User talk:Logicwhatelse

Please be informed that Root analogue dental implant has been proposed for deletion. By the way, I have saved the latest version of the article at User:Tony85poon/sandbox so you can retrieve it no matter what happens. Tony85poon (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I want to give credit to where credit is due. Feel free to improve the commons:Root analogue dental implant sister project page. Also, I want to tell you that the even though the Wright brothers invented Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft), the USA government did not take them seriously at that time. The USA military was busy building an airplane with greater engine-power (which did fly for a few seconds). Then, Wilbur Wright sped up by demonstrating flying in Europe and became a hero (unfortunately he got sick and died in 1912). That's why I expanded the Dental implant other-language-counter-pages. The dentists of the rest of the world might pick up the RAI tech even faster then the English dentists, who knows. Tony85poon (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Please read Talk:Root_analogue_dental_implant#Restored_original_article and follow-up. Tony85poon (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC) You can also follow-up at Talk:Dental_implant#Refs. Tony85poon (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Per our policy about conflict of interest in editing, please state what is your relationship to technologies of dental implants, in particular, Root analogue dental implant. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logicwhatelse is the study group Pirker et al.Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can you clarify what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:: I guess it is of this. In other words, they are the authors of primary sources on Root analogue dental implants. I am not sure what level of WP:COI can be. Definitely they cannot write about their own research (even minor mention would imply self-promotion). But I ma not sure whether they are free to report any info from secondary sources. I am posting a question at WP:COIN#A COI case with dental implants. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you appear to have a significant conflict of interest and are either working here for pay or have a direct financial COI. Editing without disclosure is against the Terms of Use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Wolfgang Pirker MD DMD, a specialist in dental, oral and maxillofacial medicine as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. I am based in Vienna, Austria, and have been working for 15 years in a study group on root analogue dental implants.

All contributions to Wikipedia are voluntary, I do not receive payment or benefit in any way financially from these contributions or edits. My article on root analogue dental implants is based on scientific work of colleagues around the world, including my own. There is no commercial interest in this, as you will confirm if you read the article. It is carefully neutral, and does not emphasize my work in any way. I believe that an independent reviewer will agree with this statement.

The purpose of the article is to inform readers about an alternative line of research and development in dental implants, that industry has ignored for many years. I am happy to discuss constructive criticism of this article, but I strongly disagree that it should be cut down, merged, or deleted, hence my repeated reinstatement of the article as I wrote it. As I am not an experienced Wikipedia contributor, this is has been construed as an edit war. It is not my intention to cause conflict, but simply to preserve the spirit of the article as it was originally written - because this is an important medical topic that deserves to have its own entry on Wikipedia. Logicwhatelse (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this? Everything in the article is correctly referenced.Logicwhatelse (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No most of what is in the article is not. There is a difference between a primary source and a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Root analogue dental implant. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out

Logicwhatelse, I am aware from Talk:Root analogue dental implant that you are editing from 62.178.124.233. Please remember to edit while logged in to your account. Thank you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, Logicwhatelse. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Root analogue dental implant, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Spinning root analogue dental implant.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Spinning root analogue dental implant.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Logicwhatelse (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logicwhatelse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logicwhatelse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an arbitrary and untrue allegation by an admin. Just another fact of Wikipedia censorship that accuses anyone who has a different opinion of either COI or irrelevant or now even sockpuppetry to prevent a substantive discussion.Logicwhatelse (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you don't state why it is arbitrary and untrue to call you a sock puppet, and you use the rest of your request to attack Wikipedia, there is no grounds here for an unblock at this time. There seems to be plenty of evidence that you are(looking at the SPI) which you would need to explain if you are indeed not a sock. Please read WP:GAB for information on how to craft an acceptable unblock request. I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logicwhatelse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Everyone knows that in a normal legal system it is the person who claims something that has to prove it and not the one who is accused. Another proof of how administrators of Wikipedia are the prosecutors and judges in one person, and autocratically and arbitrarily block users with unproven, unsubstantiated allegations, believing that they can put themselves above the rules of Wikipedia and US law. Please tell us how someone can prove that someone else has posted? Where is the evidence for accusations? Guys, you are writing a great story of science censorship here on Wikipedia. Over one week no one of these senior admins was able to make a single valid substantial argument. Just false incrimination like COI, no relevance, sockpuppet and so on. Keep it up. The last word is far from spoken.Logicwhatelse (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see Guy's comments below, which are more or less accurate. Please pay attention to the part of the decline that says, " If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired." Please see the following boilerplate. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

From WP:NOTCOURT:

"While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body".

From WP:NOTFREESPEECH:

"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

From [ https://xkcd.com/1357/ ]

Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,

And they're showing you the door.

By the way, you ask "Where is the evidence for accusations?" The evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logicwhatelse. And you have a clear conflict of interest as you yourself admit at User_talk:Logicwhatelse#Conflict_of_interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:BioImplant logo.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:BioImplant logo.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Spinning root analogue dental implant.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Spinning root analogue dental implant.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]