Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 25 July 2014

Technophant is currently frustrated and may be unresponsive to certain discussions.

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)

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)

@Technophant: These edits are not compliant with the topic ban notified above:

• At WT:WikiProject Medicine#Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold comment: 03:09, 24 July 2014.

This has nothing to do with the topic ban. It's comment on site-wide policy. - Technophant (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More, but I do see your point. I'll refrain. - Technophant (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• At Talk:Acupuncture#Edit warring rather than getting consensus comment: 06:01, 24 July 2014.

Topic bans are strictly enforced so please do not edit or comment about those topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad on this one, I had several pages open, I thought it was a user talk page. I took all the CBAN pages off my watchlist. - Technophant (talk) 12:12, 24 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)

@User:Dkriegls,I'm beginning this has nothing to do with canvassing OR wp:fringe. It's just bias, group bias. What is coordinated biased group edit called? This topic ban is definitely going to arbitration now. I'm a stickler about following PAG, even essays and well-thought out talk discussions are all wisely considered. WR (or whatever its current incarnation is) will have a field day about this one. I just want the same AGF any other established editor takes for granted. - Technophant (talk) 07:16, 25 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)

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)

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)

Blocked

—Kww(talk) 04:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:Kww Seriously? That seems pretty weak. I was blocked from accu and alt medicine right? I could have left off the examples and the statement would stand to make the same point. Is this have something more to do with the check user issue? - Technophant (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. WP:FRINGE includes alternative medicine. I have a hard time believing that your series of "mistakes" is anything but trying to test your limits. You found them.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't read it. I have probably a thousand edits under my previous/main username User:Stillwaterising, including the creation of Lumbar provocative discography and very very very few of them could be considered alt-med even in today's environment and all were properly sourced. - Technophant (talk) 05:06, 25 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)

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

Request reason:

This user account is a bot operated by Stillwaterising (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn or expired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that appear to be unassisted except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space. Administrators: if this bot is making edits that appear to be unassisted to pages not in the operator's or its own userspace, please block it.

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=Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While ] wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My other accounts are ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user)<table class="plainlinks ombox ombox-notice" role="presentation"><tr><td class="mbox-image">]</td><td class="mbox-text">'''This ] is a ] operated by ] (]).'''<span class="nowrap"> </span>It is used to make repetitive ] or ] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the ]. This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn or expired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that ''appear to be unassisted'' except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space.] <br/><small> <span class="sysop-show">''Administrators: if this bot is making edits that appear to be unassisted to pages not in the operator's or its own userspace, please .''</span></small></td><td class="mbox-imageright">]</td></tr></table> ] (manual bot account), and ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (created by mistake, 3 contribs). This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told. This block is clearly misguided and I know Kww . This block is farce comprised of simple misunderstanding. - ] (]) 07:05, 25 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=Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While ] wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My other accounts are ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user)<table class="plainlinks ombox ombox-notice" role="presentation"><tr><td class="mbox-image">]</td><td class="mbox-text">'''This ] is a ] operated by ] (]).'''<span class="nowrap"> </span>It is used to make repetitive ] or ] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the ]. This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn or expired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that ''appear to be unassisted'' except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space.] <br/><small> <span class="sysop-show">''Administrators: if this bot is making edits that appear to be unassisted to pages not in the operator's or its own userspace, please .''</span></small></td><td class="mbox-imageright">]</td></tr></table> ] (manual bot account), and ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (created by mistake, 3 contribs). This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told. This block is clearly misguided and I know Kww . This block is farce comprised of simple misunderstanding. - ] (]) 07:05, 25 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=Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While ] wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My other accounts are ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user)<table class="plainlinks ombox ombox-notice" role="presentation"><tr><td class="mbox-image">]</td><td class="mbox-text">'''This ] is a ] operated by ] (]).'''<span class="nowrap"> </span>It is used to make repetitive ] or ] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the ]. This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn or expired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that ''appear to be unassisted'' except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space.] <br/><small> <span class="sysop-show">''Administrators: if this bot is making edits that appear to be unassisted to pages not in the operator's or its own userspace, please .''</span></small></td><td class="mbox-imageright">]</td></tr></table> ] (manual bot account), and ] <span class="plainlinks">(] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b>  <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> )</span> (created by mistake, 3 contribs). This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told. This block is clearly misguided and I know Kww . This block is farce comprised of simple misunderstanding. - ] (]) 07:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• At this point I "DGF" the blocking admin and every other "WP:BOZO" who hides behind these nifty newly minted acronyms (which are like word-salad to an old-timer like me) without considering that there's PEOPLE behind every username, even the ones you think are socks. Next time somebody tells me to AGF!AGF! I'll remember this lesson. - Technophant (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. I hope that the "community" has a good hard look at themselves and does the right thing and apologizes for this whole block/ban nonsense. - Technophant (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit on Talk:Acupuncture seems to be beyond question a clear violation of topic ban with no ambiguity'

