Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 29 July 2014

Technophant is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Misplaced Pages editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with: altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Misplaced Pages discussions addressed to them; reduced availability on Misplaced Pages during times when they experience issues; limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Misplaced Pages tasks. Thank you for your understanding.

Technophant is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

	Iraq NA‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil. Users who wish to insult, harass or battleground may be asked not to edit on my talk page as per wp:userspace guidelines. Due to personal issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can email me or Thank one of my edit to trigger an alert.

I'm also working on a laptop with a broken screen on an obsolete external monitor and slow internet. If it seems like I'm not willing to read things properly it is more likely an issue of inability to do so and not unwillingness.

If you want to know more (out of concern only) I'm willing to talk about it off-wiki. - Technophant (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked!!

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

Request reason:

While planning my WP:Clean Start attempt I carefully read and re-read the guideline. I recognized that at some time I would want to return to acupuncture after a reliable source for my proposed edits were found. Herein I came to a dilemma, which account should I use or should I do it at all? The guideline seems to give conflicting advice and I was confuzled.

Long story short I should have have asked first. Moving forward I will intend to spirit of the advice and completely avoid all past contentious, difficult, stressful areas. This will involve staying away from alt-med/complimentary medicine article, MEDR discussion/talk or discussion elsewhere, WP:MED, policy/guideline discussions with the exception of Clean Start which I wish to help improve. For the next 30 days I will stick to the two editing only the two projects listed on my talk page which have been problem-free and resist not be afraid to ask for advice first at appropriate forum if I think there will be an issue. I'm not sure what else I can say to help ensure that block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption I think I've learning quite a bit from being blocked and will never take my editing privileges or my fellow editors for granted again. - Technophant (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per modified topic ban language below: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."—Kww(talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant this unblock request. I'd like to hear from Kww first though. Tiptoety 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the discussion at User talk:Technophant#Rewording of topic ban complete first. I'm concerned that Technophant will believe that he only has to follow his suggested new wording.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I submitted a version that is acceptable to me. Adj is indef. away on family emergency. His last edit was on my page. If he were available then this issue would have been resolved by now. Even though I think Adj made a hasty decision I appreciate how he has gone out of his way to try to work with me and seems to want to make his work out right. I respect him for this and from what I've read of he has said about this case I think him and I are going to get along just fine so I don't see how you can justifiy keeping me locked up any longer. I've been civil and willing to work with everybody who's came here. - Technophant (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having followed this a little, I think the whole thing has mainly been a result of confusion and frustration. Technophant's unblock request looks good to me and I can't really see what more he can be expected to say. I would certainly support an unblock now. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks Kww for getting the unblock request. The wording was good by me as well. Mentioning BANEX is fine, but unnecessary...it would have applied anyway...but PLEASE don't try to edit the pages under the exceptions listed there! It will only cause trouble, as definitions of vandalism vary from user to user. It would be much much better to just unwatchlist everything, especially since there seem to be a number of people who would like to see you blocked, and who will probably watch for an excuse to report a violation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I explained below, after Dkriegls posted the wp:profinge link, I gave it a quick look and then made the comment that got me blocked. This is actually what happened. I had already unwatched all the topic related pages. That page was never on my watchlist because as I stated I had never visited it. Now, I'm eager to get off my talk page and get back to work. - Technophant (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewording of topic ban

It seems like it would be a good idea to visit the wording of your topic ban, since there seems to have been confusion on this point. The original wording said "articles and pages" which is more narrow than the community's norms for topic bans. I apologize for the trouble and confusion that has caused you. Here is a wording that more accurately reflects how topic bans are interpreted:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

Thus, an acupuncture related edit to a non-alt-med-related page would still be a violation of the topic ban. Basically, we want you to leave the subject area alone entirely. (User:Dennis Brown said as much in his comment here.) Does that make sense? Once you confirm you understand and agree to a revised wording, and after concerns about your alternate account have been resolved (you need to pick one account and use it exclusively!) I plan on unblocking you, since the edits you made yesterday (with the exception of the one you said you made accidentally to Talk:Acupuncture) were at best borderline violations of the original wording. I will await the comments of you and other interested parties on the revised wording. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your original wording is less ambiguous than you do. If you want to be more precise, I would change "specifically" to "including" in your description above.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, I think that's a better edit, however I would like to bring this to the table: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Violations of this ban may result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Alternative medicine can be defined by reliable sources secondary sources such as and the Mayo Clinic. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."

This revision is instead of being more restrictive it is instead more informative and will be less discouraging to WP:NEWCOMER while being more clear and less intimidating. I'm gathering that you want to put together a better way of topic banning disruptive users in the future and I'm willing to assist in this effort. I suggest putting together a guideline (ie WP:WHATISCAM) that clearly and unambiguously defines which topics are alternative medicine, which topics are complimentary medicine, and which topics can be construed to be wp:fringe. - Technophant (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since that source defines "complementary" medicine as an approach that combined alternative and traditional medicine, it comes under your topic ban. You've also attempted to remove the "broadly construed" language. I think you miss the point. The point is to prevent you from making any edit which relates in any way to alternative medicine, any edit to our policies and guidelines on alternative medicine, or discussing anything, anywhere, that could possibly be construed as related to alternative medicine or our policies and guidelines related to alternative medicine. Your suggested rewording does not accomplish that.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww Isn't there already categories containing articles that considered to be alt-med? Let's drop my wording if you really bother you, but I didn't find anything that was reliably accurate. The problem b4 was I was getting warned for even mentioning the topic ban. If I can't even talk about the topic ban with an admin or another user (in a non pushing sort of way of course) then I that would be intolerable. (Try to imagine the same kind of thing be put upon yourelf). If there is I'll go by that list as an exclude list. I also can live with broadly construed with this important (to me) wording:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

- Technophant (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In my haste to get a 'version out the door' I forgot to include the minor wording change "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban can result in blocks, except where specifically excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made." I see that this will prohibit me from doing certain things I used to be able to do without and controversy cuh any semi-automated editing such as Huggle vandalism patrolling or using a Bot to edit lists of categories. - Technophant (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And again ....

