Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 27 May 2014

This is Neuraxis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello DVMt, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Removing deletion tags

Do not remove deletion tags until the deletion discussion is finished. Doing this again will result in your account being blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on tone left for Kww at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Call for secondary over primary source

Left a long explanatory comment for you, DVMt, at the talk page of the editor who recently deleted your primary source. If still engaged/interested, see that message, at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion here, because I am trying to retire Leprof. Will look here, and reply to you in the mean time. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I await your response and look forward to learning from you. DVMt (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR report closed

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of any edit warring so this unprofessional and terse need not apply. No need to threaten anything at this point in time. Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals. Terseness is a good thing, as it gets the point across in a way that flowery language does not. If you edit war again over any pseudoscience related article, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're missing a few steps, and we see things differently. A warning to QG for his chronic problems would be noted too, right? You are being consistent across the board, right? DVMt (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Admin Kww did not provide any evidence whatsoever and the block is a personal issue. We can't just indef block users for no reason. DVMt (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=No evidence of any reason for any block at any point in time. No diffs provided, nothing that justifies this action |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=No evidence of any reason for any block at any point in time. No diffs provided, nothing that justifies this action |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=No evidence of any reason for any block at any point in time. No diffs provided, nothing that justifies this action |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

User:DVMt, you deleted the evidence from your talk page. Before you deleted one useful template but then you deleted 2 useful templates. Your edits were counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My god Quack, you are being nothing but a troll. I've asked you not to write on my page before and you continue to do so despite me respectfully asking. I brought the conversation back to the proper venue. Your template is not useful because you made a false allegation and got an admin to bite on it who was warned by 3 different editors regarding his tactics. Regardless, the diffs and my contributions show that I am talking, to a variety of people and not making any radical edits, or destabilizing articles. I welcome an investigation by neutral parties who will judge me by my edits this year, not the rookie mistakes I made in the past, and which I have not repeated after my voluntary one year break. I was not battling at all, I am discussing things. You can see my contributions to talk. Your allegations are just a witch hunt at this point. DVMt (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in support of DVMt's unblock request. The user has been awarded as one of Misplaced Pages's top 300 medical contributors, and as far as I am concerned from editing three articles in common, DVMt has always been discussing things first at the Talk Page and trying to settle the possible differences.

DVMt isn't the only one receiving arbitrary treatment from administrator Kww:

• Administrator Kww gave me a warning for edit warring.
• After pointing out to Kww that 1) I wasn't even accused of edit warring, 2) I wasn't involved in edit warring, and that 3) I filed a report for a 3RR violation concerning another user (QuackGuru), Kww took his warning back.
• The new allegation I was faced with, was (direct quote) "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)". However, 1) nobody ever accused me of such thing, 2) administrator Kww never provided any diffs where I'd have been doing that, 3) I wasn't pushing any POV's (just kept calmly to the 3RR report I filed).

I think administrator Kww's behaviour has been completely unprofessional. A neutral administrator opinion is required.

Administrator Kww also got himself involved into a WP:ANI -case, where he again resulted the case for user QuackGuru without any evidence presented by either administrator Kww nor user QuackGuru. (I was accused for following QuackGuru to other articles, which is completely absurd, and QuackGuru refused to answer when I asked what articles "I have been following him to". Still, administrator Kww decided to give me a warning for that. I think there are just three (3) articles in common that we are editing with QuackGuru.)

I think a neutral admin decision is required Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's patently obvious that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt work to ensure that articles about pseudoscientific topics are biased towards treating those topics as credible. DVmt was warned about edit-warring, and seems to have responded to the warning by immediately making another repeated reversion, unilaterally declaring two templates used in policing pseudoscience articles as useless. As for being involved, no, I'm not. I saw the AN/I and 3RR reports and quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you're biased and I was thanked for removing those inline citations by a NewsandEventsGuy (I believe) because there was no discussion and I reverted based on BRD and initiated a discussion there. You're mispresenting me, my work, my discussions with others. You have displayed very poor judgment here, de-facto bullying and Quackguru saw your 'warning' on my page, posted a bogus allegation the same day and you bit, hook line and sinker. Still no diffs provided, and I'd definitely like a different, admin to review the case, and ultimately your conduct which is heavy on threats and bans, not so much with providing evidence and a rationale that reflects your controversial judgment. DVMt (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you just said that you saw the WP:ANI report filed by user QuackGuru and "quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed". First, user QuackGuru filed a WP:ANI case against me under the accusation of I following him to other articles. So far, user QuackGuru has not even agreed to provide a list of the supposed articles where I'd have been following him to. User QuackGuru hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims, neither have you Kww. Still you decided to give me a warning without any evidence presented. How can you say that your administrative behaviour would be fair and neutral? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DVMt, please see Adminstrator conduct. Maybe you can find hep there if Kww is not going to change his behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I did provide the evidence against User:Jayaguru-Shishya but he choose to ignore it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not true. You have provided no evidence. Please provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock