| Revision as of 18:19, 25 March 2015 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,333 edits →March 2015: Thanks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:20, 30 November 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==March 2015== | |||
| Hello. Tendentious editing, as you have done for example is against Misplaced Pages policy. So are personal attacks, as you did at ] and ]. To call good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. To suggest that an editor is 'emotionally labile" is far worse. You state on Alex's page that you "know policies" — do you really? If so, you must be deliberately flaunting the policy ]. Please read it now, because if you carry on like this, I will '''I will block you'''. Furthermore it is a little strange that you should "warn" Alex about ], an article that you don't appear to have edited. Or have you done so under another IP or account? Are you ]? Incidentally, your statement on ] that "You're arguing against the consensus of a dozen individuals on what does or doesn't belong on the noopept article" is apparently plucked out of thin air, completely divorced from reality. Did you perhaps copypaste it from some other editor's talkpage? ] | ] 09:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :Hi. Tell me how correcting the false claim that it is ineffective, to be more neutral, is somehow tendentious, rather than the original tendentious perspective (or revert) of that correction? That something has not demonstrated efficacy yet is not proof that it is ineffective - that's a logical fallacy. Actually no need; I know exactly what you will say. Alexbrn is supposed to be a respected editor and he demonstrates consistently his extremely biased and negatively-weighted viewpoints. On the Carctol page, he could have cited tons of positive details such as that that licensed doctors still prescribe it to this day, giving some weight to the gist that respectable people on this planet believe it has significant function, as do its constituent herbs (one contains a COX-2 inhibitor which will logically produce positive effects upon cancer and cancer treatment symptoms). Instead he cited only select hand-picked quotes regarding its inefficacy. Furthermore the source is actually original research; it doesn't matter that it's a large, respected organization. The correct course of action is to remove all citations of source 1, or add in quite a lot more info from source 1 to produce a more balanced page, rather than the biased one Alexbrn is trying to maintain. | |||
| ::Since you already know what I will say, I won't bother with your question. ] and ] have already been sufficiently explained to you, though it doesn't seem to "take". I note with interest that you've ignored all three of ''my'' questions. ] | ] 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::Your questions are irrelevant to the bottom line which is that your, and his, very accurate and totally rule-following use of this site has the effect of spreading or supporting the spread of biased viewpoints. If I made an edit that follows all rules and policy, and is constructive but goes against Alexbrn's personal interests, he will revert it, as he has demonstrated he would do, for the sake of being dominant and "right". After I added corrected info to an article, he immediately reverted it to an illogical claim. After I sourced the corrected info, he felt the need to remove the clarifying and disambiguating statement altogether, leaving users with the perception (As the article initially claimed) that all use of aromatherapy is quack (meaning there are no exceptions). These are destructive edits, not constructive, even though they follow all rules just fine. | |||
| :], it is inappropriate to suggest I engage in such edits using anonymous IPs unless if you have definitive evidence to show it. As someone with "an ongoing request for adminship", you should know better than to indirectly accuse someone. --] (]) 14:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, ], nice to see you. There was no accusation, merely a question, of a kind that gets asked all the time. Unfortunately 99.xxx ignored the question, and now they're blocked with no talkpage access. Would you like to answer instead? Of course your indignation implies you deny having used the IP, but could you please state your position explicitly? You know as in "No, I haven't used that IP" or "Yes, I have used that IP". What was the "ongoing request for adminship" in reference to? Since I recently blocked 99.xxx, I think I must already be an admin. Perhaps you were misled by a section on my userpage, where I ''watch'' ongoing requests for adminships. Click on the "show" link there to see the dynamic template. ] | ] 14:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::No, I haven't used that IP to make the edits in question. Note: it might be inappropriate for me to merely say "I haven't used that IP" if that's a DHCP IP. And yes, I misled myself by a hurried glance of a section on your user page. Regardless, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had troubles with the user who was attacked. --] (]) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for your clear reply. That's settled, then. ] | ] 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| About and : | |||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-tpv4 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning4 --> ] (]) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's happened here too (above). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::so it did, . . Bishonen is on this and has blocked the user. ] (]) | |||
| *Nice catches, Jytdog and Alex, I hadn't noticed any of it. The user obviously wanted to be blocked without talkpage access, and I have obliged. ] | ] 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| == March 2015 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one month''' for following up on your previous disruption and personal attacks with and after warnings. In view of the third of them, you also don't have access to this talkpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by using the ] page. However, you should read the ] first. ] | ] 13:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:20, 30 November 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.