Blocked again

—Kww(talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Talk about clear abuse of admin tools! "Requests for unblock in the event of a case of mistaken identity, misunderstanding, or other irregularity" Users have a right to talk about policies or practices they don't like. This in NO WAY disrupts Misplaced Pages, either in the main space, main talk space, Project space, or Project talk space. If you don't like a particular editor's point of view then unwatch their page. My edits had nothing to do with the topic ban. There is no policy against editing while logged out and it isn't is violation of the topic ban.This is retaliatory, and censorship of freedom of protected speech. - Technophant (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but you dug this hole by yourself. I highly recommend that you take at least a week off and then read WP:GAB before attempting another unblock request. Any request that doesn't specifically address the issue of logging out to participate in a thread about MEDRS (thereby evading your topic ban) is going to be declined, and repeated bad unblock requests will eventually result in talk page access being removed entirely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:04, 27 July 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.

No, you have been blocked for using IPs to evade your topic ban. Participating in a discussion about how to "overthrow the stranglehold of of MEDRS" is clearly a violation of your topic ban, and doing so as an IP shows that you knew it was a violation while you were doing it.—Kww(talk) 06:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at civility thread above. The diff you cite are exactly the contribs in question. Doc James replied "Yes I agree that he can have another chance. Hopefully things will be productive going forwards." To all of sudden go against his opinion (and your own!) shows ignorance (or malice). I HATE IT when admins log out to add in opinions that they don't want to take responsibility for. I that's the first I've done such a thing. You're accusing me of something (being deceptive/socking) with no proof. End this silliness. - Technophant (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Except that this pathetic attempt at deception occurred after the discussion you are pointing to.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of De_minimus? It means "The law does not concern itself with trifles." It is actually a guideline on Commons -Commons:De minimis. Where's your sense of humor? - Technophant (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have none when it comes to socking and ban evasion, nor do I think you were making an effort at humor. It's apparent to me that you have no intent of actually abiding by your topic ban.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley Jmh649 Please take look at this. This isn't either fair or justified. I just got back from a long block (and the emergency room) and I was just about to take a look at my watchlist for the first time in days and start patrolling my project pages for the first time now this. - Technophant (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Please take a look and give your thoughts on this. 208.54.86.251 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Users have a right to talk about policies or practices they don't like. This in NO WAY disrupts Misplaced Pages, either in the main space, main talk space, Project space, or Project talk space. If you don't like a particular editor's point of view then unwatch their page. My edits had nothing to do with the topic ban. This is retaliatory, and censorship of freedom of opinion. That it isn't is violation of the talk ban. - Technophant (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, users actually have no rights at all on Misplaced Pages - there's certainly no "right to talk about policies and practices" that would override a topic ban. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee You say this give no PAG to support to your opinion. Take a look at: Four Rules for Tax-Exempt (California) and my Resignation essay below. Please talk to Gayle Karen Young and ask her opinion. - Technophant (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you actually think that document vindicates you in some way, then your reading comprehension problems are even more serious than they seemed. The only way forward is to own up to ban evasion by IP editing and to make a commitment to not do this in the future. Continued talk page rambling will only get your talk page access revoked.--Atlan (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I did it. I did not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and childish. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I will refrain from further IP edits. Promise. - Technophant (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant (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=I do not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and immature. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I will refrain from further IP edits. I will respect the topic ban. I will work within the system. I did notify a CheckUser regarding my alternate account. I have made no other IP edit. Please contact a CheckUser to get rid of lingering suspicions. - ] (]) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |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=I do not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and immature. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I will refrain from further IP edits. I will respect the topic ban. I will work within the system. I did notify a CheckUser regarding my alternate account. I have made no other IP edit. Please contact a CheckUser to get rid of lingering suspicions. - ] (]) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |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=I do not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and immature. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I will refrain from further IP edits. I will respect the topic ban. I will work within the system. I did notify a CheckUser regarding my alternate account. I have made no other IP edit. Please contact a CheckUser to get rid of lingering suspicions. - ] (]) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm still listening. Not quite believing at this point, but listening. The last time I unblocked you, you said you were going to abide by the terms of your topic ban. You broke that agreement a mere fourteen hours later. Above, you explicitly said that you had not violated your topic ban, and have repeatedly hurled accusations at me, trying to make it appear that I was being dishonest when, in fact, you going back on your word to honor your topic ban. So, tell me: what's changed? What should make me believe that you are being honest at this point?—Kww(talk) 03:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

