User talk:Nenpog

Cognitive effects

CT scans involve use of ionizing radiation, which is classified as a neurotoxicant. A 2004 cohort study concluded that irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development. Prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation at the 8-15 and 16-25 weeks after ovulation was found to induce severe mental retardation as well as variation in intelligence quotient (IQ) and school performance. It is uncertain, if there exist a threshold, under which one or more of these effects, of prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation, do not exist. Cumulative equivalent doses above 500 mSv of ionizing radiation, which head CT scans can contribute to, were proven with epidemiological evidences to cause cerebro-vascular atherosclerotic damage.

Cognitive effects

A 2004 cohort study concluded that irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've been reading your IP posts, and I'm glad you decided to register a user name. You'll probably find you get a bit more respect that way.

Even though I basically reverted some of your edits today, I feel sympathetic for the effort you've put in and the difficulties you've faced. When I find some poor quality material on Wikipedia, I usually try to make it better rather than just delete it. And when disputing it on a talk page, I usually try to educate people on the technical issues rather than rely on policy. But when people get overwhelmed, they are allowed to just delete low quality stuff and point to policy, without taking the time to give you solid explanations. I'd say that's basically what happened with your edits on X-ray computed tomography, where they're apparently maintaining some very high standards of quality. They did it to me too, essentially.

So let me try to explain some of the technical points to you. First, DSB's are interesting, but the latest research suggests that they're not necessarily the most important damage mechanism. Rather, it looks like damage elsewhere in the cell starts something in motion that later damages the genetic code, perhaps years later.[1] So going into detailed DSB calculations about CT scans might be proven irrelevant by future research, and should not be given too much weight for now. Second, it's important to realize that 1 mSv = 1 mGy by definition, even though CTDI ≠ absorbed dose ≠ equivalent dose ≠ effective dose. Sieverts and grays are units, whereas the other things are quantities. I think just getting that language straight would have avoided a lot of debate. (And you were not the only one to trip over it.) And overall, I'd say the evidence on adult cognitive decline is not conclusive. There's data in favour, but biology's complicated. It's still in the stage where I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with another study saying we got it all wrong and the opposite is true, kind of like the DSB stuff. That's why the experienced guys prefer to wait for the secondary sources to come out.

Thanks to your persistance, you have gotten some of the improvements you wanted into the article. It now mentions double strand breaks; the table now includes organ absorbed dose; and Doc James himself has found good citations to support a discussion of excessive doses. I say this so that you can take heart in the fact that we all share the same goal of a more complete and accurate encyclopedia, and people are listening to you in spite of any acrimony. So please, take this account as a chance for a fresh start, forgive and forget the disputes, and be prepared to have your edits held to high standards if you want to keep editing pages patrolled by doctors. Welcome aboard!--Yannick (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome :)

I didn't read yet all the book you pointed me to but I searched there and found: "Although it has long been assumed that unrejoined double-strand breaks are the critical DNA lesions responsible for cell killing by radiation, it has now become evident that incorrectly rejoined DNA double-strand breaks are important mutagenic and carcinogenic lesions. This DNA misrepair can lead to single base alterations as well as large-scale genetic changes, including chromosomal deletions and rearrangements, particularly when more than one double-strand break is involved. DNA structural analyses of radiation-induced mutants at specific gene loci in human cells indicate that most mutations arise as a result of such large-scale genetic and chromosomal changes", which indicate that double strand breaks are important. Could you quote the section that led you to write "First, DSB's are interesting, but the latest research suggests that they're not necessarily the most important damage mechanism. Rather, it looks like damage elsewhere in the cell starts something in motion that later damages the genetic code, perhaps years later."?

I think that the DNA is the operating system of the cells, changing it can damage the cell operation.

About the Sv=Gy, this thing is very dependent on the exposure scenario (uniform vs non-uniform exposure). I think that I understand this part OK. It can be equal, or not equal, depending on the scenario.

About the cognitive stuff, there is a study for infants, and I think that it is important that parents will know that, since such a study took a few decades to complete, and if the parents will not be informed until the study will be repeated, their children would be damaged by ionizing radiation by the time the results would arrive, which could confirm the first study. There is also evidence for cerebro-vascular atherosclerosis for adult, which look to me like a review article, and the other editors don't accept it just because it talk about ionizing radiation and not CT ionizing radiation, which is irrelevant.

