User talk:24.215.246.197

April 2013

Hello, I'm Faizan Al-Badri. Your recent edit to the page Dual diagnosis appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Faizan (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Hi! I would like to inform you about our three-revert rule. At this point, you have reverted several times and ignored our invitation to discuss on the Talk:Dual diagnosis page. Reverting once more will lead to a report to administrators. Please, come and discuss on the talk page instead! Lova Falk talk 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will now report you. Lova Falk talk 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|1=I rarely edit on this site and did not previously consider myself and "editor" nor did I know about the free wheeling editorial process on this site, or about the three time rule, or how to access the talk page, or that there even was a dual diagnosis talk page, etc. I made a contribution to this page what seems like a long time ago. An editor smoothed it out by formatting the references in the text and the reference section. This led me to believe that there was a professional editor appointed to over see this page. When I inadvertently returned to this page on April 10, 2013 I discovered that certain text on the page had been reduced and a number of pertinent references were removed. I assumed another dual diagnosis contributor worked on the text. I left the edits alone but I decided to add back some of the references that had been eliminated into the "external reference" section to make them available to readers again. This took me quite some time, I needed to figure out how to format these references so they would be functional for the reader. When I finished, I eventually discovered that the entire "external reference" section was deleted by another editor whom I was not aware was apparently on line the same time I was; I went back and tried to add the section back again without understanding how it was removed. Then I noticed that all of the text referring to this work (what was left of the original input) in the "treatment" section of the page had also been removed (edited out) along with the primary references that had been left in the reference section. There was no note about this. It took me a long time to try to restore some of this work since I am not a savvy editor with an agenda and I was not aware initially that i was engaged with another editor who was targeting the specific areas I was concerned with; after I restored the text, added back the references (not properly formatted) and tacked on the external reference section it was all removed again. Then I realized that there was someone engaged in this process at the time. I saw the note regarding the removal of the external reference section: "This is going too far I am moving this....". To me, this note/explanation conveyed no justification for removing an entire section of resources from the readers from this page; therefore I proceeded to restore it again. Then two other editors joined in (I looked this up later) and each of them removed the same content from the page as the initial editor two additional times. Looking back on this, I believe I was lured into the breaking the "three-time" a rule that I knew nothing about while the other three editors covered themselves by dividing the reversals among them. I was reported immediately by the first editor when three reversals were made. This was in the wee hours of the morning on april 10/11, 2013. In following up on my concern I have been around the editors messages/notes pages of this page and I do not see any previous edits on this page by the last two editors who made reversals and also did so without giving any specific reason, but there are numerous edits on this page made by the first editor who initiated the first and second deletion of everything and the other two editors followed. No one who has contributed to this page is involved in any of these decisions or dialogue. My hunch is that they are as naive as I was and have no idea that anyone can alter the page without providing justification. The comments given regarding these particular edits provide no substantial or specific reasons for removing a whole section of resources, i.e. "This is getting out of control I'm moving this.." there was no mention of anything else in any of the dialogue I was able to see at the time. In an attempt to write to you (which I tried to do on your talk page numerous time and was unable to do) or to other administrators I am lost and cannot get appropriate instructions. I am not even sure this will get to you - the instruction is to post this at the "bottom of my talk page" but there is no way that I can find to do that. Adding the information here in this message is the all I could figure to do. I believe there may be disruptive editing going on on this page and practice editing. In either case the editors are unfamiliar with the area of expertise and appear to make up reasons that appear to be personal and judgmental reasons for their removal of information. The text and references removed include pertinent elements of the topic area such as its history, origins and evolution and those states, practitioners and responsible leaders who initiated this field of work. This has been removal of a large sweep of multiple resources for readers and the elimination of the text that was removed which originally had many pertinent references; the last three references left included two peer reviewed journals, and a book. There is no indication that anyone who removed this information read or verified the background information and reference material, this is never mentioned; there is no indication that these editors even understood the text. I have learned the hard way how this editing process works and I am very disappointed with the liberties others have and the authoritarian style that is permitted here such as -you have to talk to me to justify including this info. Some one should be looking into the motives behind this particular editing. I believe it comes under your category of disruptive editing and perhaps vandalism. Pertinent information and resources are being removed without any professional merit, therefore public discourse and disclosure is being eliminated. None of the editors convey any familiarity with this field of work and each of them "orders" another editor to provide explanations to them. Two of them appear to be editing on this page for the first time as a coincidence, and their reversals appear to have incited "warring" without implicating themselves. The initial editor appears to have taken control over this page with numerous edits, none of which contain any professional justification but rather personal opinions. i can see that this is of no concern to those who have looked in on this matter so far. I do no even know how I could ever fix this page. I imaging I will be set up for breaking more wikipedia rules if I try to restore this page. The area of text and substantial references that were removed represent thirty years of focused work and recognized contributions to this field and they will now be left out of the account of this field to satisfy the authoritarian, bullying needs of an aspiring editor who does not even understand or bother to learn about the terminology used in the paper. The references initially removed include federal government reports and designated best practices. i am requesting to be unblocked because this appears to be a lure into rule breaking by what seems like savvy editors who have learned their way around this site and the wikipedia editing practices. This kind of behavior should not result in punitive consequences against their prey. They should not be rewarded for their seemingly undermining behavior. On the other hand, I need to pursue bringing this up to someone, somewhere higher up in this structure who can really take a thorough look at the details and address this appropriately. }}24.215.246.197 (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life is way too short to read all of that - if you want someone to unblock you before the block is due to expire automatically, I suggest you present a *much* shorter request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

