User talk:SMendel

SMendel, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SMendel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for editing the article on the alkaline diet, after adding a published scientific point of view that was hitherto not represented in earnest on the page. I may have inadvertently mis-typed the citation causing the word "ref" to appear after my edit. I was blocked without warning and for no apparent reason other than representing a valid scientific opinion, published by the US NIH on the NCBI website, stating the possible benefits of the alkaline diet. I am not biased in this matter, as I just today began reading about the alkaline diet and read over ten studies on the subject, after which I went to see what the wikipedia article said. When I found that it failed to mention the scientific publication in the NIH, and moreover, falsely claimed that there was absolutely no scientific evidence supporting claims of the diets potential benefits, I decided to simply add the minority opinion (on this article page at least), which happens to be an indisputable fact, that a doctor and professor at University of Alberta published a scientific review that actually supports claims of the alkaline diet's health benefits, see here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/ . I edited this page after doing hours of reading on the subject and changed the description of the alkaline diet on the article by removing the false claim that the alkaline diet is based on a misconception of changing the body's pH, as this claim is a straw man argument which effectively fails to account for actually rational, scientific opinions, such as Dr. Gerry K. Schwalfenberg's opinion, published by the NIH, that the alkaline diet has potential health benefits insofar as it reduces what he calls the "Potential renal acid load (PRAL)" of certain foods. In other words, Dr. Schwalfenberg provides valid scientific reasons, backed up by actual peer-reviewed scientific studies, for why a alkaline diet has potential health benefits, namely, by helping to increase the body's absorption and retention of essential minerals such as calcium, potassium and magnesium (all of which are excreted or made unavailable due to the effects of certain foods with high renal acid loads). I wrote this edit in earnest as a concerned citizen who wants to help disseminate existing scientific knowledge for the benefit of humanity. Being blocked without warning and for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with the consensus of editors of the article I edited is offensive and insulting to me and the values of human dignity, liberty, Enlightenment, and the pursuit of knowledge. I have been accused of vandalism, of all things, for earnestly editing a page by adding valuable, dissenting scientific information to an article. I never vandalized a page on this site and am appalled at the clearly false accusation leveled against me.

Accept reason:

It's six days since I made a proposal to unblock below, there has been one agreement and no disagreements, and still no response from the blocking admin. I have, therefore, unblocked this account per the discussion below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: Can you, please, give some examples of this user making vandalism edits? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22138 was submitted on Jul 22, 2018 04:38:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About half of your (very long) unblock request is criticism of various admins, littered with accusations of dictatorship and censorship. I would reword it to only include concise, factual information relevant to this case. Reading the Guide to appealing blocks would probably be a good start. Accusing others of censorship isn't going to foster a collaborative environment. That being said, I feel like I might be missing something in relation to the circumstances behind this block. Nakon - is there any additional background you could provide regarding this block? SQL ^{Query me!} 16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije It has already been a week since Nakon blocked me from editing without sufficient cause. They have since failed to justify their blocking of my account on any grounds whatsoever, having ignored Vanjagenije's request for more information or evidence warranting the block. I would like to be unblocked. The fact that I am being blocked and there still has not been any valid reason given, a week later, and likewise, that no amelioration has been made to fix this, is very disturbing.

@Vanjagenije: I've looked over User:SMendel's edits (which stretch back to May 2017, with a previously clean block log). While some of them might have been on controversial subjects, I'm certainly not seeing this as a vandalism-only account (which is what the block message says). The actual logged reason is "Disruptive editing", but I don't see that as either sufficient for an indefinite block, or justified at all without the blocking admin responding per WP:ADMINACCT when asked for an explanation. In the absence of a response from User:Nakon, who has not edited since the day of this block, I support the unblocking of this account and I'm happy to take the responsibility and do it myself. What do you say? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: - Agreed here. The only comment I see from the blocking admin was in the UTRS ticket above. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Alkaline diet, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Deliberately adding a reference that has absolutely nothing to do with your change to an article is really rather disgusting. I shall have to review all your other edits to mainspace now. Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMendel: I'm disappointed that you have gone straight back to controversial edits at Alkaline diet. (Although, @Roxy the dog:, it's not vandalism if an editor genuinely believes their edits are constructive, which seems to be the case here.) You know your edits to Alkaline diet have been controversial and contested, so you need to stop now, start a discussion at the article's talk page, and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look Here. SMENDEL says this supports his edit. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if they believe it supports the edits, however mistakenly, it's not vandalism. There are many people who genuinely believe that minority/fringe/pseudoscientific ideas are genuine and that the evidence supports them. And while their edits might well be disruptive, as long as they believe them to be valid, they are not vandalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cocked up here. see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/779781 which is what I thought SMENDEL had linked. MY MISTAKE. nothing deliberately deceptive done ... however, the ref still does not support the newest edit, so I shall not self-revert in the article. Sorry about that. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, no problem. If you think that source still does not support the edit, then you are still correct to revert it and leave it reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user:Roxy the dog, the view I advanced on the alkaline diet page is supported by a Dr. and faculty member at the University of Alberta, Dr. Garry Schwalfenberg, MD, whose scientific review of studies on the so called alkaline diet is published on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/ a US government-funded website that promotes and disseminates scientific information and studies that are peer-reviewed. I simply added the dissenting view (to the wiki page on the alkaline diet, which falsely presents this diet as pseudoscientific, when there is actual real scientific evidence for it--the pseudo-scientific charge is based on a misconception of the diet and is a reaction to actual pseudo-scientific explanations of the diet; it does not respond to or sufficiently address actual scientific explanations and studies of the diet, such as Schwalfenberg's (cited above). The fact that editors are continually deleting my added, vital references to Schwalfenberg's study and scientific review of current scholarship is deeply disturbing and anti-scientific.

This is not the place to argue about it. Go discuss it on the talk page and seek consensus! Do not edit war over it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Catholic Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Carroll and John Cornwell

History of the Catholic Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Carroll and John Cornwell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GS Blockchain

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Your edits on the Brock Pierce article appear to be promotional and you reverted my removal of that content here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, SMendel. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Please disclose if you have a COI relation to Brock Pierce. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a graduate student and not currently employed by Brock Pierce. SMendel (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Brock Pierce. Accusing other editors of being "intent on making libelous edits", arguing they are editing under a "false pretense", or vandalizing a page without any evidence is not appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a good deal of time editing this page as someone who has researched the subject and is knowledgable on it. This editor removed my edits without discussion and also changed the title of a section to "Sexual Abuse Allegations" after it has been clearly established on the talk page that this was not an appropriate title. These actions are reprehensible and rude. He undid all of the edits I made to the effect of removing factual, well-sourced information about the subject. He literally removed that the subject is an entrepreneur from the intro paragraph, making it seem that Pierce is a politician and former actor, two titles that do not describe his current biography and life work. His edits on this page have been libelous and constitute vandalism or censorship (he removed many accurate sources and pieces of information). Presenting sexual abuse allegations as current-when they were voluntarily retracted and the main plaintiff has been proven and convicted as a fraud in federal court-is libelous and violates wikipedia's guidelines for articles about living people. SMendel (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also he did edit under a false pretense. He falsely assumed and accused me of having a conflict of interest in an attempt to censor my edits. SMendel (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]