User talk:Bloomingdedalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Improving Immunology Articles[edit]

Hi Bloomingdedalus, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

Released: Fourth quarter, 2013
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
Quarterly focus - GA nominations

I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.

However, it appears we only have 5 GAs (Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs (Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' (Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?

  1. Nominating good articles. In addition to suspensory muscle of the duodenum I will be working on Mylohyoid muscle, Genioglossus, Foramen spinosum and an as-yet undecided article.
  2. Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
  3. Using books as sources. Books are readily available in libraries and have the superb quality of being able to aggregate information, which can be used to source thousands of anatomical articles.
  4. Collateralising sourcing. Anatomical sources often refer to several structures in a single source. Therefore an editor on one article could quickly add a source to another two articles in a related topic. This incremental approach will hopefully accrue for future editors
  5. Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
  6. Templates, which will soon be available, to post on the wall of new editors thanking them for their edits and encouraging the use of sources.

I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk)

  • This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users.

January 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at English Defence League 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Incredibly apologist for open antisemitism. How sickening to see the hatred of Islamic terrorism likened to antisemitism. That quote has absolutely zero relevance to that article other than to state that hatred of Islam, which has waged perpetual war against the Jews and the west and has shown zero signs of progression or improvement, is akin to Nazism. When was the last time a Jew suicide bombed a subway in Britain? Demanded that Britain or any western country change their national symbols? Parasitic terrorist apologists you scum - you should be hunted and thrown in Gitmo. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
it doesn't say that, it compares the current role of anti-islamic thinking on the British right with anti-seminitism in Britain in the pre war period. You need to calm down and try and read what is said before you react ----Snowded TALK 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Which makes the clear parallel that you're supposed to think of disliking the guys who blow up the London subway with disliking, oh, I don't know, Isaac Bashivas Singer. Yes, that's what I think of when I think of Hassan al-Banna, fucking Isaac Bashivas Singer. I'm sure you'd find either of them happily distributing Mein Kampf (not for academic and historical purposes) and stating Hitler was the greatest thing since Shariah law. No, it doesn't say Islamophobia is like antisemitism, it just juxtaposes them so you are... supposed to think of them as similar to one another - which - of course - isn't saying they're the same thing. I guess the people at the Guardian don't remember when the Muslim Brotherhood was all cheers and joy and Allah Akbar when Hitler was bombing London... Oh, but Islam has changed, you can tell because of the incredibly progressive policies they've shown by occasionally relenting from executing women for being raped and not quite fully managing to kill Salman Rushdie and, instead, accepting the inferior sacrifice of a hotel full of civilians... Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I was a little biased, it's utterly irrational to dislike Islam... And disliking Islam is exactly like disliking Jews... Clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF35a5E0uss
Don't worry, only 20% of Muslims in the United States, for example, believe suicide bombing is sometimes justified... http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/12/17/little-support-for-terrorism-among-muslim-americans/
Ah yes, "Fewer than one-in-ten American Muslims say that suicide bombing is sometimes (7%) or often (1%) justified." That's 20%? Hating people because of their religion is bigotry. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Not according to Pew Research: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2009/12/1445-2.gif I don't hate people for their religion, I hate people who try to kill and oppress westerners because of their religion. If Islamists didn't behave like savages and have zero respect for human rights in their countries, I wouldn't have a problem with them. If Saudi Arabia weren't still beheading people for "witchcraft" and homosexuality and adultery and just about anything else I wouldn't call them savages. No religious belief gives you the right to tread on human rights, and any decent person would be "bigoted" against those who claim otherwise. And, you sir, should be deeply ashamed of yourself. Here is an example of antisemitism, from Syrian TV. I'd be the first person to condemn someone who said Muslims kidnap and eat Christian children, because it's not true. But if you tell me they imprison 13 year-olds and gather lynch mobs to kill them because someone said that they defiled to Qur'an - well - that's just accurate. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Reviewing your recent editing, I have noticed several disturbing patterns.
I am placing you on notice of the decided Arbitration Committee case on Palestine-Israeli issues. This case enabled any uninvolved administrator to issue a warning to any participant who they feel may be editing disruptively or engaging in battleground behavior here on Wikipedia, which I am sensing here with you. Per the notice below, you are now notified that further disruptive editing you may make can result in any uninvolved administrator using standard discretionary sanctions to handle the problem. Please review the WP:ARBPIA case results and WP:DS sanctions to understand them and this notification.
It is my hope that you will cease casting such disruptive aspersions on all of Islam here on Wikipedia. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. We are not the place for fighting real-world battles. This is not a soapbox for your to argue from.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

