Number48
Welcome!
Hello, Number48, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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!
January 2008 edit
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:ScienceApologist. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider it an attack to request editors stop disrupting wiki by an organised campaign of deletion of well sourced material. According to Wiki rules that is vandalism.Number48 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) This seems to be an attempt at intimidation in a content dispute, which must be a violation of wiki rules. Hardyplants (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The material you inserted was not well sourced. For instance, the first reference was on the British Homeopathic Association's website (hardly a neutral source), and even then, it was merely a mention - not even any details - of a homeopathic doctor who claimed that Thuja cured her patient (which is hearsay & original research). BLACKKITE 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article was indeed from the BHA which is, as noted on the talk page, recommended by the BMA as a sound source for information on homeopathy. The doctor in question not only wrote about the particular treatment, but also about the general use of thuja and so was a perfectly reasonable source for the claim. In addition, a further source was then provided. Re the original research point: now you are just being ridiculous. OR relates to editors here, not to research done by others and then published in reliable sources.Number48 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Even if the BHA is a reliable source, Dr Marysia Kratimenos is not. Obviously, we don't say that a certain plant has homeopathic qualities on the say-so of a random homeopath. BLACKKITE 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) It's still a claim by a non-neutral subject. I suppose there'd be no objection to something along the lines of "Thuja is claimed to help in the treatment of....", though. BLACKKITE 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Labeling edits as vandalism edit
Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism over content disputes. [[WP:VANDAL}vandalism]] does not include good faith content disputes. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a good faith content dispute but an organised campaign of deletion of well sourced material in order to drive an agenda forward and the integrity of Wiki as a reference source be damned. This is the definition of vandalism on WP:Vand. Number48 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hiya edit
Hi 48, just a quick one to suggest that your current editing is starting to attract the attention of administrators in Wikipedia. While this isn't itself a problem in itself, there is a number of editors that find your editing method problematic. Now you have rallied against their reverts of your edits and your editing style which is your right, but suggesting is it "organised" (etc) isn't doing your cause much good. Wikipedia has a bunch of rules (trust me...lots of them) but being civil and editing in good faith is one of the central ones. Rather than get worked up, I recommend that you start a dialogue on the talk page of the various articles you wish to edit and seek a comprimise (what Wiki calls a consensus position that might not be the "best" but is the best for the moment. Then later when more facts, sources and evidence is discovered, it can be added. But in the meantime, if you continue to upset editors and especially admins, you run the risk of being blocked due to disruption. Any questions, please ask. Shot info (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have engaged in dialogue on the talk page and my views are in line with the views of a good number of members of Wiki project "plants". The fact that a clearly organised group of disruptive editors have descended upon that article in order to bully their vandalism in through the back door is the only reason that a consensus for my version does not now exist - it existed this afternoon.Number48 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, technically if only one editor says "yes" and a lot more say "no" then the consensus is for no. Incidently accusing other editors edits of "vandalism" and "disruptive" can be considered a personal attack (per WP:NPA), probably uncivil and is definately an assumption of bad faith. What I suggest (which I note you have done) is take it up with the plants wikiproject and see what their advice is. Wiki is all about consensus and sometimes it can be rough and tumble. How you can fix the issue is by having excellent reliable sources that are beyond reproach. I must admit, I agree with others in that your sources to date haven't been the best. In Wikipedia us editors don't "say" anything, we paraphrase what reliable sources say into an encyclopedic article. So if our sources are ambiguious or don't clearly articulate what we "know" they are saying, then we need a better source. And any material in Wikipedia that is unsourced or poorly sourced can be deleted without question. That's one of Wikipedia's core rules (WP:V). Ta Shot info (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- And technically about 4 other editors said yes to my version versus 2 against until the gang descended. Have you read what is said by those on the plants project prior to my edit. I don't think they thought too much of the tactics (or knowledge) of Scienceapologist or pouponontoast. In fact, one noted that what they were doing was vandalism.Number48 (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked edit
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. The reasons include edit warring, falsly accusing two other editors of vandalism, and harassing one editor stating that he was working to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. When your block expires, I would suggest that you edit responsibly and cease falsely accusing others of vandalism or worse. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The accusation was made by members of the wiki plant project[[2]]. Accusations which I agree with and which are clearly borne out by Wiki:vand. This means that number of other editors feel this editor is working to undermine the integrity of Wiki in favour of his own agenda. I therefore request that you unblock the account.Number48 (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This block seems arbitrary and capricious, but, that said, User:Number48 I'd advise you to tone down your remarks, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA a few dozen times, and just avoid the use of the term 'vandalism' altogether. It's not effective rhetoric here at Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Number48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request unblocking because it is clear that my edits have the consensus amongst the members of Wiki project plants [3] and those editors who have actually been working on those articles. By contrast, another group of editors with a POV axe to grind have ganged up to force their version through against this consensus. There is nobody outside that small group of editors, nobody who has been editing articles on plants, for example, who support their edits or their invention of new Wiki policy to accommodate those edits. And two people, one on talk and one in the article have recently supported my edits and replaced the gist of them - with yet another solid reference!Number48 (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring and falsely accusing others of vandalism. Saying "I am right and the others are wrong, and conspiring against me" does not address this and is not a valid reason for unblock. — Sandstein (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2008 (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.
Really edit
CSICOP/CSI actually tried to ban X-files? Is there an article on that you can point me to? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked again edit
I have blocked you again. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not need single-purpose accounts tenaciously promoting fringe views on contentious subjects. Your edits have served solely to promote an agenda and cause dissent on a topic which has more than enough heat already. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Number48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
wholly disproportionate block seemingly done to protect user:ScienceApologist from having to defend his disruptive behaviour at the administrator's noticeboard[3]
Decline reason:
Your behavior during your short tenure here has been quite problematic, and your chances at redemption have run out. east.718 at 23:10, January 28, 2008
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.
Number48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
wholly disproportionate block seemingly done to protect user:ScienceApologist from having to defend his disruptive behaviour at the administrator's noticeboard[4]
Decline reason:
This unblock request has been turned down twice already. You're now abusing the unblock template. MastCell Talk 23:25, 28 January 2008 (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.
I am appealing the block because it is wholly disproportionate and is solely done to prevent another user's behaviour being scrutinized.Number48 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Protection edit
I've protected this page from further editing given your abuse of the {{unblock}} template. If you want to appeal your block further, you can follow the steps listed here. These generally include emailing the unblock list (unblock-en-l) or the Arbitration Committee. MastCell Talk 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)