Hi, thank for your map. Can you please upload a more clear and update map. Unfortunately, it is difficult to read the names of the cities in the current map.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's available in a 2000px format by clicking on the largest format . After it loads you may need to click on it to enlarge it. The map maker has promised to update it every to weeks, so if he does it will be at the end of the month. - Technophant (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I put in a plea? A reader with no knowledge of the area can't tell where the country boundaries are, which is Syria and which is Iraq. Given that land control is such an issue in this conflict, wouldn't it be a good idea to delineate them? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not my map. Find the author on twitter and ask. - Technophant (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was your map; I was just hoping you could perhaps pass the message on. :( I have mentioned this on the ISIS Talk page before but there was no response. I wouldn't know where to begin to find out who created this map and unfortunately don't know how to use Twitter! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1; If you follow Thomas van Linge (@arabthomness) on Twitter he tweets on the posts of Pieter Van Ostaeyen (@p_vanostaeyen) who has a Wordpress blog and also the site http://syria.herokuapp.com/ where he has a chart of daily deaths in Syria (not a RS but interesting). Ok (confused yet? lol) On the Wordpress blog he had been trying to publish maps of Syria and Iraq and update them on a weekly basis, however he hasn't been able to keep up with this. Here's Mapping Iraq ~ July 15th 2014 and Mapping Syria ~ July 15th 2014. Because these are self-made maps and not sourced from a reliable source like our currently used one we could put up links on the talk page, however I only go permission to use the Iraq map (older one) and not unrestricted permission to upload and release all maps. I don't think he would mind, there's no specific copyright notice however that's not enough. I'm a late-comer to Twitter, however it's easy to use. Certainly easier than learning to edit here (with all the markup code and word-salad of innumerable polices and rules (PAG) and essays (which are useful commentary but not official guidelines). Good luck! I've been following the page some. Looks like things are going pretty good. - Technophant (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound clip in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Hello, there. I don't know if you're aware, but the clip doesn't work with Internet Explorer 11, though it works perfectly with Firefox. Just thought I'd mention it. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:P123ct1, If you go to look at http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ you should be able to download the ogg codec. If you need more help go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Media_help - Technophant (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I was thinking more of the general reader. But perhaps most people with IE11 already have the right kind of software to hear the clip. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't do much about it. Ogg is the only format commons allows. - Technophant (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note about edit warring

Based on what I've seen of your recent actions, it appears that you don't understand what edit warring is because you keep doing it. I highly recommend that you read the links in the templates above, since you have had two edit warring reports filed against you in the past couple of days. (Note in particular that 3RR doesn't mean that you don't get 3 reverts for free...I have seen editors blocked for as little as 1 revert.) Anyway, now that you've been around the block twice, the admins at the edit warring noticeboard are probably going to be giving you much less leeway. Other essays I hope you'll read are WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which you often appear to be on the wrong side of. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

got it - Technophant (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban from Alternative Medicine

Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, why would they ban someone from talking about alternative medicine? Did I understand correctly that this is why you are considering retirement? As a daily user of Misplaced Pages, I'm asking you to reconsider. The work you have done here is invaluable, please stick around, and don't let the A-holes win!! Peace and love! YS 50.53.148.252 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Adjwilley&Kww- I took a look and can't find a template:TopBan or anything of that sort. Wouldn't it nice to have one? Where can a find the wording of the updated version? - Technophant (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see it. It's in the unblock reason. I'll keep the template up on my talk page. - Technophant (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Canvassing

I came here to give you a heads up, but after looking at your comment page I feel like it might just feel like piling on. So first some encouragement. I got all types of knocked around when I first started editing here years ago. I got angry, frustrated, and almost gave up. We often get motivated to edit pages we care deeply about. And without understanding Misplaced Pages culture, we get frustrated. But that is not all that this encyclopedia is about. We use it to research so much more. I encourage you to take some time and edit articles that aren't nearly as debated as Acupuncture. It will help you learn the ways of Misplaced Pages, reduce your frustration, and help you get some positive editing under your belt. Many Misplaced Pages policies are only learned after you violate them. If you are already frustrated and emotionally involved when an editor points out your violation, it rarely becomes a lesson learned and instead feels more like piling on punishment.

So for instance, a minor little rule that you in know way could have known until you broke it is Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. This edit you made encouraging LesVegas to join the RFC could have been less biased. It's okay to ask friendly editors to come join a discussion about you, but it is discouraged to try and bias them prior by calling your fellow editors "hardened core of skeptics that just don't want things to change". Now I'm the type who likes to let new editors know about stuff like this, but if you are in a heated debate with some editors, they will interpret this as bad faith and assume you are only here to push your agenda. The best way to learn this stuff is to edit "easy" articles where the information isn't likely to be debated and is easily sourced. Then when you get knowledgeable about policy, you move back to the issue the got you editing in the first place. I hope this serves as a bit of encouragement, even though it came from a friendly skeptic ;) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