I sense a lot of bias in the editing of that article. For example, Yobol has moved the whole adverse effects section to near the end of the article, which look like trying to sweep the side effect under the carpet. The other editing decisions have the same common motive - tone down, surround with clutter, or remove anything related to adverse effects.Nenpog (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are attributing motives to others, and I think that's unjustified in this case. I think you need to assume more good faith on my part and that of other editors. Some of the people you see as opponents have made important edits explaining the risks of radiation, and you seem to misunderstand their objections to your work. For the most part, people have not argued that you're wrong, only that you need to be using better sources and provide more balance. You seem to have very narrow and deep knowledge of some very specialized sub-topics, and some of us with broader knowledge are saying, well that's true, but it's not the whole story, and you seem to be over-generalizing lessons from your special area of knowledge. Ever heard the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

The DSB stuff is a good example. I've agreed that DSB's are important, and so did the other editors. But there's reason to suspect that other cytoplasmic transformations and epigenetic changes may be more important. How do you explain the bystander effect with DSB's alone? You should read that chapter I pointed out to you. I spent hours studying it before trying to summarize it into radiation-induced cancer, and the other editors your talking to have probably read something equivalent. I don't see why you should be exempted from doing having to do that background work. You would find answers to some of your own questions there. In particular, look at the section on "Radiation-Induced Genomic Instability."

Now if you don't mind, let's look a bit about your motives. You hint at motives beyond encyclopedic accuracy when you say that it's important for parents to know about recent studies regarding cognitive decline. I have to agree with you that more people will probably die or be harmed before all the facts are on the table and confirmed, and it is a noble pursuit to accelerate that process. But encyclopedias are not the best place to present current medical research, which is basically what primary sources amount to. Maybe you want to join in medical research yourself, or become a journalist, or just write a letter to the editor of major newspapers. But an Wikipedia's mission is more about presenting the established facts, not about promoting the latest ideas.

Oh, and about units. 1 Sv = 1 Gy = 1 J/kg always by definition. They're units, mathematical entities, and they don't at all depend on exposure scenario. 1 Gy of absorbed dose might equal 10 Sv or 0.1 Sv of effective dose, and 1 Sv of of equivalent dose might equal 0.8 Sv of effective dose, but the difference is in the quantities, not the units. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine that people don't understand the difference between units and quantities.--Yannick (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

DNA damage

The ionizing radiation in the form of x-rays used in CT scans are energetic enough to directly or indirectly damage DNA. In each cell tens of single strand breaks, and about one or two double strand break are induced for each 20 mGy of absorbed ionizing radiation. The number of double strand breaks per cell is linear with the absorbed dose of radiation. Double strand breaks are the most serious and potentially lethal type of cellular damage, and the most difficult to repair. This and other types of DNA damage are occasionally not corrected properly by cellular repair mechanisms. Such not properly repaired damage to the genes that control cell division or programmed cell death, occasionally lead to cancer, as is reflected by the statistics, however other genes, that support other cellular functions are occasionally damaged as well.

Sandbox

Hi Nenpog,

I think you'll find it more pratical to put your draft material in your sandbox, which is here. You can access it by clicking on "My sandbox" at the top of any page while you're logged in. This talk page is usually only used for conversations with other users.--Yannick (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Oh Nenpog. From what I can tell, you've been editing since June 6th, less than a month, and you've opened three formal disputes. I've been editing for 7 years, I have almost 4500 edits, 80% of which were on articles, I helped write an early version of the COI policy, and I think this might be the first time I've been named in a dispute. How do you explain the difference to yourself?

Picture this: you're part of a club, say one that's making a big model trainset. You've been around the club for a few years, you go to meetings, you've made friends, you read the newsletter regularly. A new guy joins the club, and right away he's complaining that one little part of the trainset is not safe and needs to be fixed. A few of the more senior guys who built that bit don't want to change it. Within a month, the new guy is raising motions to censure the old guys, calling disciplinary hearings, and quoting the club's constitution. The new guy might be right. He might even get that safety issue fixed. But how do you think this story is going to turn out for him?--Yannick (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You were named as part of the dispute, because a volunteer at the DRN wrote to me once that every editor that discusses the matter in the article talk page should be summoned.

The discussion at the COIN was opened because TransporterMan objected to discussion of COI at the DRN, and suggested discussing it at the COIN, which seemed to me the best place to have a discussion regarding COIs.

How do you think this is going to turn out for me?

Can you compare what you think would happen to me, to what would happens to an infant, if he would undergo a CT and suffer cognitive impairment for the rest of his life as a result of the CT, after his parents read the Wikipedia CT page?