I haven't commented or edited any "Israeli-Palestine conflict" pages. Please cease being foolish. I put no "disruptive aspersions" on any pages - on the contrary - I removed an irrelevant and dogmatic racist quote that was ostensibly "academic analysis" which compared Jews to terrorists. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again, it did not do that. As someone who has fought anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry for years here, I can't get my head around your misunderstanding here. Or your ability to group all the citizens of a country or members of a religion as culpable for the acts of a minority or the government. That's the essence of bigotry. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Final warning - Islamophobic racism such as this will get you blocked. Find another topic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Islamophobia as you call it is not remotely racist. The most Islamophobic man I ever met was an Arabic Syrian gentleman from the Syrian Orthodox Church. His view of Islam was, "all Muslims are terrorists." Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him given the draconian, racist, and violent policies of imperialistic Islamic governments. Please stop your insane bigotry against the Jews you parasite. Antisemitic traitorous racists such as yourself should not be editing Wikipedia. Anyone who equates criticism of a religious ideology with racism ought not be permitted to administrate anything. "I don't like the word Islamophobia. We must distinguish between attacking ideas and attacking people." - Salman Rushdie Bloomingdedalus (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Given your response above, I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#Editor using epithets such as "Antisemitic traitorous racists" - topic ban proposal. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

You appear not to be here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia.
I have indefinitely blocked your ability to edit.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bloomingdedalus (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have contributed some to Wikipedia, thought I am not the most prolific writers. Here's the main reason: http://imageshack.com/a/img801/3285/ut8k.png Putting racist anti-semitic propaganda on pages in a disingenuous attempt to discredit groups is unacceptable. The guardian quote on the EDL page is purely racist and has no actual relevance to that article.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia isn't the place to fight your battle. If you would rather argue about the perceived evils of Islam than build an encyclopedia, there are many websites which would welcome you with open arms - this isn't one of them. Yunshui  12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bloomingdedalus (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

You are citing biased sources in an article which falsely equates antisemitism and islamophobia. That is promoting propaganda, not contributing to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The quote I argued against was completely inappropriate, biased, and did not acceptably fit the criteria under which it was categorized - namely - academic criticism. Furthermore, the position stated is simply incorrect, that antisemitism is the same thing as Islamophobia. The quote in question violates the policy regarding WP:Questionable. It is, additionally, libelous against Jews and those who hold critical opinions on Islamic atrocities and human rights violations. From WP:Questionable "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the issues leading to your block, which were your unacceptable attacks on other editors, including accusations of anti-Semitism and racism. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I'll leave it to another Admin to hopefully turn this down, noting that the forged image linked to above is just more evidence that this block was correct. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bloomingdedalus (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

If he defends that quote equating antisemitism to Islamophobia, he's an antisemite. The Islamic world supports state sponsored violence against gays and atheists. It orders death squads over novels. According to Pew Research, 43% of Muslims support Al Qaeda. It issues death warrants against Journalists, novelists, writers, and comedians. Islam stands against everything that Wikipedia represents in providing a free and neutral exchange of information. Jews don't do these things - antisemitism is completely and utterly irrational. There are many reasons to be afraid of Islamic ideology and states in the present era. Kohemini is not "just an extremist" - the policies of executing witches in Saudi Arabia are not the products of "just extremists" - they are the policies of state endorsed Islam. If Israel was an Orthodox theocracy which killed people on the basis of Witchcraft or otherwise, I'd say it were similar. I could go to Tel Aviv and say I'm an atheist or say I'm gay regardless of whether it's true or not and I wouldn't have to fear the IDF arresting and killing me for it. At least I know that Wikipedia's staff collaborates to demonize Jews and support Islamic terrorism.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for venomous attacks and battleground editing, and those things persist in your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Pretty sure it's about time to remove talkpage editing for this guy per WP:NOTHERE. 205.166.218.67 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access disabled. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

Previous edition
Released: First quarter, 2014
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
  • Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
  • Contribute on our talk page
  • Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
  • Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)

On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images.
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the external watchlist, or the (recent contributions for Index of Anatomy), a relatively comprehensive on-wiki list.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)