response

Some ppl need to let things go. Misplaced Pages has changed a lot. I got interested in editing again recently when the ISIS crisis broke. I became the number 2 contributor with only one deleted edit and nothing but warm, friendly relations with other editors. However, There's something wrong with sceptic scene. It seems to attract sadists. I do think its best to avoid that whole thing. - Technophant (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more that skeptics tend to patrol the most contentions pages. Trust me though, I have found uncompromising editors creating frustration at the most obscure pages, over the most asinine details. After a while I ask myself if it was even worth it to engage said person. I am glad you have found a positive editing experience. Feel free to ask me any policy questions that you find yourself getting frustrated with. Always happy to help. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Dkriegls, here's my theory. Promoters of unorthodox ideologies (theories) of course like, believe and strongly feel their theories. Likewise promoters of skeptic ideologies (theories) like, believe and strongly feel their theories. The difference between the two is that the former have very specific beliefs while the latter have much more generalized (broader) beliefs. The premise of WP's consensus philosophy requires adequate representation of the whole spectrum of beliefs. It works, usually. However in the case of alt vs. skepticism, the skeptics will almost always pervade. Skeptic debunkers get a dopamine bump (high) from being right (debunking) any "fringe" theory, however owners of minority orthodox theories only get a get a bump from supporting their specific theories. Hence the problem in alt vs. skepticism debates. - Technophant (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are spot on about the emotional commitment to the argument (on both sides). But I think a lot of frustration stems not because "the skeptics will almost always pervade" but because WP:PROFRINGE puts the burden of proof on the fringe theory, thus allowing less civil skeptics to dismiss it out of hand. Skeptics also jump from debate to debate (fine tuning their knowledge of Misplaced Pages debates) while fringe theorists often have one or two theories they try to promote, thus limiting themselves to the finer points of Misplaced Pages policy debates. That's why I always encourage the frustrated to spend more time working on other Misplaced Pages articles. It took me a long time to learn how this whole community works, and I am still learning new tricks of the trade all the time. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dkriegls FYI, after you posted this I clicked on the profinge link, gave it a quick look and then made the comment that got me blocked. For all those who think I was, well whatever, this is actually what happened. (sigh) - Technophant (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, regarding these edits - you made those edits to an archived noticeboard discussion. Do not modify the contents of an archive page. It says right at the top, Do not edit the contents of this page.

Regarding your recent edits here and here, you make reference to a subject area in your topic ban. These edits are ill-advised, you really must not be making any kind of reference to that subject area at all. I am pinging Adjwilley here to review those edits and possibly comment or take action. It is normal for someone newly under a sanction to test the limits of that sanction, but you need to know that this testing period is now over, and you really must stay away from the subject area completely. Any kind of reference to it, no matter if oblique or sly (referring to the last two diffs), can very easily result in further sanctions. Zad68 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit refraction, disruptive editing by User:BullRangifer ("Brangifer")

In the past week this user has made personal attacks, given me false/incorrect information regarding PAN on talk pages, threatened me with blocks/bans numerous times. However in this edit on my old account, he not only is he only wrong - he also removed my Inactive template. Due to his bull-headed nature, and complete unwillingness to compromise or act in good faith I am hereby blocking him from editing my talk pages. I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to please restore my talkpage template. I said I will not use that account again and I will not allow this user to be a timesink to me any longer. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That was an unintended deletion and I have restored the template. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer, despite my being clearly and unambiguously being told (before the block and without any community objection) that you are not to write on my talk page here you have twice thought that your unapologetic actions (and above does not count as apology for your personal attacks etc.) can just be allowed because??? If this user wants to have his views represented here he MUST either get another user (except Quack Guru who has also be disallowed) to represent his views instead. This is topic-wide sanity check and I am not simply trying to block him for expressing a viewpoint. - Technophant (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank you for respecting my wishes. I would prefer to archive my userpage but it is impossible to create an archive while being restricted to only this talk page. You can reply to this message here. - Technophant (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be very happy to help create an archive for you and proceed to archive some of your stuff. I can recover stuff from the history so the archived material is complete. Is that okay? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Bulldog, (if you don't me calling you that), you can go ahead and take all my diffs marked "cleanup" and move them to an archive page. I would appreciate it if you set up Mizabot as well. Thx. - Technophant (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Since my username has to do with extremely peaceful reindeer, not pitbulls, I'd rather you just call me Brangifer or BullRangifer. I'm a "bull rangifer", IOW a bull reindeer/caribou. I've shot 16 of them in Greenland. You can read my article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland if you want to learn more about that subject.

I'll start the archiving, but someone else will have to do the Mizabot part, since I've never done it. - Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've archived that material. There was a lot of it! It won't likely be an exact picture of your page from before the last date on the last post in that archive, but I don't see any way to do that now, simply because what you deleted was selectively chosen from in the middle of lots of other content.

In the future, if you'll just identify, from top to bottom, the lowest section where there hasn't been any activity above that point for some time, and then archive everything above that point (empty it all above that point), you'll end up with an archive that essentially recreates what's happened on your talk page. That's the general idea with an archive. Just keep whatever headings you wish to always have at the top.

Just add new material to the bottom of the archive. When it gets too long, start a new one, using the same URL format and header code. The Mizabot part is something I can't do, so you'll need to ask someone else. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Brangifer (User:AntiqueReader) Thanks. There is a lot, almost all from this month. I have trouble with learning new names, can I call you Bullranger? That won't be confusing to other editors and doesn't seem offensive. If you would take a look at you'll see all my contribs from account start to the end of June. It doesn't take much to see I'm a productive editor with a wide varieties of interests with a focus on the Middle East. No edit wars, no conflicts, no diva statements, just productive edits. I wish the last two weeks would just go away so I can go back to doing what I enjoy, contributing. - Technophant (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you "oh no it's Mr. Bill!" (lulz from SNL). In this restricted state I can't even use the Thank feature. :-{ If you take a look a what I posted above, my contrib history from start to end of June you'll see nothing but solid editing, no drama. The problems started 16 July (right before this episode started) when a doctor mistakenly gave me a Decadron steroid shot in my wrist even though I had it in my chart that I'm allergic to it. That drug is notorious for causing agitation, paranoia, insomnia, aggression, obsessive hyperactive behavior in around 15% of patients. I emailed User:Jmh649 because of his medical background I thought he'd understand.