I am doing this for that infant. I am not doing this in order to make friends with the club. --Nenpog (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nenpog, as an uninvolved administrator here, I will register my concern at your statement above. Our purpose here is to improve articles, not to defend the supposed rights of some theoretical infant which suits our editorial purpose. You are showing a battleground attitude where you feel it is justified to fight at all costs. I have to inform you this is not acceptable and fighting for "that infant" is very likely going to get you blocked from editing. You have been asked several times now to stop throwing around COI allegations, and here is a clear warning for you: if you persist in your theme of impending martyrdom, I will make that happen. Otherwise, please just accept the community judgement on whether your sources are RS, DUE and NPOV. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can believe that you have a good and noble heart, Nenpog. But this isn't the real train; it's just the model trainset. If parents had to choose between trusting a doctor's advice or a Wikipedia article, which way do you think they would decide? And don't you think that doctors are likely to warn or guard against the cognitive impairment risk in the first place? We are, after all, taking this information from medical articles. If you want to be a hero, I suggest you look into volunteering opportunities in your community. How about volunteering at your local cancer ward, where you could speak directly to those affected by CT scans and learn about all the concerns they need to balance? I think you are unlikely to find fulfillment for your protective instincts on Wikipedia.--Yannick (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Best of Luck

How does your face feel being totally flat? You beat your head against the wall, here, with your attempts to make things right. You need to do some research about Wikipedia outside of it's protected fantasy walls. You should soon see that the system is not equitable to people wanting to do the right thing and that it is run by a Nazi-like regeim of mostly snotty-nosed nerdpaks that were kicked in the face everyday by bullies as children and now need to get even with the world by bullying themselves. The WP rules have so many contradictions, written by the bullies themselves they can always pull one out of their sleeves to smash you in the face with.

Please check my page later to see if I even exist for making these comments. Did you know that WP administrators not liking any exposure of their behaviour can remove comments and editing without a trace? Yeah, they are ashamed of it. It's done all the time and simple mention of it will get you banned. Just watch me. Better write donw my IP address 'cause not likely there will even be a trace.

Wikipedia is not about truth or wehat is real, it's about what has sources that fit the definition, even though one definition doesn't fit in all cases. Jimbo Wales will tell you that and has reported it publicly in many places.

Careful. If you persist they will threaten your ISP with action and the next thing you could be looking for a new one. Tell your friends. Many have so far.

In Google.ca you can block the search engine from finding results from severely faulty websites. Once few people look for results there Jimbo will have to clean up his act or Wikipedia will fall by the wayside as a massive joke. Too bad really. Nice idea but it takes work and input by people that care, not people that have emotional issues. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on CTs. I am not involved with any articles involved. I only have experience watching and laughing at the frustrated users attempting to help out here. I haven't even bothered to read any of the articles you have been involved in. I have only read some of your edits and watched as the bullies try to shut you up. As a matter of interest I came to your user page and watched how the facts have been twisted in order to shut you up by making you the bad guy. I have witnessed this many dozens of times. I only observe this to answer questions about my own experiences wondering WTF happened and what I was doing here in the first place. Internet's largest deceptive website. Hey! I apparently survived more than an hour past the last post. Very nontypical for the stalkers that love to bully somebody else. Some actually follow me. Oh!... EU time difference may give me a few more hours. Check back in a day or so.

Live well and save your time, effort and self-respect, brother. Spread the word. Lots of it out there so far. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually after reading your page, here, I would say that you have an editor, Yannick that is being very gentle with you. Most of these people fit the bully profile and just slam you with warnings and bans. You have a few threats but Yannick has been very helpful and coaching. Very good heart. As far as the threatening ones any persistence will most likely get you banned. The rules never apply to the bullies but only to others. Best of luck.99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: CT scan article

Thanks for the note about the scan dose in the CT scan article! I went right by it for some reason. I made the changes you indicated. Thanks! 208.53.72.112 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW I am trying to insert more side effects to CT. See the talk page. If you support me at the talk page it might help (though, I think it would help more if you would do it from a user name vs. IP). --Nenpog (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that. I actually am a physician who finds that CT scans are overused and cause far too much radiation, and that many physicians are unaware of how much radiation is involved (especially with the routine use of fine-cut protocols the past decade). I am a big advocate in limiting fine-cut protocols due to the increased radiation. Many hospitals no longer have radiologists supervising CT scans (due to cost-saving measures) and, as with much of medicine, the fewer knowledgeable individuals that supervise a dangerous technology, the more risks there are.

