User talk:198.189.184.243
 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
 Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
| old warnings from 2009 to May 2012 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
January 2009[edit]
March 2009[edit]
 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
April 2009[edit]
November 2009[edit]
March 2010[edit]
May 2011[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Jews in the United States with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RA0808 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
September 2011[edit]
February 2012[edit]
May 2012[edit]
|
November 2012
[edit]The content that you are edit warring to restore to Weston A. Price Foundation was removed earlier by consensus by experienced editors. You will need to gather consensus on the article talk page to re-introduce such content into the article again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
April 2013
[edit] Hello, I'm Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Vietnamese American, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to Orthomolecular medicine that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, the edits appear to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and have been reverted or altered. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in any article. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC).
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Orthomolecular medicine with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jamesx12345 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, not vandalism. That's just a generic message, but your edits do go against established consensus. Looking at the affiliations, "1Department of Complementary and Alternative Medicine," I'm not convinced. Sorry. Jamesx12345 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC).
Blocked
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC).
- You are only further diminishing the credibility of wikipedia as a source with this policy, and your action will be used as an example of how wikipedia engages in censorship and information control.
- The prevailing view on wikipedia seems to be - if the establishment doesn't like something, we're going to marginalize it at all costs, even if reviews in mainstream journals show evidence. Furthermore, we will misrepresent what these journals say, and lie, to serve the interests of reinforcing establishment views.
- My comment was "However, there has been a recent emergence of interest in pharmacological ascorbate as cancer treatment as evidence has emerged that intravenous administration is required to achieve an anti-cancer effect, as reflected by three recent reviews in mainstream journals.": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=569761391&oldid=569759324
- All the reviews I gave support the position. As I noted in the talk page of the person who reverted my edits, "your edit is misleading, the reviews provide evidence for high doses if [of] intravenous ascorbate - the specific point of this review is that intravenous administration achieves effects that oral administration does not: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long
- update: I received your talk page comment, but it is in a mainstream journal, other mainstream reviews still note evidence of efficacy: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78 - search "Pharmacologic ascorbate" (repeating this search throughout the text will yield ), and see the entirety of the section "Ascorbate and cancer treatment" of this review: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X12000509"
- I also noted, regarding the first review, regarding the misconception inferred by only reading a little into the first review that "what the article [did] is refute that by providing a convergence of efficacy for intravenous (as opposed to oral, which the 2 trials used) vitamin C - read the rest of it and the conclusion"
- These are not fringe sources, these are recent, and support the idea that there is a rising view among researchers in the scientific community, based on new research, that intravenous ascorbate needs to be reconsidered. You can obfuscate it all you want, but the facts remain the same.
- The reviews do not support the statement "Despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy, interest in intravenous high dose vitamin C therapy has not been permanently extinguished, and some research groups to continue to investigate whether it has an effect as a possible cancer treatment." Rather, they provide evidence of efficacy, once calls for a reconsideration of the traditional view, and others compile more evidence. The point of the original source is that intravenous vitamin C is effective where oral is not.
- There is an assumption that evidence, as established by reputable sources, and the view of government bodies are one and the same. This is a mistaken assumption, especially in this case, and ignores the fact, among many other facts relevant to this, that increased pharmaceutical advertising in journals is associated with publishing fewer articles about vitamins and publishing more articles with conclusions that vitamins are unsafe: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11
- I'm sorry it took an actual block to get you to respond to anything on this page. Now that you're blocked, don't talk to me, if you wish to be unblocked; get an uninvolved admin to review my block. This you can do by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below the block notice, just the way it's described in the block notice above. The magic curly brackets and other code will mean your request appears in Category:Requests for unblock. Click on the link to see the page. Nobody's going to see your argument if you just write it here, as you've done; but if it appears on that page, many admins will. I'd strongly advise you to read the guide to appealing blocks first.
- P.S., you say above that you " received [my] talkpage page comment", but that must be some misunderstanding. I haven't written any other talkpage comments than my warnings + block notice here, on this page. Please note that there's a signature after every talkpage posts (except yours, indeed; please use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign your posts). You won't find mine, Bishonen, on Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC).
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please carefully read the following notice:
The Arbitration Committee authorises Wikipedia administrators to impose sanctions on editors who edit pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science. Blocks, bans on reverting edits, bans from the entire topic area, or other sanctions may be imposed for disruptive edits to pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science.
Before you make any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. The arbitration decision affecting your edits can be read here. I will record on the arbitration case decision page that you have been given this notice. You must understand that this notice formally makes you aware that discretionary sanctions have been authorised and may be imposed on you with no further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.
