User talk:86.21.250.21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:34, 28 November 2015

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome

hi, could you join in the discussion at above article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring report

See [1]. KateWishing (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (86.21.250.21) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!
You should also argue WP:AGF. I am guessing, but I think that part of the problem is the lens through which many a WP:Administrator works is clouded. When one works in a continuing war with WP:Vandals and WP:Sockpuppets, one's view of the world becomes jaded. It is easy to turn the world on its head and start with the presumption of guilt. I'm not saying that's what happened here. But roving accounts bring on their own set of problems, and create circumstances giving rise to suspicion.
If you get an account a lot of these supposed issues will disappear. Your choice. Just saying... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that KateWishing is spoken to about her history of article slash and burn tactics across a number of articles as she has pi**ed off a lot of users when looking at the trail of complaints on her talk page, about a number of different articles. Her manner of demanding refs, which are then supplied, only for her to remove them because SHE believes they are invalid is pathetic. Oxford University and The Lancet are very clear experts in medical research! Her claims to have medical expertise is clearly BS, and she refuses to back that claim up without any real evidence. Another Wiki PhD fraudster? What is more laughable is the fact that she doesn't even read her own refs, which, in this case, actually proved the very edit that I had put in. Editors like her are happy to start an edit war, but dig themselves into a very big embarrassing hole with their immaturity, stubbornness and stupidity, to such a degree that they are then unable to save face. I'd suggest next time that she is stopped in her tracks a little earlier.

Anyway, the standards that the EditWar 'referee' has applied is a bit questionable to suggest not relying on primary published papers. If contributors cannot cite fully published medical research papers then just what the hell are people supposed to reference? The standards for medical refs are clearly unworkable.86.21.250.21 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of good points and a strong point of view. Wikipedia needs your input. Get an account. It is not supposed to make a difference, but you will be heard better. Just saying... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the advice, I do appreciate it. However I note that even signing up to an account won't help as new users with under 10 edits are still not able to contribute to an article that is temporarily locked. Catch 22 I'm afraid! I don't see why KateWishing, with her incredibly bad history of edit wars, pi**ing off numerous other users (as per her talk page) is permitted to use the block to now revert the article back again, in clear breach of the 3revert rule. So, I'd like to raise that point as a complaint...thanks. I also believe that users, whether temporary or otherwise, are not allowed to make false claims about profession or educational accreditation. She has claimed being medically trained yet has consistently failed to provide any evidence. She's clearly another Fake Wiki PhD user. Sad really. Anyway, thank you for the impartial support and I await with interest the result of the 3reverts complaint. Cheers 22:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting past 10 edits is not hardly a bump in the road. There are 5 million articles in Wikipedia, and the vast majority of these can be edited by anyone with little if any review. Pick some, work on them to develop them (even if they are not where you want to go ultimately), and consider it to be the token price of admission.

I would lay off the personal criticism. It can be construed as a violation of WP:Civil (comment on the edits not the editor). Pick fights that are worth it.

This is all a temporary and passing situation. You can be proactive and get through and around it. Keep your eye on the doughnut and not the hole. Good luck. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am very grateful for the encouragement, but the way that EdJohnston has dealt with the matter (see his talk page for my complaint) simply shows me that mods and admins, in general, have a very biased view towards editors who simply wish to improve the quality of articles... present company excepted.

I read with interest the candidate statements for the latest Arbitration Committee Election and one of them, a very senior Wikipedian, summed it up so aptly... "We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies. We should treat all editors alike. The best way to avoid being called a flock of juvenile loons is to stop acting like a flock of juvenile loons." Sadly, it is clear that prejudice and bias against some classes of contributors exists, and that the level of training, education and the ability to logically examine a conflict is woefully missing. It is inherently skewed.