Of interest, though, is that radiologists and others in the radiology field actually have LOWER rates of certain cancers (probably because of the protective effects against infections and other irritants that a little bit of extra radiation affords). However, they are well-monitored for cumulative radiation doses, unlike the usual patient.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you probably are familiar with the movie Repo Man and J. Frank Parnell:

Parnell: "Ever been to Utah? Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day - nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end."

Otto: "Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?"

Parnell: "Not at all. Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people - leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until - BLAMMO. Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, radiation is well-known to cause cognitive defects. Whole brain irradiation is used for brain cancer and cognitive dysfunction is one of the main, and nearly universal, side-effects. Brain CTs in particular deliver focused radiation, so that it doesn't take much to realise the damage to small brains or developing brains. Having said that, the developing brain has a large programmed cell die-off (apoptosis) anyway during the first few months of life, and the brain is one of the fastest growing and most-densely connected parts of the body, so that damage often recovers quite well (at least in youth). It is extremely unlikely, absent other reasons, that CT-scan radiation damage to an infant would last a lifetime and not be compensated by the growing mechanisms of the brain. Furthermore, encephalitis, which is a frequent reason that brain CTs are done in the first place (to rule out other causes of neurologic dsfunction) tend to cause more damage than the CT scan does. It can therefore be difficult to determine the true causality of cognitive defects... (and we mustn't give into the anti-scientific motivations and "pseudo-reasoning" of lawyers).

I no longer use a user account to post because Wikipedia on average is a vicious, relatively uninformed, grammatically poor, and adversarial community (something I see you have quickly encountered, evidenced by the posts earlier on this page). I have seen so much misinformation intentionally posted that it angers me, and I have received many personal attacks when I used to post from a user name (I have written many, many Wikipedia articles over the past 6 years). I find, now, more advantage to posting anonymously rather than getting entangled with the myriad idiots that float around Wikipedia. I have had jerks re-write articles (that I wrote) about which I had written the original scientific articles (and have a PhD). Looking at the comments above, I can see you have quickly came embroiled in the same nonsense. BTW. I change IP address every day or two, so it is not worthwhile, in general, to correspond to someone by IP address. 208.53.72.112 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I didn't see that movie yet.

Theoretically you could open a pseudo-name account, but even without, whatever you could do to help would be appreciated. Currently, there are two editors that are against me, and maybe some friends of them.

You can see in my sandbox some newer versions I work on. Perhaps with better refs.

My unsourced understanding with regard to brain effects of low radiation in infancy, or pregnancy, is that it screws up the stem cells' DNA and epigenetics, and that affect the development that occur later on. There is that Swedish study, in which normal infants were irradiated, and intelligence dropped. Can't encephalitis be imaged with MRI? --Nenpog (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The human genome has a lot of redundancy, though. The reason that the background radiation to which we are exposed is not universally crippling is becasue of those redundancies. Besides, a lot of viruses cause DNA and RNA damage, too. That's why HPV and hepatitis cause so many cancers.

I'll look and read it. Long-term side effects are often not realized until some time later. Thanks! As an aside, I've been re-writing a few-year old medical review textbook recently, and noted many claims about radiation from CT scans that are completely inaccurate. Keep up the fight (right or wrong) because the truth sometimes only becomes evident by continually searching for it. As an aside, I was censured by a hospital for trying to limit radiation to a person who had received 20 CT scans over 3 months! Even when I submitted the scientific articles, the (older) physicians (who "knew better" than the recently published studies) would not budge. Danger comes from being too rigid in one's beliefs (that is the defintion of religion, not science). Hopefully you are keeping me from being one of those physicians who "knows better", lol. MRI is very susceptible to motion artifacts, and it is nearly impossible to get an infant to stay still long enough to get a good study. Thereoretically, though, I agree with you. In fact, MRI is used for many things that in the past perhaps a CT scan or angiogram was used for (such as vascular studies and pancreatograms). Still, MRI is not universally available (I have worked at many hospitals where an MRI is only available once a week). Besides, I wasn't saying that CT scan be used for diagnosisng encephalitis, I was saying that in someone with encephalitis, the damage from that is more than the damage from a CT scan. I happen to know that one from personal experience, as my daughter had enduring developmental damage from encephalitis. I was just saying that CT scans are often done to find out the problem in infants that may have encephalitis, and that it is wrong to blame the permanent developmental disorders on the CT scans when they may have been caused by the encephalitis. Remember the recent lessons of the fraudulent autism studies, where false causality between vaccinations and autism were spread negligently (especially in the media) to the point where it got ingrained in the public consciousness. That is a very dangerous practice. 208.53.72.112 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In that Swedish study, the infants were irradiated in order to treat a skin problem, so they weren't irradiated due to a possible problem with their brain.

