Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 25 March 2015 (→March 2015: Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 2015

Hello. Tendentious editing, as you have done for example here is against Misplaced Pages policy. So are personal attacks, as you did at User talk:Alexbrn and Talk:Noopept. 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 No personal attacks. 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 Noopept, an article that you don't appear to have edited. Or have you done so under another IP or account? Are you IO Device? Incidentally, your statement on User talk:Alexbrn 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? Bishonen | talk 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. MEDRS and NPOV 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. Bishonen | talk 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.

Bishonen, 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. --IO Device (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:IO Device, 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. Bishonen | talk 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. --IO Device (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear reply. That's settled, then. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

Warning

About this and this:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Alexbrn. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's happened here too (above). Alexbrn 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

so it did, here. manually reverted that too. Bishonen is on this and has blocked the user. Jytdog (talk)

• 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. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

March 2015

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. (WHOIS  Geolocate  Proxy Checker Current blocks XTools Global contributions) (RIRs: Africa America Asia-Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean)