disruptive activity please stop your disruptive editing if you continue to vandalize wikipedia as you did at paracetamol you may be blocked from editing email yeah so i add two interesting and important new relevant references to an article which indicates potential harm to pregnant women on the paracetamol page these are removed because you guys don't like primary sources this is ridiculous and frankly an extreme case of what is wrong with wikipedia my wife is pregnant i for sure want to know about potential harm of this drug i would think as a medical professional that you would be more inspired by the first do no harm idea the fact that you wikipedia jerks are so focused on having only sources from a narrow range of whatever it takes for a given article is so frustrating i've continued to run into this kind of thing you would think that academic journals have taken over wikipedia the idea that i have actually improved the article with my additions and that others can improve it further has completely escaped much of the wikipedia culture these days wikipedia has simply forgotten the idea that this is collaboratively edited rather than having a coterie of people who simply reject all edits if they do not thread the eye of the needle through the dozens of acronym style guides you guys are disgusting really you are standing on the shoulders of millions of edits and now you reject the very thing that got you to where you are namely lots of collaboratively edited small improvements now any change has to go through hurdles that would never have created wikipedia in the first place the fact that you have excluded something that is evidence of significant danger to pregnant women based on this culture of exclusiveness should trouble you deeply i'm sorry that i've upset you but the fact is we get hundreds upon hundreds of poor quality changes every day that is why we've written wp medrs which i pointed to when i reverted you there is also an excellent essay on why we adhere so strongly to it at wp whymedrs the fact is that many primary studies are either performed on mice or on very small populations so that their results can't be transferred into clinical practise medrs is no catch all but it helps us and makes patrolling many articles and removing citations from the daily mail easier i would also like to point out that we are working on getting these types of warnings into our articles automatically for example by having fda warnings automatically added i understand it may feel as if you're being reverted by a faceless mass but i assure you if you had simply taken up the discussion it would have been far more likely to be productive email this isn't about my feelings it is about your behavior you revert me with no reason then start quoting this bureaucratic nonsense then threaten me with banning due to my disruptive editing this is why wikipedia is dying cannibalizing its editors and edits in a kafkaesque farce congratulations i'm sure your no doubt proper and uplifting zyzzyxrd will be cited upon its demise you may want to try and comprehend your own actions and not my feelings see