Decadron's bad news, and it's long lasting. In the past reactions from Decadron have caused me to lose a job, fights with family, getting in conflicts with friends and roommates causing me to get kicked out an more. Unf. it's long lasting and there's no antidote. As on doctor told me "you can't un-inject the drug, you just have to wait it out." From the medical literature and past experience it takes around a month for it wear off, so I'm going to apologize both for my past actions and potential future ones. I see two options here, either we wait until August 16th to unblock me, or we come to a consensus that even a mentally disturbed editor can still be productive even though he isn't quite right in the head. I prefer the later. While there's perhaps 100,000 active editors, there's only 6k roll-backers like myself and perhaps even fewer with the editing experience and Wikimarkup experience I have. Yes, there's others that can do these things but the lose of any experienced edit is a loss to the whole project as a whole, a lose that should be avoided if at all possible.

In summary, we all go through episodes, some more than other. I think what's important is who we are inside, not the sum of our mistakes. Cam you agree with me on this?? - Technophant (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't assess whats important about people. I just do my best to get along with them. Second, I am sorry if you have had a bad experience with a medication. I hope all is (or is soon) well. Third, I will take no position on your blocking/unblocking I leave that to administrators. I would guess your block will be lifted at some time. Finally, I'm not sure why you would want to resume editing when not able and ready to act responsibly. It is really not my business though. I wish you well and hope at some time you return to the project fruitfully and happily. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Accomplishments

I am one of the top contributors to the controversial militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Since I started editing the page in on June 15th I've had nothing but positive experiences with the other contributors to the article with zero edit wars or other conflicts.

I've also been diligent in trying to prevent potentially unreliable information such as fake Snowden leaks from getting included in the discussion as seen here: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Alleged Snowden leaks - Technophant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I hope this bit of encouragement makes you feel less unnoticed for your recent constructive edits --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewording of topic ban

It seems like it would be a good idea to visit the wording of your topic ban, since there seems to have been confusion on this point. The original wording said "articles and pages" which is more narrow than the community's norms for topic bans. I apologize for the trouble and confusion that has caused you. Here is a wording that more accurately reflects how topic bans are interpreted:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

Thus, an acupuncture related edit to a non-alt-med-related page would still be a violation of the topic ban. Basically, we want you to leave the subject area alone entirely. (User:Dennis Brown said as much in his comment here.) Does that make sense? Once you confirm you understand and agree to a revised wording, and after concerns about your alternate account have been resolved (you need to pick one account and use it exclusively!) I plan on unblocking you, since the edits you made yesterday (with the exception of the one you said you made accidentally to Talk:Acupuncture) were at best borderline violations of the original wording. I will await the comments of you and other interested parties on the revised wording. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your original wording is less ambiguous than you do. If you want to be more precise, I would change "specifically" to "including" in your description above.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, I think that's a better edit, however I would like to bring this to the table: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Violations of this ban may result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Alternative medicine can be defined by reliable sources secondary sources such as and the Mayo Clinic. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."

This revision is instead of being more restrictive it is instead more informative and will be less discouraging to WP:NEWCOMER while being more clear and less intimidating. I'm gathering that you want to put together a better way of topic banning disruptive users in the future and I'm willing to assist in this effort. I suggest putting together a guideline (ie WP:WHATISCAM) that clearly and unambiguously defines which topics are alternative medicine, which topics are complimentary medicine, and which topics can be construed to be wp:fringe. - Technophant (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since that source defines "complementary" medicine as an approach that combined alternative and traditional medicine, it comes under your topic ban. You've also attempted to remove the "broadly construed" language. I think you miss the point. The point is to prevent you from making any edit which relates in any way to alternative medicine, any edit to our policies and guidelines on alternative medicine, or discussing anything, anywhere, that could possibly be construed as related to alternative medicine or our policies and guidelines related to alternative medicine. Your suggested rewording does not accomplish that.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww Isn't there already categories containing articles that considered to be alt-med? Let's drop my wording if you really bother you, but I didn't find anything that was reliably accurate. The problem b4 was I was getting warned for even mentioning the topic ban. If I can't even talk about the topic ban with an admin or another user (in a non pushing sort of way of course) then I that would be intolerable. (Try to imagine the same kind of thing be put upon yourelf). If there is I'll go by that list as an exclude list. I also can live with broadly construed with this important (to me) wording:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

- Technophant (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In my haste to get a 'version out the door' I forgot to include the minor wording change "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban can result in blocks, except where specifically excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made." I see that this will prohibit me from doing certain things I used to be able to do without and controversy cuh any semi-automated editing such as Huggle vandalism patrolling or using a Bot to edit lists of categories. - Technophant (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nil desperandum