Although Ed has suggested referring the matter to the next level, it is clear, reading through all the Help pages, that Wiki has so many layers of arbitration, the complaint simply gets lost in the ensuing debate, and it then comes down to who is who in the Wiki org chart. The strap line that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that can be edited by ANYONE is a pie in the sky dream...it simply isn't true, as has been proven here. Looking through the dispute archives, there are tens of thousands of cases. Is it really worth it when more energy is expended in resolving obvious errors, and condoning poor attitude towards newbies, than in improving the site? So no, it can't be edited by anyone, it can only be edited by people who are approved, mates with other mods, or who make up false accusations and allegations against those who stand up to their incoherent and inaccurate edits. Quite sad really, as it could be quite good. But when there are people, like I've just encountered, who show no subject knowledge, logic, reasonableness, tolerance of new editors, and then blatantly lie to mods, to try and dig themselves out of their self-created holes, is it any wonder that people are leaving Wikipedia in droves (reading through complaint articles!)? I came onto Wiki to contribute a few small lines to an article, about which I know an immense amount (I've been an RCVS patient for thirty plus years and have read the lot). But, the arrogance, unwelcome attitude, and air of "keep off MY article" by a self-proclaimed (but unverified) medical 'expert' does little to encourage collation of information, let alone in the collaborative manner in which it is supposed to develop. At best, the experience of contributing to Wikipedia is eye-opening; at worst it is frankly shocking, and an almost bully-the-newbies-off mentality against anyone new who 'dares' to try and contribute. So, I wish you the best with it, but it is not the sort of self-grandising ego-centric cesspit of nastiness, and unnecessary argument that I wish to be a part. And do feel free to communicate this note to the upper echelons as yet another typical day in the life of a newbie contributor. Maybe, they may take note, but I doubt it very much, after all, too much ego is at stake in a majority of cases. Cheers! :)

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :::: I would lay off the personal criticism.  It can be construed as a violation of [[WP:Civil]] (comment on the edits not the editor).  Pick fights that are worth it.
 :::: This is all a temporary and passing situation.  You ''can'' be proactive and get through and around it.  Keep your eye on the doughnut and not the hole.  Good luck. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
+::::: Again, I am very grateful for the encouragement, but the way that EdJohnston has dealt with the matter (see his talk page for my complaint) simply shows me that mods and admins, in general, have a very biased view towards editors who simply wish to improve the quality of articles... present company excepted.
+::::: I read with interest the candidate statements for the latest Arbitration Committee Election and one of them, a very senior Wikipedian, summed it up so aptly... "We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies. We should treat all editors alike. The best way to avoid being called a flock of juvenile loons is to stop acting like a flock of juvenile loons." Sadly, it is clear that prejudice and bias against some classes of contributors exists, and that the level of training, education and the ability to logically examine a conflict is woefully missing. It is inherently skewed.
+::::: Although Ed has suggested referring the matter to the next level, it is clear, reading through all the Help pages, that Wiki has so many layers of arbitration, the complaint simply gets lost in the ensuing debate, and it then comes down to who is who in the Wiki org chart. The strap line that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that can be edited by ANYONE is a pie in the sky dream...it simply isn't true, as has been proven here. Looking through the dispute archives, there are tens of thousands of cases. Is it really worth it when more energy is expended in resolving obvious errors, and condoning poor attitude towards newbies, than in improving the site? So no, it can't be edited by anyone, it can only be edited by people who are approved, mates with other mods, or who make up false accusations and allegations against those who stand up to their incoherent and inaccurate edits. Quite sad really, as it could be quite good. But when there are people, like I've just encountered, who show no subject knowledge, logic, reasonableness, tolerance of new editors, and then blatantly lie to mods, to try and dig themselves out of their self-created holes, is it any wonder that people are leaving Wikipedia in droves (reading through complaint articles!)?  I came onto Wiki to contribute a few small lines to an article, about which I know an immense amount (I've been an RCVS patient for thirty plus years and have read the lot). But, the arrogance, unwelcome attitude, and air of "keep off MY article" by a self-proclaimed (but unverified) medical 'expert' does little to encourage collation of information, let alone in the collaborative manner in which it is supposed to develop. At best, the experience of contributing to Wikipedia is eye-opening; at worst it is frankly shocking, and an almost bully-the-newbies-off mentality against anyone new who 'dares' to try and contribute. So, I wish you the best with it, but it is not the sort of self-grandising ego-centric cesspit of nastiness, and unnecessary argument that I wish to be a part. And do feel free to communicate this note to the upper echelons as yet another typical day in the life of a newbie contributor. Maybe, they may take note, but I doubt it very much, after all, too much ego is at stake in a majority of cases. Cheers! :)