| Revision as of 18:53, 13 January 2011 editShuzammy (talk | contribs)69 edits →Edit warring at Miracle Mineral Supplement← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:41, 10 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| There are no "mods" on Misplaced Pages and myself and Andy are not even ]. I'm already ] and can't work for big pharma at the same time <sarcasm>. Can we please discuss the changes you've made on the MMS talk page? For a controversial article, it is best to do so first and especially after two more experienced editors have raised questions with your edits. I'd prefer for you to discuss it, rather than be blocked from editing at all by edit warring. Thanks ] (]) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Friend, I have clearly and simply removed bias and non-neutrality and left much of the preceding antagonistic spin without adding anything that might be construed as overtly protagonist. Malaria Initiative is not poorly sourced as it refers to the work of the two Doctors mentioned. Point and case that someone intends to purposely omit relevant information pertaining to the subject in question (i.e. bonafied research regarding preceding claims of malaria treatment). You allege I have misinterpreted a source about water purification. Patently false. I have added no interpretation to anything anywhere. Merely removed spin. I ask, will you act honorably in regards to this article? I challenge you to read the article as I have edited it and tell me where it is weighted protagonist, then read it the prior way and see what any reasonable human being with a thinking mind can see. This article has been purposely wrangled away from neutrality by a tag-team of biased POV editors. Are you one of them? ] (]) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Edit warring at ] == | ||
| Raised at ] ] (]) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] 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 ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ].</p></div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| == Welcome == | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Why precisely have you blocked me and why do you list sock-puppetry? I have not created a new account. Clearly if you READ the article WITH my edits you will find the topic has been wrangled back to neutrality and serves the purpose of providing factual non-biased information on the subject as it should. Yet, if you read the complaining editor's revisions, you will note within the first sentence, and throughout, the entire article is overtly biased. I assume you are a reasonably minded admin? These complaining editors are a tag team and are using this forum to advance their own opinion on the topic. What is WIKI's gig here? Factual, neutral and non-biased information? Please read the actual article. Should it not remain free of gross bias? Why should I or anyone be banned for supporting that Please remove my ban, restore the article and allow it take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration. | decline={]. — ] (]) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, Shuzammy, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's ], and may soon be deleted. | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1="The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Misplaced Pages". Forgive me. Certain editors and admins that have touched this article or the issues that stem from it are clearly biased and have failed in their charge to remain neutral. My edits were NOT IN FACT disruptive to Misplaced Pages but a correction to an article and an idea (WIKIPEDIA and non-bias neutrality) that has evidently lost its way. Reading this article in both reverted and edited states will prove this out. Please unblock, revert and allow this article to take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Misplaced Pages. | decline="I am right and they are wrong" is not an exemption from the ]. Your first edit to the article's talk page was ''after'' you had reverted three different editors in just over an hour. Please understand that discussion is the way to achieve consensus. ]] 07:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called ''']'''. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''{{t|helpme}}''' on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on ]. <!-- Template:First article --> Again, welcome! ''']]''' 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock puppet investigation == | |||
| ⚫ | == Edit warring at ] == | ||
| Please take note of ]. ] (]) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for ]. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a ]. A contribution you made to ] appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npov1 -->] (]) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users who ] or refuse to ] with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the ] states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the ] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains ] among editors. If unsuccessful, then '''do not edit war even if you believe you are right'''. Post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If edit warring continues, '''you may be ] from editing''' without further notice. <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Very clearly, Andy Dingley, you have an agenda and you are using your mod permissions to advance it. Clearly this article is biased and opinionated and anyone who does not see that is dishonorable in their purpose and intent. All I have done is remove the obvious and blatant non-neutrality of the article, leaving the negative links and articles intact. Check yourself brother. | |||
Latest revision as of 08:41, 10 April 2022
There are no "mods" on Misplaced Pages and myself and Andy are not even administrators. I'm already working for big tobacco and can't work for big pharma at the same time <sarcasm>. Can we please discuss the changes you've made on the MMS talk page? For a controversial article, it is best to do so first and especially after two more experienced editors have raised questions with your edits. I'd prefer for you to discuss it, rather than be blocked from editing at all by edit warring. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Friend, I have clearly and simply removed bias and non-neutrality and left much of the preceding antagonistic spin without adding anything that might be construed as overtly protagonist. Malaria Initiative is not poorly sourced as it refers to the work of the two Doctors mentioned. Point and case that someone intends to purposely omit relevant information pertaining to the subject in question (i.e. bonafied research regarding preceding claims of malaria treatment). You allege I have misinterpreted a source about water purification. Patently false. I have added no interpretation to anything anywhere. Merely removed spin. I ask, will you act honorably in regards to this article? I challenge you to read the article as I have edited it and tell me where it is weighted protagonist, then read it the prior way and see what any reasonable human being with a thinking mind can see. This article has been purposely wrangled away from neutrality by a tag-team of biased POV editors. Are you one of them? User:Shuzammy (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Miracle Mineral Supplement
Raised at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shuzammy_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
Shuzammy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why precisely have you blocked me and why do you list sock-puppetry? I have not created a new account. Clearly if you READ the article WITH my edits you will find the topic has been wrangled back to neutrality and serves the purpose of providing factual non-biased information on the subject as it should. Yet, if you read the complaining editor's revisions, you will note within the first sentence, and throughout, the entire article is overtly biased. I assume you are a reasonably minded admin? These complaining editors are a tag team and are using this forum to advance their own opinion on the topic. What is WIKI's gig here? Factual, neutral and non-biased information? Please read the actual article. Should it not remain free of gross bias? Why should I or anyone be banned for supporting that Please remove my ban, restore the article and allow it take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration.
Decline reason:
{WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (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.
Shuzammy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Misplaced Pages". Forgive me. Certain editors and admins that have touched this article or the issues that stem from it are clearly biased and have failed in their charge to remain neutral. My edits were NOT IN FACT disruptive to Misplaced Pages but a correction to an article and an idea (WIKIPEDIA and non-bias neutrality) that has evidently lost its way. Reading this article in both reverted and edited states will prove this out. Please unblock, revert and allow this article to take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Misplaced Pages.
Decline reason:
"I am right and they are wrong" is not an exemption from the three revert rule. Your first edit to the article's talk page was after you had reverted three different editors in just over an hour. Please understand that discussion is the way to achieve consensus. Tiderolls 07:00, 14 January 2011 (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.
Sock puppet investigation
Please take note of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuzammy. Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)