• 02:01, 24 July 2014 "→‎Edit warring rather than getting consensus: r"

This edit seems to be cleary in violation of the terms of the topic ban in posting in a discussion about attempting to weaken or subvert the MEDRS guideline. What would the purpose of doing so be outside of the topic?

• 23:09, 23 July 2014 "→‎Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold: c" on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine

These two edits make clear that the topic ban has been explicitly violated by posting on the talk page of the article specified and by engaging in discussion of policies that apply to the topic. Note that the forum shopping behavior also continues with the Fringe Theories NB and a canvassed user talk page. This pattern of behavior makes the intentional violation of the topic ban obvious. I see no evidence that the sage advice of admins to focus elsewhere and make worthwhile contributions has been heeded, quite to the contrary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 - First of all, you are an involved admin and I do not feel obliged to answer what I am "doing so be outside of the topic" (your words, not mine.) Adjwilley has been doing a good job of working with me on this issue and I think he is the best person to follow up on it. Further delay on unblocking is inexcusable. - Technophant (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know where you got the idea I'm an admin, not a fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I will answer one of your points. I started this discussion on RSNB shortly before he block. I was also looking into how to go forward with my plan to declare myself (before the sock debate) by adding userboxes. My plan was to go forward after the myofascial meridians Afd. I wanted the discussion to be about the article, and not an attack on the author. - Technophant (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• An involved admin is only prohibited from using their admin tools, not from engaging in discussion - they have as much right to take part in discussion of your block as any other editor, and a reviewing admin can take their comments into consideration just as much as the comments of anyone else. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll uncomment my response below:

Point #1, asked and answered above.

Point #2, discussion is about an alleged MEDRS stranglehold. PAG affecting medical articles affect the quality of ALL medical articles. In case you haven't noticed there's a Big problem with medical articles being too short, too limited, too narrow, and in general less informative than comparable article in reliable tertiary sources such as Mayo clinic website. You may be just recently aware of that I'm an accomplished medical editor with large number of edited articles. Why don't you actually take the time to review the medical edits I've made (as SWR) and see for yourself if I'm a fringe-pusher or not before before you DNFT me. - Technophant (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Good of you to point out your rationale for engaging in a discussion of the evils of MEDRS. Not sure I buy it as the reason behind your comments, but it is at least a reasonable argument (I also don't happen to agree, highest quality information is superior to a larger quantity of poor quality information). Your edit to Talk:Acupuncture is however an unquestionable direct violation of the topic ban, adding a link to that talk page within a comment on your talk page is also a violation of the topic ban and looks duplicitous. I leave the judgement to admins who can easily peruse your edit history to make their own judgements. I hope if the block is lifted that you find a way to enjoyably and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:57, 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)

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 sympathise 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:- .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)

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 miscariage 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 prejudgice 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 (see Wiktionary) from Misplaced Pages, with the all-powerful judges being the administrators.  : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you get it? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Supersaiyen312- No email from you. When did you send it?13:52, 25 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 WP's then legal counsel Mike Godwin.

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 of you Mike, and I'm no longer trying to hide my true identity. - 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)

• I hope you don't mind a comment from me, but Technophant, I think you are misunderstanding why you were blocked here and approaching this from the wrong direction. As far as I can see it was *not* for anything to do with your two accounts - it was for this edit, which was apparently a breach of your Fringe topics ban. And it does actually say that in the block notice - it says "topic ban violation", and not "abuse of multiple accounts". I'd suggest what you need to do is address the apparent topic ban violation, and if you pledge not to do it again then I'd expect that would go a long way towards getting you unblocked. (And there's no point threatening KWW with arbitration, I don't think - as far as I can see, he really has done nothing wrong here) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing as long as KWW has and i do know what this is about. If it hadn't been for quackguru's extremely tenacious SPI attempts and the User:BullRangifer ("The Pit Bull" Brangifer) badgering I would have either come out or learned from my mistake about trying to go too far and this discussion wouldn't be happening. Capiche? - Technophant (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unapproved Misplaced Pages bots
• All Misplaced Pages bots
• Requests for unblock