I now wish I had responded to your request for help with the Acupuncture article. It was not that I did not want to help, but rather that I know next to nothing about the subject and am heavily involved with ISIS and al-Baghdadi stuff (those b footnotes, which are nearly all incomplete, and some of them plain wrong), so did not respond. I was going to say then that I sympathize with you over the treatment you are getting on that subject, because it is my strong impression that Misplaced Pages is obstructive and difficult about so called "fringe" medicine and almost anything related to it. I wrote a long post some time back letting rip about this on Misplaced Pages but now cannot find it. It is not from personal experience, but what I sense others who try to edit on these subjects experience. Please do not give up. Your help and work on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi articles has been immense and valuable, to everyone, and you are vigilant, as I try to be as well. It is alarming how things can slip in unnoticed, which is why I always check the latest on the View History pages to see all is well (as far I can tell from my limited knowledge). I would not be surprised if your trouble stems from the subject rather than your editing. Now to what I really came here for:-

@Technophant You asked me some time ago about how notification of messages works now. This is the answer I have just had on the Village Pump Help desk to a query I had which I thought might help:-

If a message is left on a general Talk page or Help desk for a particular user in this form, @Username:, is the user automatically alerted that they have a message? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Yes, provided that (a) the link to the user's home page (which might be in the form of a {{replyto}}) gets added in the same post that your signature was added and (b) at Preferences → Notifications they have "Mention" enabled (for either Web or Email); if it's enabled for web only, they also need to have "⧼echo-pref-new-message-indicator⧽" (on the same page) enabled. More at WP:ECHO. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

One excellent way of getting a user's attention who may otherwise be swamped with mentions is to Thank them for one of their contribs. It builds good will and recognition and will stand out among the din.

I hope this ban is not universal. You would be sorely missed on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi pages. If there is anything I can do to help support you, please let me know. Keep your chin up! --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

PS I will try to find my post on alternative medicine. I think Misplaced Pages are heavily biased against it, whatever they may say, which definitely flouts NPOV. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, please do.Technophant (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, however I do have a knack for legal issues and did quite a bit of work on wp:law re constitutional and case law. If this were a case in a court of law it should be thrown out without prejudice, ie no finding of fault being issued on the plaintiff. If there's a miscarriage in justice, an appeal can be made an easily won, with possible findings of misconduct being filed to the witnesses who provided false depositions.

The former result is obviously preferential. If the finding is a dismissal with prejudice there will be a mark in the public record that the block was warranted the patronizing and often inaccurate warnings will stain on my reputation forever. - Technophant (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone would ever get anything better than palm tree justice from Misplaced Pages, with the all-powerful judges being the administrators. : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an important and not readily transparent policy on how to bring up issues regarding reporting admins. I really do hope this block is resolved swiftly and fairly. It seems surreal... (:-X) - Technophant (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Something or someone has altered what I said in my last post. I did not put "Nil desperandum" (in red), I put "palm tree justice"! I checked my post before sending it, too. I cannot understand it. I hope the block ends soon as well. Good luck. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:P123ct1 That was my bad, copy-paste error. Fixed. BTW: simply putting putting in somebody's wikilinked user name of the template username will generate a notice. Adding the @ means that you want to address the comment specifically to that user. These new to me additions to the WP framework really do help make sure conversations are followed up upon. - Technophant (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Answering allegations of sockpuppetry, attempted outings, and the truth of why I hid my identity

While this is not explicitly a block due to socking, the innuendo is obvious. user:Adjwilley wrote here that "I didn't see a voluntary coming clean in this edit. Note that the relationship between Technophant and Stillwaterising was removed, but both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject. The edit he was blocked over was neither of the ones you mention, but this one. Note that the block is indefinite, not infinite. If he makes a reasonable unblock request and you think he will actually comply with his topic ban, I'm not going to whine if you grant it.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)"

While this is technically true, the total time that "both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject was a mere 105 minutes. During that time I was editing my userpages and planning my homecoming and made no edits in main space. You can see for yourself in the history. No ill intent can be deferred from this. I was planning on deactivating this legally created and maintained alternate sum wp:clean start account and reactivating my original account. After my sudden unexpected WP:OUTING here I immediately acknowledged the topic ban and prematurely had to disclose myself. The reason for resigning from Misplaced Pages as Stillwaterising and deciding to convert my disused alternate account has to do with my involvement in bringing the Wikiporn scandal to the public's attention. This resulted in and a very serious legal threat accompanied by personal attack and attempted outing by a Wikimedia staff member.