24.215.246.197 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This request is for a professional administrator who will take the time to review the details of this matter. I received a snippy, bossy message on my page regarding this request which I am not sure is an official response or just someone's personal opinion. Request details: I rarely edit on this site and did not previously consider myself and "editor" nor did I know about the free wheeling editorial process on this site, or about the three time rule, or how to access the talk page, or that there even was a dual diagnosis talk page, etc. I made a contribution to this page what seems like a long time ago. An editor smoothed it out by formatting the references in the text and the reference section. This led me to believe that there was a professional editor appointed to over see this page. When I inadvertently returned to this page on April 10, 2013 I discovered that certain text on the page had been reduced and a number of pertinent references were removed. I assumed another dual diagnosis contributor worked on the text. I left the edits alone but I decided to add back some of the references that had been eliminated into the "external reference" section to make them available to readers again. This took me quite some time, I needed to figure out how to format these references so they would be functional for the reader. When I finished, I eventually discovered that the entire "external reference" section was deleted by another editor whom I was not aware was apparently on line the same time I was; I went back and tried to add the section back again without understanding how it was removed. Then I noticed that all of the text referring to this work (what was left of the original input) in the "treatment" section of the page had also been removed (edited out) along with the primary references that had been left in the reference section. There was no note about this. It took me a long time to try to restore some of this work since I am not a savvy editor with an agenda and I was not aware initially that i was engaged with another editor who was targeting the specific areas I was concerned with; after I restored the text, added back the references (not properly formatted) and tacked on the external reference section it was all removed again. Then I realized that there was someone engaged in this process at the time. I saw the note regarding the removal of the external reference section: "This is going too far I am moving this....". To me, this note/explanation conveyed no justification for removing an entire section of resources from the readers from this page; therefore I proceeded to restore it again. Then two other editors joined in (I looked this up later) and each of them removed the same content from the page as the initial editor two additional times. Looking back on this, I believe I was lured into the breaking the "three-time" a rule that I knew nothing about while the other three editors covered themselves by dividing the reversals among them. I was reported immediately by the first editor when three reversals were made. This was in the wee hours of the morning on april 10/11, 2013. In following up on my concern I have been around the editors messages/notes pages of this page and I do not see any previous edits on this page by the last two editors who made reversals and also did so without giving any specific reason, but there are numerous edits on this page made by the first editor who initiated the first and second deletion of everything and the other two editors followed. No one who has contributed to this page is involved in any of these decisions or dialogue. My hunch is that they are as naive as I was and have no idea that anyone can alter the page without providing justification. The comments given regarding these particular edits provide no substantial or specific reasons for removing a whole section of resources, i.e. "This is getting out of control I'm moving this.." there was no mention of anything else in any of the dialogue I was able to see at the time. In an attempt to write to you (which I tried to do on your talk page numerous time and was unable to do) or to other administrators I am lost and cannot get appropriate instructions. I am not even sure this will get to you - the instruction is to post this at the "bottom of my talk page" but there is no way that I can find to do that. Adding the information here in this message is the all I could figure to do. I believe there may be disruptive editing going on on this page and practice editing. In either case the editors are unfamiliar with the area of expertise and appear to make up reasons that appear to be personal and judgmental reasons for their removal of information. The text and references removed include pertinent elements of the topic area such as its history, origins and evolution and those states, practitioners and responsible leaders who initiated this field of work. This has been removal of a large sweep of multiple resources for readers and the elimination of the text that was removed which originally had many pertinent references; the last three references left included two peer reviewed journals, and a book. There is no indication that anyone who removed this information read or verified the background information and reference material, this is never mentioned; there is no indication that these editors even understood the text. I have learned the hard way how this editing process works and I am very disappointed with the liberties others have and the authoritarian style that is permitted here such as -you have to talk to me to justify including this info. Some one should be looking into the motives behind this particular editing. I believe it comes under your category of disruptive editing and perhaps vandalism. Pertinent information and resources are being removed without any professional merit, therefore public discourse and disclosure is being eliminated. None of the editors convey any familiarity with this field of work and each of them "orders" another editor to provide explanations to them. Two of them appear to be editing on this page for the first time as a coincidence, and their reversals appear to have incited "warring" without implicating themselves. The initial editor appears to have taken control over this page with numerous edits, none of which contain any professional justification but rather personal opinions. i can see that this is of no concern to those who have looked in on this matter so far. I do no even know how I could ever fix this page. I imaging I will be set up for breaking more wikipedia rules if I try to restore this page. The area of text and substantial references that were removed represent thirty years of focused work and recognized contributions to this field and they will now be left out of the account of this field to satisfy the authoritarian, bullying needs of an aspiring editor who does not even understand or bother to learn about the terminology used in the paper. The references initially removed include federal government reports and designated best practices. i am requesting to be unblocked because this appears to be a lure into rule breaking by what seems like savvy editors who have learned their way around this site and the wikipedia editing practices. This kind of behavior should not result in punitive consequences against their prey. They should not be rewarded for their seemingly undermining behavior. On the other hand, I need to pursue bringing this up to someone, somewhere higher up in this structure who can really take a thorough look at the details and address this appropriately.

