Jump to content

User talk:Technophant/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Hello, Technophant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing another editor's comments

You edited a previous comment made by another editor. Please fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Technophant (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@2/0: "Repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement"? Evidence? I put it up once, then it was removed for being poorly sourced, then I rewrote it with an additional source and after that edit was removed by a different editor I haven't reintroduced it. That's not edit warring, that good editing. - Technophant (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaldean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary was incorporate information from the article "myofacial meridians" into this section. But you also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians." Did you accidentally delete the sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Length of Lead in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I have left you a message on the ISIS Talk page about this. I didn't want to remove the banner you put up - you will see why in my note. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikifying BBC News in ISIL

I have just unwikified all the "BBC News" mentions in the footnotes! I didn't see your summary edit until afterwards just now. I did think there were more wikified ones than I remembered seeing, and now I know why! I thought the first wiki would be enough, but do you feel strongly about this? If so, I can wikify them again. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1, I think it should remain mostly due of the use of inline citations. I know it seems simple, but I also to try presume that the audience may be a gradeschooler how hasn't heard of BBC News and wants to know more. Is there anything in the manual of style about overusing wikilinks in citations? - Technophant (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You have a point. I'd be happy to put the wiki links back in. Not sure about MOS on this - I think it's meant to be only the first time the name appears - but this would be an exception, I think. Nice to know someone thinks about the readers, which is what I try to do as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1 Readers aren't reading the references one at a time, not top to bottom. I do think this is a sensible exception. Keep up the good work! - Technophant (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Re the list on the ISIS Talk page, not quite sure what you mean, but it looks as if I somehow inserted my comment before the end of yours preceding it, though wasn't aware of doing this. Sorry! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1 The list saw after you started a new section were caused by the use of citation templates in the lead rewrite section causing the references to be put at the bottom of the page. They weren't added by an unsigned user. I added reflist to the bottom of that section that fixed the problem. Also, I'm not familiar with the updated mechanics of chat. Do I need to put in the @ template to get your attention while talking on my talk page?- Technophant (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I know it's a pain, but I think you'd better put in the template if replying on your Talk page, otherwise I won't be alerted that I have a message, but if you put a message on my Talk page, I will automatically get alerted. Think this is how it works. (I've just reformatted the "BBC News".) --P123ct1 (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources and poor sources

You tried a similar edit before that was reverted for obvious reason. I think you should revert your edit. Adding poor sources and primary sources does not improve the article. See Talk:Acupuncture#Sourced text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this comment you are aware you added primary sources. I think we should use better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru Please don't contact me on my talk page again. You are being argumentative and unproductive. Anything you need to say about sources can be said elsewhere. - Technophant (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

−

July 2014

−

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. 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:

−

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

−

  1. 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

−

@2/0: "Repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement"? Evidence? I put it up once, then it was removed for being poorly sourced, then I rewrote it with an additional source and after that edit was removed by a different editor I haven't reintroduced it. That's not edit warring, that good editing. - Technophant (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)== Friendly notice ==

Please note. You removed the tags without fixing the problems. I went ahead and deleted the primary/poor sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru - I reverted your edits but restored your MEDREF tag. The proper way to handle that would be to restore the tags with a detailed explanation on the article talk page explaining why you think they should be there. Then it is discussed and action is taken if needed. Your slash and burn (shotgun) approach of removing all primary sources with no easy way of reverting it has gained you topic bans and blocks in the past. This is your first and only warning. - Technophant (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I already discussed this on the talk page. The bogus warning was inappropriate. Please don't restore primary sources for controversial claims. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
More bogus warnings are not helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is a proposal of a topic ban of yourself here [1] unless you can provide decent justification for your edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
A warning was previously posted here about the same article. Removal of warnings is not appropriate. MrBill3 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to get the page toward a neutral NVOP against a team of bias hounds. I restored the warning. How long do you have to keep the notice up? Technophant (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. [2]. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Technophant (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to edit war primary sources into place

Please stop adding primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

You added the text "The American Medical Association takes no position specifically on acupuncture" in this edit [3] which is exactly the same as the source [4]. If this occurs again you will lose your ability to edit. You must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing others' comments

