User talk:Yodaflame6

Yodaflame6, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yodaflame6! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Socking

As I mentioned on my Talk page, you should be aware of our policy on WP:SOCKing. I have initiated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/yodaflame6. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first edited Wiki article and I was unaware that I needed to be logged in to make edits. I think starting an investigation for allegedly using multiple accounts (when it was obviously a rookie mistake) is a bit over the top but I will always stayed logged in from now on. Yodaflame6 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit-warring too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wiki newbie, I am very shocked at this level of unprofessional behavior. I thought experienced Wiki users would be interested in facilitating constructive interaction, but you have blacklisted me for making constructive edits . This was not just me, but several others who provided very good reasons that the information mentioned in the article was misleading and inaccurate.

Second of all, if I was not sockpuppeting, which I clearly wasn't, but was edit warring, why did you file the sock-puppet investigation?

I think you were pushing problematic edits using two identities, after having been warned not to. Are you now saying you weren't? The text in question has been the subject of much discussion (some recently) and represents consensus. Please read the archive of the article talk page and at WP:FT/N to avoid re-heating the same arguments. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was my second identity? I probably made the rookie-mistake of not being logged in when I commented or edited on the same article, and it won't happen again; you obviously know this. Why did you file the investigation? I read the entire discussion and you were in the minority of views presented supporting your justification.

Okay, so you were using two identities (as an IP and as yoda) after being made aware of WP:SOCK. That would seem either careless or deliberate. Wikipedia does not work by counting "votes", we are required to have neutral articles - and that means here we need to make prominent, per WP:PSCI, the pseudoscientific nature of OMT training. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I did it was unintentional because I'm new, had no idea what WP:SOCK meant and I assumed I was logged in before I made the change. If I had a prolonged pattern of making changes to multiple articles switching between my ip address and yoda this would be a reasonable investigation. You clearly want to blackball me for making edits you don't like and using your experience as a long-time Wiki editor to try to trip me up on a rookie mistake.Yodaflame6 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I pointed you at WP:SOCK first. ~~You didn't seem to heed it.~~ I also pointed you at WP:EW and various other policy, guidelines and noticeboards. But you aren't heeding any of it but trying to ram your change through. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC); amended 21:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"(Add) by the way, are you editing logged-out? Please be aware of WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)"

This is the first mention you made of this at 19:43. The next article edits I made were 19:54 and 20:53 by yogaflame6. I followed your advice and logged in after you told me. You clearly have a faulty memory or you were blatantly lying.Yodaflame6 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, you did log in then (comment stricken). But the point is that since you didn't reply I didn't know if I was dealing with one editor or two. You compounded the IP's problem edits by using your named account. Now we know. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerk here, I've closed the case for now. Please take care to stay logged in when editing in the future. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine‎. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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) 20:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use edit summaries

Hi there, I see you haven't gotten into the habit yet of using edit summaries. These are brief explanations that you can provide to state why you are making your edit and how you view why it improves the article. They can help especially when you make what might be a contentious edit--if you can explain why you're doing it, you might find it easier for it to receive support. Please see Help:Edit_summary for more info. Happy editing! Zad68 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for pseudoscience

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]