Decline reason:

We have no professional administrators, an no unpaid volunteer is going to bother trying to decode this lengthy request. You are blocked for edit warring; nothing else you say here is relevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We don't have any professional administrators here - we're all unpaid volunteers, and I was simply offering advice that I think would have helped you. Oh well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My efforts to educate editors about this text is being treated as coming from authority figures who will determine its validity - and for whom I must comply, give information and do the leg work to communicate with their decision. When seeking authority on this matter I was told there isn't any here at wikipedia. As equal editors, except for the fact that I do not edit pages on topics I know nothing about, I am very unfamiliar with wikipedia editing and communicating, but what I have experienced so far is very troublesome. I provided the tertiary references you determined were needed for Sciacca only. What is really needed here is someone who could write the historical text and do it justice and include as many references as needed. I gave you the information you requested. Are you are Lova Falk going to put that text back? Should I do it? You seem to be an expert editor all around this site - what do you think?24.215.246.197 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little shorter, please

Hi there,

I know you have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but please consider that you just added 30,000 characters to my talkpage in one go. If you get a chance, it would help me out a lot if you could go a little slower with your comments, or check and make sure you're not repeating text. Another thing to remember is that I will see anything you post on the article talk page, so you don't need to post text twice -- i.e. both on the talk page and on my wall. Thanks, and I look forward to continuing our discussion. Firecatalta (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.