(more) Instead of going to the board with this or the media I internalized it and told no-one. The fear, hatred, and resentment quickly got to me and I resigned in disgust. In order to leave the past behind, I was hoping for a fresh start by building my edits and reputation with the hopes of being an administrator one day. That's all up in the air right now. I'm no longer afraid to speak out, and I'm no longer trying to hide my true identity. I'm not trying to make this project into my personal battleground. I just want to get the same right and privileges and protections as other project members. Whether paid or unpaid, admin or newcomer I view all legitimate users as equals in a global virtual workshop. Being an admin does not excuse from behavior that would not be accceptable inside the WM Foundation's office building. Technophant (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep talking about Adjwilley. I blocked you and left messages on you talk page, not him. So your plan was to retire the Technophant account and with a "clean start" Stillwaterising account continue to edit freely?—Kww(talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me, it's the inverse. I wasn't sure which account I was going to go with but I had def. had enough of "splitting myself" into two. The confusion is completely understandable. - Technophant (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You said in response to the SPI allegations from the most tenacious (and obnoxious) quackguru: "Your evidence linking Technophant to Stillwaterising is rock solid, but there's no evidence of a crime" so why the idefinate block for a comment Adjwilly said is simply "philosophical musings?" You seem to have jumped the gun and are unwilling to just go ahead and admit the mistake? Come on, really?! - Technophant (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a case of "no harm no foul". I was so upset over this I stayed up all night worrying about this. Now it's 9am and I have a splitting headache and the block still continues. This has been both harmful and foul and its against everything WP is supposed to be about. - Technophant (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit you were blocked for was made after my comment to QG.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww! You are acting as if you are unaware that you made a mistake. This diff clearly shows that you were informed by user:Adjwilley that you made a HUGE mistake and you agree to unblock me, HOWEVER you INSIST that your block was justified in every way. I don't know you from Adam but I do see a problem here. I think this should go to RfC/U and there's a consensus it will need to go to arbitration. Sorry, but this is too big of a deception to say "oops" and pretend like you don't know you did something wrong. - Technophant (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your reading comprehension skills. Adjwilley did not inform me that I made a huge mistake. I did not agree to unblock you. I have not said "oops" in any fashion, and I am pretending nothing. Your original unblock request is still up, being reviewed by multiple admins. Sooner or later, someone will deny or accept it. At this point, I would still recommend denying it. Since I'm the original blocking admin, I'm not permitted to deny it myself. That's our system for guaranteeing an independent review of all blocks, and your block is being independently reviewed. So far, no reviewer has decided that your block was erroneous.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify my wp:RfC/U request; You are acting as if you are unaware that you made a mistake. This diff clearly shows that you were informed by user:Adjwilley that you made a HUGE mistake and you agree to unblock me, However, you INSIST that your block was justified in every way. I see a big problem here. This should go to WP:RfC/U and there's a consensus that you are being deceptive, it will probably need to go to arbitration. This is too big of a deception to say "oops" and pretend like you don't know you did something wrong. - Technophant (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify too. I did not say that Kww made a Huge mistake. I said that I was troubled that they were the one making the block. The block could have been made by any administrator, and was not outside of community norms, though I suspect many admins would have just done a 24 hour block or something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of this discussion makes it clear that you aren't reading. There's no deception involved, I didn't make a mistake, and no one is saying that I have made a huge mistake. I don't know how anyone could have faith that you will abide for a topic ban when you don't demonstrate sufficient reading comprehension for me to believe that you understand your topic ban.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ok, please check the logs for Stillwatering there was a topic ban discussion regarding the legality of an image and an edit that was construed as a legal threat. Now look if I have any edits regarding com:sex, alt-sex, wp:porn, whatever on this account. If you can find one I would likely years ago. There's proof positive that I can get the message of what and where I'm not being constructive and can change that energy into something positive like being top contributor and well liked in ISIS (militant group). This all shouldn't take long to verifify. Also, I challenge my critics to find an edit where I am knowingly lying to a user. If this all checks out then I really shouldn't have been topic banned blocked. - Technophant (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I also have no history of edit warring, user reporting, or any known disputes with any editor withing the topic of the middle-east and Islam and these are supposedly controversial topics. Take a look at ISIS. Any history of edit wars or battleground? Isn't that kinda surprising being that it gets 50k views/day???? A sizable part of that is from my experience and guidance on the talk pages. - Technophant (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is some kind of major accomplishment that you get along normally with other people on 1 article? Getting along normally should be the norm, not the exception. And in what way is how you get along on ISIS (militant group) related to your block? And how does that show that Kww is deceptive and is making a big mistake? Nothing you say seems to have any bearing on the subject of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Atlan, the subject of this essay section titled "Answering allegations of sockpuppetry, attempted outings, and the truth of why I hid my identity" and I wrote it it is in response to Adjwilley's inquiry as to how can I show that if unblocked I can continue to edit productively. I'm really beginning to tire at this broken record kind of tactics to try to get me to answer the topic ban issue (already done above in great deatil) and the issue of potential SPI issues regarding the use of my alternate account.

Actually I had been editing (as a wp:clean start attempt to try and really follow the guideline and try to get the 'ick' off me from my primarily in the topics of aviation. I used to help build flight simulators I used to also fly flight sims and model gliders. I copy edited and refimproved Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (part of the transponder system) and I put in a merger request for Traffic Information Service – Broadcast helped and contributed toward fact checking the Flight 370 article.

I've never seen ANY user EVER have to go through this much effort just to get a closing decision on a block request. From here on out I rest my case. If anybody else asks "but how does relate to ...?" it probably won't be answered. - Technophant (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On a side note what is an "esoteric claim about medicine"? I googled it but the only search result is the page itself. I looked up esoteric in the dictionary and now I'm even more confused. - Technophant (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see something like "sixth chakra ascending radiance" being esoteric, however the page could be more clear regarding alternative/complimentary medicine (what is or isn't esoteric). Still reading... - Technophant (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that I need to stay away from the page Intelligent design even though I think it's not a good example of truly fringe idea? How can I tell what's declared fringe or not? Talk headers? Surely religion doesn't apply, (even though I can easily see how my own (Baha'i) would be considered such). - Technophant (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Declined unblock

I've restored the declined unblock that you removed - a declined unblock is one of the few things you are not allowed to remove while blocked. (So to answer the question in your edit summary "do i resuse the template or start a new one?", yes, a new one.) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

When I saw the unblock template I was focused on the unblock reason and failed to notice non-removal instructions. If you take look at the template and introduction to my template you'll see that I'm having multiple issues that interferred with vision and judgement. IF I'm ever blocked again I'll make sure not to do that again. - Technophant (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility

