User talk:Bio Doc

With regards to your comments on User:Andrew73: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. TigerShark 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop referring to other users' edits as "vandalism" unless they clearly are. Thanks TigerShark 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He persistently reverts in order to maintain decimated versions of pages. That is Vandalism.--Bio Doc 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that it is vandalism and not a content dispute? Thanks TigerShark 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He reverts everything I or anyone I know adds without discussion or reason. Ultimately it is effectively a content dispute because he is trying to shut me up. The most important people should be the readers not the writers. --Bio Doc 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I think it would be better if you treated it as a content dispute and avoided the word "vandalism" - as that can just serve to make matters worse. Cheers TigerShark 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a content dispute. It has to do with the fact that he has a God complex about certain aspects of science, and cannot seem to tolerate open discussion. This account has been blocked, given User:General Tojo (and his many socks') long history of wikistalking, gaming the system, unnecessary and serial reverts, incivility and Heaven knows what else. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a liar. I challenge you to cite even one instance of a refusla to discuss changes, and I'll show you a dozen instances on the PD page where decimation has occurred without you even mentioning it. You therefore have obvious double standards. Neither you nor any of the other novices on the PD page have a small fraction of my knowledge of PD so you simply don't dare to discuss before amending because it would quickly be seen howignorant you were of PD. --Bio Doc 22:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is only part of being a Wikipedian. Collaborating, not reverting more than necessary, citing sources (reliable ones), being nice to uninitiated editors, treating others like human beings are all vital skills necessary for healthy Wikipedia activity.

I'm not a liar. But your approach is: I must be right, I have said so on the talkpage, so I will revert. This is about the unhealthiest approaches to editing imaginable. Go enjoy your block, chap. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profsnow deleted various toxins with only "delete irrelevant toxins". He deleted forms of Parkinsonism without discussion. Yet you did not revert or criticism at all. If I do the same you call it vandalism, or you just revert it anyway. You have obvious double standards.

You also want me to treat well those who treat me badly - double standards again.

You want the viewsof those to prevail who : have never studied the subject, have not checked the facts, provide no reasoning, provide no evidence. You want tolerance of those who are plainly deluded about their knowledge of the subject and yet want to impose their ignorance on anyone.

--General Tojo......... 11:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly failing to understand the amount of time you're devoting to this. Why not go do some Parkinson's Disease research, maybe get an article published somewhere. This surely isn't worth the effort you're putting into it. --Dan 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression should always be fought and never tolerated. It teaches the oppressors a lesson. In only a few minutes I can open a few new accounts and do a few key reverts. It's not time consuming for me. As for publishing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/General_Tojo --General Tojo 4 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's see if I have this right: "I have written over twenty volumes on medical biochemistry." Wow! Volumes, like books? So, how many pages per volume? And can I buy them at a medical publisher or Amazon? - "All of it has already been arranged for international publication." Oh. Arranged for publication. So, ummm, it hasn't quite been published yet? Did you at least get an advance? And what else have you done? "What I have otherwise written has already been translated in to seven languages and has been published in over 150 countries." I wonder what otherwise written means. But it has been published, and translated, no less. I'm curious about those works. Could you share what they are? After all, you've hunted down the works of those of us who have published. --Dan 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't hunted down, and couldn't care what anyone else here has published. How could some trivial paper that nobody ever reads compare with a contractual commitment for the worldwide publication of twenty volumes ?And yes, volume means one of a series of books. You might find having a dictionary useful. What's the point in giving you details of other translated publications. Can you speak German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and Swedish ? You're still desperately looking for something to find fault about, but just end up looking a fool whenever you find out the facts. Jealousy's a terrible thing. --General Tojo 7 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the point is credibility. You make prolific extravagant claims about your accomplishments, but never once has it been anything that could be proven - all we have is your word. And the constant evasions, everywhere you've posted and every time you're questioned, accompanied by attacking the questioner, brings your credibility into serious doubt. --Dan 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make the illogical mistake, as most people do of finding out somebody's credentials in order to decide if they are right or not. I judge everything on its merits. I have met supposed world experts in Parkinson's Disease. I have no regard for reputations. I instead easily slaughtered them scientifically because they had obviously never studied biochemistry in their life. There is nobody alive that has a better scientific knowledge of Parkinson's Disease than I do. However, I don't care if the contributors to the PD page are Professors of Neurology or total beginners. I judge them on what they write concerning the issue. I don't evade anything. My attacks on questioners are due to the fact that they have lied about me, censored, deleted and constantly reverted. I'll take anyone on solely scientifically but there is nobody here that can handle me. So instead they try, and totally fail to shut me up, in order to try to make their naive views prevail. --General Tojo 12 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you've just illustrated my point for the broader audience. --Dan 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]