RealReel5

July 2023

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Chocolate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. ... and Dark chocolate. Your source is spam. We use WP:SCIRS sources here. Zefr (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I received this "warning" prior to publishing my most recent edit, and thus, I did not see it until now. The argumentation provided in my references is sound, even though these references may appear to be poor on a surface level.

I would appreciate you addressing the content of the sources and why you (presumably) think it is erroneous, rather than merely relegating them to being "spam" without doing so. RealReel5 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

thechocolatelife.com site is WP:SPAM. Find WP:RS sources for content that disputes existing sources, some of which are government publications, which for contaminant analyses, are considered as high-quality references on Wikipedia. See WP:SCIASSESS. Zefr (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you refuse to address the content of the references I provided and, unsurprisingly, adhere to red-tapeism. We're done here, then, unless you so choose to expound upon your disdain for my sources.

I respect the wishes of Wikipedia's guidelines and will not flout the rules here. But, I remain utterly opposed to your decision to stifle my word & unconvinced re: your stance on macroscopically-assessed "high-quality sources."

(Also: in one of your previous edits on "Dark chocolate," you erroneously claimed "Non-expert" re: just one author in the sources I provided; however, there are two authors, combined, between the three sources I listed, not one.)

(And do ignore the word of Dr. Bernadene Magnuson in one of my references.) RealReel5 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is reliable sources do not include a random blog with no clear authorship qualifications. WP:SPS and all that. oknazevad (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with what you adjudge to be "reliable." Neither of you have addressed the arguments in my references.

All I have seen so far is adherence to the Wikipedia guidelines in an essentially fundamentalist way, i.e., not recognizing that the guidelines act merely as a rough rule of thumb and, ultimately, only go skin-deep in their ability to ascertain how "reliable" the content of a source is. Sources should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The real point is that Wikipedia is not infallible, in any regard. RealReel5 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Chocolate Life is a blog operated by Clay Gordon, described by his publisher as a self-taught expert and dedicated chocophile. This is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, especially for content about lead and cadmium in chocolate, which has medical implications. For such content, we require that the author of the source is academically trained with actual expertise, not self-taught. Wikipedia operates by consensus and four other editors have objected to the use of this blog. Your confrontational tone in interacting with other editors is unhelpful, and, as an administrator, I encourage you to rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not need you to tell me to "rethink" my approach, because, at this point, my "approach" is pretty much done. It is pellucid that my word will continue to be stifled here, so I more or less have no reason to continue editing.

At least, unlike the other users I've interacted with, you have (very barely) broached the subject, by proffering a rehash of what I've already been told and already know, plus an exiguous amount of elucidation.

If you really want to mulishly stay surface-level and ignore the point-by-point case(s) laid out in my references, you reject the word of Clay Gordon, Keith Ayoob, and Dr. Bernadene Magnuson in favor of CR (and et al.)

The folks at CR, etcetera are not exactly veritable academicians with unparalleled knowledge of the literature, and either way, critical thinking is not limited to academicians.

I simply don't care if four other editors reject my links... argumentum ad populum never got anyone very far, now did it? Oh, wait: it does and has.

I am, indeed, exceedingly confrontational, aren't I? I should just sit here on my own Talk Page and passively deal with what's dished-out to me, as users willingly come here to argue with me. Mind-boggling rationale... RealReel5 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"Self-taught experts" are not acceptable on Wikipedia as sources, especially where matters of health and nutrition are concerned. Wordy bluster isn't an appropriate response to valid criticism of such sourcing. Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and get consensus for changes and sourcing before reinstating contested edits. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors, it is inappropriately confrontational. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It is luculent that this is going nowhere and your anticipated reply has left me thoroughly blasé.

Indeed, blustering about WP:(this&that) is par for the course with the users I've interacted with thus far here, and any in-depth look at the meat and potatoes/argumentation of any given source is frowned upon by you and others in favor of shallow labeling/pigeonholing.

Please spare me your incessant rehashing; you might as well be identical to these other users on my Talk Page. RealReel5 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Loading up your comments with $5 thesaurus words is not as persuasive as you appear to imagine - rather the reverse. The responses are similar in content because we're consistently explaining Wikipedia policy to you. It doesn't change from editor to editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of my writing, nor your conjecture that I write the way I do in an attempt to be persuasive. At all.

I am more than cognizant of the guidelines here at this point: they've been crammed down my throat.

I accept them, insofar that I won't go against them. But they are not universal truth and I have no problem criticizing your fundamentalist, borderline autocratic adherence to them.

Anyway, enjoy being yourself & refusing to address the arguments in my references. RealReel5 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When building and maintaining this encyclopedia, we waste no time analyzing what unreliable sources say. They are like straw to us. Actually reliable sources are like gold to us. Bring forth reliable sources to discuss, not the bloggings of self-proclaimed "experts". This is a top ten website worldwide, and we are sticking with the policies and guidelines that have brought us enormous success. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The ostensible "success" of Wikipedia will not be everlasting.

Straw or gold (how black & white), solely to you and your ilk that won't read beyond the website title, author, & publisher.

But, I do get it: you're a very busy person. All of you. RealReel5 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And I suppose the abject surplus of egregiously-done peer-reviewed work might fly in your eyes here, as long as the papers in question are surface-level okay re: being in a respectable journal, etc.

But never dare look into their actual content, nor permit non-academicians to critique their work. RealReel5 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)