In this edit you overwrote somebody else's comment with your own text. Please take care not to do this as it is highly disruptive and makes conversations and page histories hard to follow. I have restored your text as an addition to the thread; please check this is as you wish. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Alexbrn This was an editing accident. Thanks for fixing it. - Technophant (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
You continue to make edits without getting consensus first. Some of your edits are clearly against the consensus. Rather than getting consensus on talk immediately after the protection was lifted you resumed making edits that are not supported by consensus. You are being tendentious and shopping for support in multiple forums and support has clearly not been forthcoming on all of those forums. Continuing to make edits without getting some consensus first is clearly edit warring, especially when repeatedly inserting content that has been reverted. I understand you think you have a valid POV but the way to achieve your objectives is to get consensus not to edit war. MrBill3 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Noted - Technophant (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note about edit warring

Based on what I've seen of your recent actions, it appears that you don't understand what edit warring is because you keep doing it. I highly recommend that you read the links in the templates above, since you have had two edit warring reports filed against you in the past couple of days. (Note in particular that 3RR doesn't mean that you don't get 3 reverts for free...I have seen editors blocked for as little as 1 revert.) Anyway, now that you've been around the block twice, the admins at the edit warring noticeboard are probably going to be giving you much less leeway. Other essays I hope you'll read are WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which you often appear to be on the wrong side of. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

got it - Technophant (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban from Alternative Medicine

Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

I came here to give you a heads up, but after looking at your comment page I feel like it might just feel like piling on. So first some encouragement. I got all types of knocked around when I first started editing here years ago. I got angry, frustrated, and almost gave up. We often get motivated to edit pages we care deeply about. And without understanding Wikipedia culture, we get frustrated. But that is not all that this encyclopedia is about. We use it to research so much more. I encourage you to take some time and edit articles that aren't nearly as debated as Acupuncture. It will help you learn the ways of Wikipedia, reduce your frustration, and help you get some positive editing under your belt. Many Wikipedia policies are only learned after you violate them. If you are already frustrated and emotionally involved when an editor points out your violation, it rarely becomes a lesson learned and instead feels more like piling on punishment.

So for instance, a minor little rule that you in know way could have known until you broke it is Wikipedia:Canvassing. This edit you made encouraging LesVegas to join the RFC could have been less biased. It's okay to ask friendly editors to come join a discussion about you, but it is discouraged to try and bias them prior by calling your fellow editors "hardened core of skeptics that just don't want things to change". Now I'm the type who likes to let new editors know about stuff like this, but if you are in a heated debate with some editors, they will interpret this as bad faith and assume you are only here to push your agenda. The best way to learn this stuff is to edit "easy" articles where the information isn't likely to be debated and is easily sourced. Then when you get knowlagable about policy, you move back to the issue the got you editing in the first place. I hope this serves as a bit of encouragement, even though it came from a friendly skeptic ;) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Some ppl need to let things go. Wikipedia has changed a lot. I got interested in editing again recently when the ISIS crisis broke. I became the number 2 contributor with only one deleted edit and nothing but warm, friendly relations with other editors. However, There's something wrong with sceptic scene. It seems to attract sadists. I do think its best to avoid that whole thing. - Technophant (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more that skeptics tend to patrol the most contentions pages. Trust me though, I have found uncompromising editors creating frustration at the most obscure pages, over the most asinine details. After a while I ask myself if it was even worth it to engage said person. I am glad you have found a positive editing experience. Feel free to ask me any policy questions that you find yourself getting frustrated with. Always happy to help. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind a comment from me, but Technophant, I think you are misunderstanding why you were blocked here and approaching this from the wrong direction. As far as I can see it was *not* for anything to do with your two accounts - it was for this edit, which was apparently a breach of your Fringe topics ban. And it does actually say that in the block notice - it says "topic ban violation", and not "abuse of multiple accounts". I'd suggest what you need to do is address the apparent topic ban violation, and if you pledge not to do it again then I'd expect that would go a long way towards getting you unblocked. (And there's no point threatening KWW with arbitration, I don't think - as far as I can see, he really has done nothing wrong here) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing as long as KWW (2007) has and i DO know what this is about. I don't have a topic ban on fringe topics. I've only had an editing dispute on the topic of Acupuncture but got banned on all alternative medicine topics even though I was an active and uncontroversial member of wp.med. If it hadn't been for quack guru's extremely tenacious SPI attempts and the User:BullRangifer's badgering, battleground and personal attacks/insults/deceptions I would have either come out or learned from my mistake about trying to go too far and this discussion wouldn't be happening. Considering the circumstances, I think I've demonstrated my ability to edit constructively and treat other users with civility and respect my newfound understanding of 2014's (and not 2009s) PAG. - Technophant (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Technophant. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Did you get it? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Supersaiyen312- No email from you. When did you send it?13:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point I trust admins who hide behind these nifty newly minted acronym shortcuts (which are like word-salad to an old-timer like me) without considering that there's a person behind every username, even the ones you think are socks. Next time somebody tells me to AGF!AGF! I'll remember this lesson. - Technophant (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit on Talk:Acupuncture seems to be beyond question a clear violation of topic ban with no ambiguity'
This edit seems to be cleary in violation of the terms of the topic ban in posting in a discussion about attempting to weaken or subvert the MEDRS guideline. What would the purpose of doing so be outside of the topic?
  • 23:09, 23 July 2014 "→‎Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold: c" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
These two edits make clear that the topic ban has been explicitly violated by posting on the talk page of the article specified and by engaging in discussion of policies that apply to the topic. Note that the forum shopping behavior also continues with the Fringe Theories NB and a canvassed user talk page. This pattern of behavior makes the intentional violation of the topic ban obvious. I see no evidence that the sage advice of admins to focus elsewhere and make worthwhile contributions has been heeded, quite to the contrary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 - First of all, you are an involved admin and I do not feel obliged to answer what I am "doing so be outside of the topic" (your words, not mine.) Adjwilley has been doing a good job of working with me on this issue and I think he is the best person to follow up on it. Further delay on unblocking is inexcusable. - Technophant (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know where you got the idea I'm an admin, not a fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I will answer one of your points. I started this discussion on RSNB [5] shortly before he block. I was also looking into how to go forward with my plan to declare myself (before the sock debate) by adding userboxes. My plan was to go forward after the myofascial meridians Afd. I wanted the discussion to be about the article, and not an attack on the author. - Technophant (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • An involved admin is only prohibited from using their admin tools, not from engaging in discussion - they have as much right to take part in discussion of your block as any other editor, and a reviewing admin can take their comments into consideration just as much as the comments of anyone else. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll uncomment my response below:

