User talk:ThatHurtsMyHead
Please put new posts at the bottom of the page!
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. — Scott • talk 15:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment to reviewing administrator: There was nothing vindictive about this. I just find it exceedingly hard to believe that all of two minutes after I undid a bad revert, another account with no previous edits and a name that ties them to the content of the specific article in question appears to revert me. I'm obviously aware of WP:INVOLVED, and in this case I considered it such an obvious case of being an SPA that it simply wasn't worth the effort of finding another administrator to do the same thing (or begin a sockpuppet investigation). If this decision is found to be a bad call, I will of course abide by that assessment, and issue an apology as well. — Scott • talk 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
ThatHurtsMyHead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only have ONE account that I just created a few weeks ago. I've only reverted two changes someone has made. Apparently one of those was a change an administrator made that he doesn't understand. And he vindictively indefinitely blocked my account for a bogus reason. (again I only have ONE account). He removed "Suicide Headache" from the Cluster Headache page. In FACT Cluster Headache is referenced in many medical journals as Suicide Headache. Anyone can google it and see.> ThatHurtsMyHead (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'll pass on the Google search, as your willingness to attack the blocking admin shows that you cannot assume the required good faith. And besides, you are not just a sock, you're a stinky smelly sock with holes in it that is beyond saving by the washing machine. You said you made two edits (which I take to be this one and that one) but only ONE of those was made by this account, which you risibly claim is your only one. So how can you have made two changes? Huh? Huh? Yeah, that's what I thought. (You might also want to consider this edit summary, and why it would have helped to discuss the changes instead of edit warring. Happy New Year! — Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
ThatHurtsMyHead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Scott I appreciate your response. I'm new at editing Wikipedia and apologize for not following any (undo) proper practice. The condition Suicide Headache is referenced in the Cluster Headache medical literature back to the early 1900's, and is common reference for the condition as some people sadly do perform suicide. My edits to the page are only to inform and help stop those that might be in that bad of a place mentally. I am a sufferer of CH and yes, I attempted suicide once because of the intense pain. I’m on all the main Cluster Headache support sites and message boards and do my best to provide support to those suffering or in need. If one searches Wikipedia for Suicide Headache, the Cluster Headache Wikipedia page is the default. I'm not associated with that other person, and only just pulled up the page when I saw someone had again removed the "Suicide" reference and added it back. Thank you, JeffThatHurtsMyHead (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A brand new account appearing to make the same revert as another account within a 2 hour window, on a page that routinely goes several days without any edits is well beyond the realm of coincidence. That you then stated that you made 2 edits (and you used the plural form several times, so it obviously wasn't just a typo) further stretches the bounds of plausibility of your claim. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Scott,
I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the correct location, but thank you. Thank you for taking the time to look into cluster busters and thank you for understand that apparently you and I both had a missunderstanding and I sincerly apologize on my part. I now see there's a form to discuss changes and I'll make sure I'm engaged there before adding, deleting or changing parts of the Cluster Headache article. (but I really didn't create a second account :)
I hope you see that potentially saving someone's life is what the majority of those on clusterbusters are trying to do. I for one would likely be in a pine box by now as I had exhausted all medically approved options short of them cutting my brain open. I found the cluster busters website and I now live a mostly pain free life following a method of self treatment that doctors in western countries are forbid from discussing. A significant goal I plan to use some of the rest of my life for, is helping others with this condition that are coming to the point of either killing themselves, or having a doctor cut on their brain and possibly doing it for them.
I will definitely add a post to the wikipedia thread on cluster busters in support of working with wiki editors to further not an agenda, but saving lives by providing accurate information.
Thank you again, Jeff
Unblocked
[edit]I see now what's going on - Jeff, you're a member of the ClusterBusters forum. I've read through your thread discussing the cluster headache article.
Basically, appearing out of nowhere to start reverting someone's edits with a brand-new account is a big red flag. Usually it's a sign of somebody with a second account; more rarely, it's someone recruiting other people to make changes to support their position on something. Around here that's referred to as "meatpuppetry" (which I personally think is a dumb name, but we're stuck with it). It's basically treated as one editor with multiple accounts would be.
Having seen your comments at ClusterBusters, you've got the wrong impression; there are no personal agendas at play here. We just have very strict rules about where medical information on Wikipedia can be sourced from, and how much of each should be used (not giving undue weight to particular opinions). Likewise, our rules require unsourced information to be removed. You can read about these at WP:MEDRS.
By the way, I'm sorry about Daniel Case's comments above. I don't know him, but he seems to have been in a bad mood and should have been polite when handling your unblock request; that tone was uncalled-for. Unblock requests here are not handled by "reaching out to a friend"; they go into a queue for any admin to take a look at.
As you've seen, some of our highly experienced medical editors are now in the process of giving cluster headache a working-over. It may not have been obvious, but it was actually in very poor shape, largely caused by well-meaning visitors dumping all sorts of stuff into it over a period of years.
I'm going to unblock your account, because I don't think you mean badly at all. However, please reciprocate on my assuming good faith by not immediately starting "a cause" and participating in edit warring.
Please pass this message on to your friends on the forum - there's no reason why you at the ClusterBusters community can't work with us here (and indeed be part of the Wikipedia community as editors). But what you and your friends absolutely must do is spend a while getting to grips with the strictness of our referencing requirements, and participating in discussion on the article's talk page. I see that your member CHfather already has. You're all welcome to, but swarming in en masse to try and argue a point by sheer force of numbers will get you absolutely nowhere and may even damage your future ability to edit. If there are things you don't understand about how we work here, just ask and someone will be able to explain.
Sincerely, — Scott • talk 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)