please think on it and stop ab-using the talk pages. Thank you RetroS1mone talk 05:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lyme disease, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lyme disease. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A legal perspective?

You say that I should try to see your concerns with this article "from a legal perspective". Do I take from this that you might be considering any type of legal action? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)