Point #1, asked and answered above.
Point #2, discussion is about an alleged MEDRS stranglehold. PAG affecting medical articles affect the quality of ALL medical articles. In case you haven't noticed there's a Big problem with medical articles being too short, too limited, too narrow, and in general less informative than comparable article in reliable tertiary sources such as Mayo clinic website. You may be just recently aware of that I'm an accomplished medical editor with large number of edited articles. Why don't you actually take the time to review the medical edits I've made (as SWR) and see for yourself if I'm a fringe-pusher or not before before you DNFT me. - Technophant (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Good of you to point out your rationale for engaging in a discussion of the evils of MEDRS. Not sure I buy it as the reason behind your comments, but it is at least a reasonable argument (I also don't happen to agree, highest quality information is superior to a larger quantity of poor quality information). Your edit to Talk:Acupuncture is however an unquestionable direct violation of the topic ban, adding a link to that talk page within a comment on your talk page is also a violation of the topic ban and looks duplicitous. I leave the judgement to admins who can easily peruse your edit history to make their own judgements. I hope if the block is lifted that you find a way to enjoyably and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:Kww Seriously? That seems pretty weak. I was blocked from accu and alt medicine right? I could have left off the examples and the statement would stand to make the same point. Is this have something more to do with the check user issue? - Technophant (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. WP:FRINGE includes alternative medicine. I have a hard time believing that your series of "mistakes" is anything but trying to test your limits. You found them.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I didn't read it. I have probably a thousand edits under my previous/main username User:Stillwaterising, including the creation of Lumbar provocative discography and very very very few of them could be considered alt-med even in today's environment and all were properly sourced. - Technophant (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While User:Kww wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My main account is Stillwaterising (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user) This account is a legitimate alternative account. I even registered it with a check-user as such. This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told.. - Technophant (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As mentioned in the block notice, your edits on the Fringe Theories talk page easily fall under "broadly construed." OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