I think that maybe the radiation can get the cells inflamed, like a sunburn - if you get inflamed cells in the brain that way, is it called encephalitis?

The background radiation is 60/(2.4/365) = 9125 times smaller than what you get in a day that you have a 60 mGy head CT.

I've heard that today they think that the 98% of the DNA, that don't code genes, and that they thought was garbage, they now think that it control development. So this could explain why developing children are more susceptible to problems due to radiation. The damage is more likely to damage something in the 98% part of the DNA that control development.--Nenpog (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would choose to support me from an IP that change, I think you should sign all posts using the same pseudo name. Something like writing in the end - signed Sherlock.--Nenpog (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping

If you keep forum shopping and badgering people about what you think is the truth on this issue, when the consensus is clearly against it could result in you being topic banned etc. I suggest you voluntarily edit other articles. You might not agree, but advice like this is to help you and prevent you from being blocked etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping.

You have read what other people thought of Guy's following me around with that disclaimer.

Your attempt of collapsing the discussion is a mistake. --Nenpog (talk)

CT

Thanks for your hint. I guess it is ok if he watches the quality but I really cannot see his point here. Will discuss with him. Do you have any additional backup for mentioning these books? jaeljojo (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand "backup". I just don't think that due weight is the right argument to remove your edit. I see now in the talk page someone is saying that he think someone is trying to promote his book. That is a different argument that I am not familiar with. --Nenpog (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on X-ray computed tomography ‎. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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. Further, encouraging new editors to edit war when they can get blocked for doing so is irresponsible. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not encouraged any editor to edit war. There is something called BRD , check it out, the way I understand it is that one should Boldly change the text in the article, wait for it to be Reverted, Discuss at the talk page, change the text while taking into account the discussion, and Boldly try the new text. --Nenpog (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No that is incorrect, re-read WP:BRD again. You get consensus first then re-insert the text. IRWolfie- (talk)

I reread it up to the middle "Consensus has gotten stuck. BRD to the rescue!". Seem like you are wrong. If not please point it out with quotes this time. --Nenpog (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or, better yet, considerably less time than that. "--Nenpog (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, read it:

BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information.

Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.

Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

the comment "However, don't get stuck on the discussion" doesn't make sense as the changes don't seem to have even been discussed by editor. This explains the process: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you discuss, find the other people's concern and what would be a compromise on your account considering their concerns, and put that compromise in a new bold edit. --Nenpog (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you discuss it first. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

...and what did I say? Nenpog (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog, I am not going to try to correct your misconceptions about WP:BRD because you have shown yourself to be ineducable (See Wikipedia:Competence is required) and incapable of even considering the possibility that you might be wrong (See Dunning–Kruger effect). What I will tell you is this. Stop edit warring or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Consider yourself warned. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough already...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpong, I did not read all entries but it really feels like "choose your battles" ... there is no way you will win this one. I would advise to step back and reconsider. Jaeljojo (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is too late to step back now, because they have already motioned to permanently ban me. I think it might help though if you put in a good word about me. You can say you haven't read all the case, but from what you know about me you think that X, Y, Z, and maybe that would help to even the odds. --Nenpog (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of trying to get someone to support what you have been doing, you should admit that what you have been doing is wrong and promise that you won't do it again. Do that, and the permanent ban will almost certainly be delayed -- until the first time you break your promise. If you keep insisting that you did nothing wrong and blaming others forv your bad behavior, you don't stand a chance. Remember this was all your own doing and you were given all sorts of chances to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpong, it is never too late to step back and you have put yourself in an impossible situation. Jaeljojo (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First Rule of Holes: When You Are In One, Stop Digging.

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban from medical imaging and ionizing radiation

Per consensus in this thread at WP:AN/I, you are indefinitely topic-banned from posting any material related to medical imaging or ionizing radiation, broadly construed. The topic ban applies to all pages and all namespaces (talk pages, user talk pages, project pages, etc), with the exception that you may appeal or question this topic ban itself in the appropriate venues. The formal closure of the AN/I thread is here.

Violations of the topic ban may result in a warning or a block from editing, at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. You may appeal this topic ban at the administrator's noticeboard, or by contacting the Arbitration Committee. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)