→January 2012: block notice |
No edit summary |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' temporarily from editing for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. - [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' temporarily from editing for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. - [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
||
{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Why Am I the one being blocked for edit warring? Aren't andythegrump and novangelis edit warring as well? I'm new to wikipedia so forgive me if I've made a mistake here, but I am in the right here concerning my edits to the miracle mineral supplement article? They have a completely biased article, it has poor ratings, and they use personal attacks and slurs when trying to constructively reason with them. Why do they have control over this article? ~~~~''}} |
Revision as of 07:05, 3 February 2012
Hi
...and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your statement "I AM a constructive, reliable source" at User talk:69.143.187.109. You (and all editors here) are not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to see what qualifies as a reliable source. It's important that you understand this as it will help you avoid coming into conflict with other editors and you will see why your personal experience has no bearing on the article and therefore should not be included in any discussions on the article's talk page. Please also read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a primary source giving a testimonial, how dare you call me not reliable??! My experience should at least point to SOME RELIABLE SOURCE SOMEWHERE, please help me find positive reliable sources for the miracle mineral. This miracle discovery cures ALMOST ANY DISEASE!!!! It is imperative that the article give the facts, rather than this biased trash. The miracle mineral is not psuedoscience, it is very sound science. MoogleONE (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Read WP:RS. It is mandatory policy. You have no choice but to comply with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
So the talk page cannot include testimonials from people, trying to fix a completely biased article? Help me find reliable sources that are pro MMS in the miracle mineral supplement page. MoogleONE (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's correct, the talk page can't include testimonials from people unless those testimonials have been published by sources that qualify as RS. You can discuss what you see as bias in the article but you need to provide actual evidence based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV to make your case. Sorry, I don't have time to help you look for sources but you should try to collaborate with other editors at the article's talk page. Everyone is supposed to have the same objective, building an informative and balanced article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
But my testimonial helps to prove that MMS is not actually quack science. I had tooth root infection that traveled to my brain, that was cured in under 4 hours with orally ingesting the miracle mineral, and swishing the solution around the affected tooth. The goal here is to try to fix the article, because the miracle mineral is definitely NOT psuedoscience. MoogleONE (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I still do not understand how to do edit summaries. I am severely brain-damaged and a bit thick, so please don't mind me too much :) MoogleONE (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
/* Thank you for teaching me */ MoogleONE (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm doing it wrong? MoogleONE (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- When you click the edit tab you can see a box just below where it says "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" with the label Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made). That is where you put your edit summary. I added 'test 123' as the edit summary for this edit. If you click the View history tab you will see that the line for my comment includes that edit summary 'test 123'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope I'm doing it right. I still think I'm screwing it up. MoogleONE (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks for teaching me! MoogleONE (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Miracle Mineral Supplement, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't ban me. If you look carefully, you will see that Andythegrump started the defamation, by calling Jim Humble a "noted snake-oil salesman". I am trying to bring attention to an incredibly biased article, by helping Andythegrump out, and making the article even more biased. For now I will correct the bad english, and correct the indirect statement, by replacing it with a direct statement, with a known subject.
- You added this blatant attack on the individual concerned, which suggests very strongly to me that you are simply trolling. If you persist you will end up being blocked, no doubt about that. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No no, I am using Judo on Andythegrump, attempting to grab his attack and add momentum to his throw. He is the real vandal. Please don't ban me my intentions are honorable. MoogleONE (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Andythegrump is a very skilled wikipedia user, using a bunch of dirty tricks against Jim Humble and his miracle mineral. However good always prevails over evil; light always dispels the dark. It doesn't matter that Andythegrump works for the NSA, and that the miracle mineral has been classified by the U.S. Government. This miracle cure will be distributed to all of humanity. MoogleONE (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Miracle Mineral Supplement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. I strongly suggest you go find something else to edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know that I could not make any type of edit to a wikipedia article more than 3 times. The original editors are incorrect in their man-handling of the miracle mineral, and I am in good faith trying to correct the mistake. The editors are extremely abusive in the talk page and I'm kind of new here so I'm learning the ropes. I'll try to wait 24 hours before making another edit to the article. MoogleONE (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Miracle Mineral Supplement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, removing claims that there is a recommended dosage for a phony drug which is nothing but an overpriced indusrial bleach is not vandalism.Novangelis (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a recommended dosage for the miracle mineral, and it is not even a drug. Get your facts straight. You ARE vandalizing the article. I'm going to go ahead and keep making constructive edits, because I'm in the right here, and if I'm blocked I'll seek dispute resolution. MoogleONE (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is a personal attack, and is highly unconstructive AndyTheGrump. The miracle mineral is GOOD MEDICINE, I want this reflected somehow in the article. Also stop vandalizing my webpage with your slurs. MoogleONE (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- So in one post you say that "it is not even a drug", and in the next you say that "The miracle mineral is GOOD MEDICINE". Please take your gibberish elsewhere, fuckwit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not all medicines are drugs. Can you follow simple logic?
- Also, stop vandalizing my talk page with your personal attacks and slurs. Thank you. They are highly unconstructive in reaching a necessary conclusion for the problems with the miracle mineral article. Look at how low those ratings are, don't you think that this justifies an immediate change? MoogleONE (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please tell me about your medical license since you just recommended that I consume a quantity of a toxic bleach that you are calling a "GOOD MEDICINE" on my talk page.Novangelis (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a doctor, for me to impersonate one might be construed as mala praxis! However based on my personal observations as a physics and math major, this is good medicine, if taken appropriately (not in lethal doses). MoogleONE (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Why Am I the one being blocked for edit warring? Aren't andythegrump and novangelis edit warring as well? I'm new to wikipedia so forgive me if I've made a mistake here, but I am in the right here concerning my edits to the miracle mineral supplement article? They have a completely biased article, it has poor ratings, and they use personal attacks and slurs when trying to constructively reason with them. Why do they have control over this article? ~~~~}}