@User:Dkriegls,I'm beginning this has nothing to do with canvassing OR wp:fringe. It's just bias, group bias. What is coordinated biased group edit called? This topic ban is definitely going to arbitration now. I'm a stickler about following PAG, even essays and well-thought out talk discussions are all wisely considered. WR (or whatever its current incarnation is) will have a field day about this one. I just want the same AGF any other established editor takes for granted. - Technophant (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kww immediately above, and also with Kww's suggestion that we finish discussion of the wording. This is a community topic ban, and the community's consensus determines its content, not the banned editor, especially in light of an apparent attempt by the banned editor to give them some say as to the interpretation of what is "alternative medicine" (AM). We already have reliably sourced content and precedent for how we interpret that topic. Its definition is not up for discussion in this context, especially by the banned editor, not now or in the future, as long as they are topic banned. What Adjwilley wrote above seems good enough:

  • Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

I see no reason to deviate from it, even though mention of Acupuncture isn't really necessary, as it's covered by AM. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for topic ban violation. "Broadly construed" means just that, and using medical examples at a talk page devoted to fringe theories isn't even particularly broad. Given the warnings at User talk:Technophant since your topic ban, it doesn't seem that you have any intent of abiding by it. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 04:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While User:Kww wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My other accounts are User:Stillwaterising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user)
(manual bot account), and User:Stillwaterisng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (created by mistake, 3 contribs). This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told. This block is clearly misguided and I know Kww read this. This block is farce comprised of simple misunderstanding. - Technophant (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As mentioned in the block notice, your edits on the Fringe Theories talk page easily fall under "broadly construed." OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

While planning my WP:Clean Start attempt I carefully read and re-read the guideline. I recognized that at some time I would want to return to acupuncture after a reliable source for my proposed edits were found. Herein I came to a dilemma, which account should I use or should I do it at all? The guideline seems to give conflicting advice and I was confuzled.

Long story short I should have have asked first. Moving forward I will intend to spirit of the advice and completely avoid all past contentious, difficult, stressful areas. This will involve staying away from alt-med/complimentary medicine article, MEDR discussion/talk or discussion elsewhere, WP:MED, policy/guideline discussions with the exception of Clean Start which I wish to help improve. For the next 30 days I will stick to the two editing only the two projects listed on my talk page which have been problem-free and resist not be afraid to ask for advice first at appropriate forum if I think there will be an issue. I'm not sure what else I can say to help ensure that block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption I think I've learning quite a bit from being blocked and will never take my editing privileges or my fellow editors for granted again. - Technophant (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per modified topic ban language below: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."—Kww(talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant this unblock request. I'd like to hear from Kww first though. Tiptoety talk 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see the discussion at User talk:Technophant#Rewording of topic ban complete first. I'm concerned that Technophant will believe that he only has to follow his suggested new wording.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I submitted a version that is acceptable to me. Adj is indef. away on family emergency. His last edit was on my page. If he were available then this issue would have been resolved by now. Even though I think Adj made a hasty decision I appreciate how he has gone out of his way to try to work with me and seems to want to make his work out right. I respect him for this and from what I've read of he has said about this case I think him and I are going to get along just fine so I don't see how you can justifiy keeping me locked up any longer. I've been civil and willing to work with everybody who's came here. - Technophant (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Having followed this a little, I think the whole thing has mainly been a result of confusion and frustration. Technophant's unblock request looks good to me and I can't really see what more he can be expected to say. I would certainly support an unblock now. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kww for getting the unblock request. The wording was good by me as well. Mentioning BANEX is fine, but unnecessary...it would have applied anyway...but PLEASE don't try to edit the pages under the exceptions listed there! It will only cause trouble, as definitions of vandalism vary from user to user. It would be much much better to just unwatchlist everything, especially since there seem to be a number of people who would like to see you blocked, and who will probably watch for an excuse to report a violation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

Hi, thank for your map. Can you please upload a more clear and update map[6]. Unfortunately, it is difficult to read the names of the cities in the current map.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's available in a 2000px format by clicking on the largest format [here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Mapping_Iraq_~_June_15th_2014.png]. After it loads you may need to click on it to enlarge it. The map maker has promised to update it every to weeks, so if he does it will be at the end of the month. - Technophant (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Can I put in a plea? A reader with no knowledge of the area can't tell where the country boundaries are, which is Syria and which is Iraq. Given that land control is such an issue in this conflict, wouldn't it be a good idea to delineate them? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not my map. Find the author on twitter and ask. - Technophant (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think it was your map; I was just hoping you could perhaps pass the message on. :( I have mentioned this on the ISIS Talk page before but there was no response. I wouldn't know where to begin to find out who created this map and unfortunately don't know how to use Twitter! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant/Archive_1&oldid=1138943233"