Making this sort of comment as an IP is not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If that had come after this latest cycle instead of before, the block would quickly be reinstated. It's sad to see that someone that was so loudly proclaiming that he was not socking was, in fact, socking. If you do that again, Technophant, I doubt that anyone would ever lift the resulting block.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree that he can have another chance. Hopefully things will be productive going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 If you look at this diff you'll see I gave you a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and sincere apology. You borderline snarky reply and the above comment shows to me that you aren't ready to forgive and forget. I suggest you move on, I plan to. - Technophant (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible Resignation

The Misplaced Pages of old, as immortalized in the 5 pillars created by Jimmy Wales and a few other free spirits, has been crushed, gone, replaced by a battle ground where only the well-connected few succeed. Civility is gone. Ignore all rules (except the five pillars) has been replaced by a confusing word-salad of cryptic acronyms (instruction creep). Neutral point of view has been replaced by a sickening spooge-covered mess of fringe-bashing articles that pass for "encyclopedic". And the most revolutionary and egalitarian part, Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, only applies to those who use IP edits and aren't afraid of being reverted mercilessly because they don't conform to the wp:tag team's point of view. ENOUGH!!!

In addition, all editor and especially admins should conform to Wikimedia's Foundation polices including Friendly Space Policy and Whistleblower policy. Everybody who volunteers for Wikimedia are volunteer employees. Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following and failure to treat other people with respect should be ground for immediate termination. Reporting procedures should be clearly posted and easy to complete. Contact Chief Talent and Culture Officer Gayle Karen Young for more information. I used to really really enjoy editing WP. Maybe someday the Board will once again take the reigns and get this project back on track. - Technophant (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This is a token of appreciation for your work on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, where your many contributions have been unfailingly helpful and your vigilance and attention to detail much appreciated. P123ct1 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't know how much this means to me. I feel like I want to cry. - Technophant (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 What happened to my farewell message on the ISIS talk page? Was it removed? - Technophant (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ask that question, when the diff you provide shows you obviously know the answer? Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not melodramatic retirement messages.--Atlan (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I never even saw it on the page, but Atlan removed it on 24 July at 2.54 UTC saying, "This page is not for goodbye messages". Please reconsider resigning - after all, the block decision has not been settled yet, has it? It would be a pity to let one bad experience on one Misplaced Pages page stop you editing altogether. As you said, you had such a good experience on our pages, so why not on possibly countless others in the future? I can understand exactly why you feel as you do (...) but as I said before I really think the trouble stems from the subject. I still can't find my long post, but someone on the Help Desk has told me how I might track it down. Does this ban mean you can't even go to the ISIS/al-Baghdadi pages? (Gone midnight here in the UK.) --P123ct1 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

user:P123ct1 My topic ban only pertains to the area of alternative medicine, specifically acupuncture, so areas pertaining to ISIS, Iraq, and middle-eastern studies are perfectly ok as far as I know. Atlan Your reason for removal of my talk page entry mentioned re my farewell notice is not sustained by PAG. There is no such thing as wp:nofarewells but there are WP:PRINCIPLES. I recommend you restore the edit and the help desk. I am the most experienced contributor on the ISIS page and part of most every discussion regarding sources, PAG etc. Notifying the ISIS team about my block/ban/resignation is appropriate and relevant to the growth of the article. Congratulating fellow contributors is appropriate as well. Please don't try to "make me disappear". No good can come from this. - Technophant (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate place for a farewell message, plain and simple. There is no such thing as an "ISIS team" that needs to know what you are doing at all times. You are not the "most experienced contributor" on the ISIS page, at least not by any way I can measure that (not that it matters). The way you're putting it, it would seem the ISIS page should fall into chaos once the great Technophant stops editing there. While I certainly think you are a positive force on the ISIS pages, you are greatly exaggerating your influence there. And why would you want a farewell message anyway? It seems to me that once unblocked, you would gladly go back to editing there.--Atlan (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no WP:Nofarewells but there is WP:DFTD which may be a reason some people don't look kindly on publicized farewell messages. I don't like that essay myself, and my favorite essay on the subject isn't on Misplaced Pages at all: meatball:GoodBye. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

user:P123ct1, I know this whole block/ban thing seems confusing. It is to me as well. Editors have just as much right as admins to make add your opinions regarding policies, blocks, bans, and noticeboard discussions. You can also try to bring this issue to the awareness of other editors or the community at large as long as you follow the wp:canvassing guidelines. I'm very proud of you P, you've shown a lot of heart and determination. My ability to edit is confined to my talk page for as long as the block lasts, however I'm free to edit any other Wikimedia project including Commons. Keep up the good work, I hope to be back soon. - Technophant (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am horrified at Atlan's unkind words. I some time ago came to the conclusion (from looking at other user pages and talk pages) that Misplaced Pages can be a snakepit. It almost put me off editing once. I cannot imagine what it must be like being at the receiving end of such unpleasantness. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I said he is a positive force on the ISIS page, but that he is exaggerating this fact. First as leverage for an unblock, then as a reason for special treatment on the article talk page. Oh my how unkind. I'm quite the snake.--Atlan (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipe>゜Ͻ～～～～～～ - Technophant (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• NA-Class Iraq pages
• NA-importance Iraq pages
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Requests for unblock