→Changing the rules - revert restriction: better link |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
I strongly recommend you leave that area alone. Admins approaching a fight are apt not to care too much who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, who started what, or what Billy said about Tommy's mother. The banhammer will be wielded equally on all. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
I strongly recommend you leave that area alone. Admins approaching a fight are apt not to care too much who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, who started what, or what Billy said about Tommy's mother. The banhammer will be wielded equally on all. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Funny things are happening. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction]] for the consensus for this text.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=661052804][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=661053033] Now see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=663424973&oldid=663326563 this edit]. I would like to understand a bit more why was the sentence deleted after the discussion. I explaining on the talk page I accidentally deleted the sentence. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sourced_text_deleted_after_discussion_and_agreement]]. It is puzzling why the sentence was deleted. What is this really about? Do they want to get rid of me and then make sweeping changes? Of course, stranger things are happening to others articles. Right now there is original research in the acupuncture page. Other editors at the acupuncture page are not trying to help remove the OR? They are restoring the OR instead. See [[Talk:Acupuncture#Recent changes]]. If you do not support me at the e-cigs pages then I could assume you probably do not support me for other pages. I am not editing different pages in different ways. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
:Funny things are happening. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction]] for the consensus for this text.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=661052804][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=661053033] Now see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=663424973&oldid=663326563 this edit]. I would like to understand a bit more why was the sentence deleted after the discussion. I explaining on the talk page I accidentally deleted the sentence. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sourced_text_deleted_after_discussion_and_agreement]]. It is puzzling why the sentence was deleted. What is this really about? Do they want to get rid of me and then make sweeping changes? Of course, stranger things are happening to others articles. Right now there is original research in the acupuncture page. Other editors at the acupuncture page are not trying to help remove the OR? They are restoring the OR instead. See [[Talk:Acupuncture#Recent changes]]. If you do not support me at the e-cigs pages then I could assume you probably do not support me for other pages. I am not editing different pages in different ways. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Changing the rules - revert restriction == |
|||
You are restricted to [[WP:0RR|0RR]] on the [[Acupuncture]] article. This means you may not make any reverts. Because the definition of [[WP:Revert|"Revert"]] is broad enough to include any edit that removes contet or adds content that has previously been removed, this means that your article contributions will be severely limited. The best way of dealing with this is to treat the article as if it were fully protected, building consensus for proposed changes. Reference maintenance, however, is specifically allowed, and you should not be sanctioned for '''uncontroversial''' modifications and updates of citations. You may use the article talk page as much as you like, but making accusations against other editors, [[WP:Filibuster|filibustering]]/[[WP:IDHT]], or focusing on contributors over content is likely to result in the removal of further privileges or a complete topic ban. <p>You are also restricted to [[WP:1RR|1RR]] on pages related to [[Alternative medicine]]. Violations of both the 0RR and the 1RR can be reported at [[WP:AN/EW]]. <p>These sanctions are applied under the [[WP:AC/DS|Standard Discretionary Sanctions]] imposed by the Arbitration Committee and will be logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture]]. Because your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=441111231&oldid=439478010 previous topic ban] resulted in you just taking a long break without making the needed behavioral changes, these sanctions have no expiration date. However, they may be revoked at any time with a successful appeal at [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:AE]], when you meet the following conditions: |
|||
*You can demonstrate that you are editing collaboratively, building and respecting [[WP:Consensus|consensus]], and not [[WP:GAME|Gaming]] the system. |
|||
*You have not violated any of the sanctions for a reasonable amount of time before the appeal. |
|||
*You can demonstrate, through your actions, that you see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a platform for exposing [[quackery]]. |
|||
On a more personal note, the primary reason this is an edit restriction instead of a topic ban is because despite the long history of [[WP:TEND|tendentious editing]] I believe that you are an asset to the community in that you have a good knowledge of the sources, and the passion to contribute to articles about alternative medicine. I hope these sanctions provide the needed motivation to change some of the bad habits you have gotten into. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 07:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:43, 24 May 2015
RfC
See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
oops
I seem to have inadvertently removed your comment onAN/I. So sorry. Never had that happen before. Ack (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Copyright violation
A tag has been placed on Template:Copyright violation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
AN/I
I mentioned you on it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- This sentence was removed by User:S Marshall. "As the e-cigarette industry is growing, new products are quickly developed and brought to market."
- There was a previous discussion to include the sentence. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction. You deleted text from the Construction section after there was consensuses to include the sentence in the section. For now I improved the wording for text in the history section and replaced it with sourced text among other things. Please see Talk:Electronic cigarette#Sourced text deleted after discussion and agreement for the current discussion. Thank you for your collaboration. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
E-cigs
I strongly recommend you leave that area alone. Admins approaching a fight are apt not to care too much who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, who started what, or what Billy said about Tommy's mother. The banhammer will be wielded equally on all. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Funny things are happening. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction for the consensus for this text.[1][2] Now see this edit. I would like to understand a bit more why was the sentence deleted after the discussion. I explaining on the talk page I accidentally deleted the sentence. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sourced_text_deleted_after_discussion_and_agreement. It is puzzling why the sentence was deleted. What is this really about? Do they want to get rid of me and then make sweeping changes? Of course, stranger things are happening to others articles. Right now there is original research in the acupuncture page. Other editors at the acupuncture page are not trying to help remove the OR? They are restoring the OR instead. See Talk:Acupuncture#Recent changes. If you do not support me at the e-cigs pages then I could assume you probably do not support me for other pages. I am not editing different pages in different ways. QuackGuru (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Changing the rules - revert restriction
You are restricted to 0RR on the Acupuncture article. This means you may not make any reverts. Because the definition of "Revert" is broad enough to include any edit that removes contet or adds content that has previously been removed, this means that your article contributions will be severely limited. The best way of dealing with this is to treat the article as if it were fully protected, building consensus for proposed changes. Reference maintenance, however, is specifically allowed, and you should not be sanctioned for uncontroversial modifications and updates of citations. You may use the article talk page as much as you like, but making accusations against other editors, filibustering/WP:IDHT, or focusing on contributors over content is likely to result in the removal of further privileges or a complete topic ban.
You are also restricted to 1RR on pages related to Alternative medicine. Violations of both the 0RR and the 1RR can be reported at WP:AN/EW.
These sanctions are applied under the Standard Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture. Because your previous topic ban resulted in you just taking a long break without making the needed behavioral changes, these sanctions have no expiration date. However, they may be revoked at any time with a successful appeal at WP:AN or WP:AE, when you meet the following conditions:
- You can demonstrate that you are editing collaboratively, building and respecting consensus, and not Gaming the system.
- You have not violated any of the sanctions for a reasonable amount of time before the appeal.
- You can demonstrate, through your actions, that you see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a platform for exposing quackery.
On a more personal note, the primary reason this is an edit restriction instead of a topic ban is because despite the long history of tendentious editing I believe that you are an asset to the community in that you have a good knowledge of the sources, and the passion to contribute to articles about alternative medicine. I hope these sanctions provide the needed motivation to change some of the bad habits you have gotten into. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)