This message is being given due to your edit warring on the Rupert Sheldrake article. The block log shows you have been blocked twice previously. A complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:198.189.184.243 reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Semi). EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello, 198.189.184.243. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on talkpages (again)
[edit] Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Edits at Orthomolecular medicine
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vzaak (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You are referring to this edit history of today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&action=history
I do not see how I am doing this, as I did not revert another person's edits, attempted to accurately reflect content of articles while demonstrating NPOV, and posted concerns on the talk page. The warning is inappropriate.198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and as I note (for future reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=574265120&oldid=574264013
"To UseTheCommandLine - I attempted to accurately reflect the content of the articles, as well as the phase I trials. Please tell me how I violated policy. You appear to be demonstrating lack of NPOV, as you are not accurately reflecting the content of the articles. The reviews are here, my coverage of them is accurate: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long, http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78
Regarding "edit warring", You are referring to this edit history of today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&action=history
and this edit I made, where I engaged in nothing approaching 3RR violations, as I made 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=574259777&oldid=574258763 - which I modified to be more NPOV than the other revision, modifying it to state "some research groups argued". I have not since reverted the article, and at the end of the talk page, I urged other editors to abide, for the improvement of the article, to the BRD policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=574261603&oldid=574259929
It is interesting, by the way, that other editors were earlier demonstrating NOTAFORUM violations, but UseThecommandLine only removed mine. See the comment to this, where he said "feel free to remove the collapsing thing if you feel the discussion can be re-directed productively": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=573488383&oldid=573448770
Yet when I responded, he removed my response under the pretext that it violated NOTAFORUM. The difference between revisions states, "Reverted to revision 573488383 by UseTheCommandLine: NOTFORUM.": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=573752194&oldid=573714342
I do not see how I am violating policy and edit warring, as I did not do anything close to violating 3RR (I only made 1 edit, I didn't even revert the article after that edit was reverted), attempted to accurately reflect content of articles while demonstrating NPOV, and posted concerns on the talk page. The warning is inappropriate. I brought up this issue on his talk page, and he merely said "please do not comment here", showing how his animosity was driving his edit decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UseTheCommandLine&diff=574262022&oldid=574261422
In all honesty, I feel that UseTheCommandLine is using bully tactics to prevent these edits (which accurately reflect the content of the articles), from appearing on the page, as they go against his personal opinion. This was a preliminary attempt to get me blocked."198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban from fringe science
[edit]Under the authority of discretionary sanctions as provided in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and pursuant to the decision at WP:AN3#User:198.189.184.243 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Topic ban under WP:ARBPS) you are indefinitely banned from the topic of fringe science, on all pages of Wikipedia. For clarity, this includes all the articles in Category:Fringe science including Orthomolecular medicine. If you disagree with this action, see the instructions for appealing at the top of WP:Arbitration enforcement. You should use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. This ban can be appealed to me as the enforcing admin, to WP:AE or to the Arbitration committee. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I still think I have the right to make a point on the talk page. I do not see how that is forbidden, from what I see, only edits to the article are forbidden.198.189.184.243 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I merely deleted a part of my own comment - the initial sentence. As it has been restored, I added to it. 198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello 198.189.184.243. As the ban says, you are banned from the topic of fringe science on *all* pages of Wikipedia, including talk pages. It is up to the discretion of the enforcing admin what kind of ban to apply. This is a normal topic ban, and as such it "covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic.." Please be aware that you can be blocked if you don't stay within the limits. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding editing one's own comments, please see WP:REDACT. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- @198, this series of edits to @MastCell:'s talk page is a violation of your topic ban. I suggest you read WP:TBAN carefully. @EdJohnston: quoted part of it to you above, but you apparently are unable to grasp that the ban applies to all pages, not just to article pages or even article talk pages. The relevant bullet example at TBAN for the violation is "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia". The only exceptions are explained in the section entitled "Exceptions to limited bans" at WP:BAN, which is why you can discuss the topic at WP:AE. I don't intend to sanction you for the violation, but (a) I can't promise that another admin will not and (b) if I see something similar in the future, I will sanction you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement Appeal
[edit]This is a courtesy notification that the Arbitration enforcement appeal you lodged has been closed as declined--Cailil talk 13:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
[edit] Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to De Anza High School because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 198.189.184.243 violating topic ban. Thank you. vzaak (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an arbitration enforcement request pertaining to your case at WP:AE. vzaak (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” ― George Orwell, 1984
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984198.189.184.243 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Gaff. An edit that you recently made to 2014 Copa Centroamericana seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Gaff ταλκ 17:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
[edit] Hello, I'm AlexWaelde. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Thomas Kyd— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 19:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit] Hello, I'm Falcon8765. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Trey Songz— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit] Hello, I'm Winner 42. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Voting Rights Act of 1965— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Sumo— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal talk 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit] Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
November 2018
[edit] Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gordon Walters— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
July 2019
[edit] Hello, I'm Pudeo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Secure Shell have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Pudeo (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |