User talk:69.119.252.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] August 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Acne vulgaris. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. AngelOfSadness talk 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Acne vulgaris, you will be blocked from editing. AngelOfSadness talk 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Acne vulgaris, you will be blocked from editing. AngelOfSadness talk 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you have a problem with the content of the page Acne vulgaris, do not just delete it without any comment. Add an edit summary that explains what you are doing and add a futher explanation to the Talk page. Otherwise it appears to be vandalism and likely to be treated as such. --Escape Orbit 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
That's fine but deleting mass amount of content without explaination or discussing it on the talk page does look a lot like vandalism. Nearly half of vandalism edits on wikipedia are unexplained(no edit summary or discussion content blanking like what you did here and I would know being an vandalism patroller. But I'm glad you decided to talk to me before deleting the content again. I'm not a contributor of the article itself so I don't know much about it's content.This will mean you might have to wait a few days before getting feedback on it's content from the other editors. All I can say is please be patient and if you don't get a reply, look up the articles edit history and find out who the main editors are. Then post a comment a message of your findings on their talk pages and hopefully they will respond. Happy Editing AngelOfSadness talk 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

David Ruben Talk 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "My blanking of content on the acne vulgaris page is not vandalism. I entered the following comment on the discussion page of that article: The second, third fourth and fifth paragraphs of the acne vulgaris article should be deleted immediately. The information contained in these paragraphs is completely un-cited. These paragraphs are written sophomorically (in such a way as to be meaningless), contain inaccuracies and factually incorrect material, and serve only to perpetuate confusion on, and misinformation and misunderstanding of, an already too-misunderstood, myth-laden issue.

For example, the statement, "Surface infections are called zits whereas the deeper ones are called pustules" (besides suggesting acne is infectious, which it is not, although a proliferation of a constituent of the normal flora of the skin is involved), makes a useless and meaningless distinction, is incorrect and contradictory. "Zit" is a lay term, that is applied to any acne lesion (as the very first paragraph of the article itself states!), and "pustule" is a medical term, along with "macule", "papule", "nodule" and "cyst", describing various types of dermatological lesions, any of which may be symptomatic of acne. A "pustule", therefore, may be described as a "zit". A "pustule" would be "deeper" (to use the author's word, although, again, it is not the most useful, informative or descriptive) than a "papule" (the red or pinkish inflamed "surface" bumps commonly seen in acne and absent of the visible pus characteristic of a "pustule").

I came to Wikipedia as a single source for the latest references and cited material on the issue of acne vulgaris, as I do for many other subjects, and was shocked and horrified to see the inclusion of such blatantly un-cited and anecdotal material in an article that should be anything but. We must not allow this to continue to be the case."

Decline reason: "This does not address the reason for your block, which is that you violated WP:3RR. — Yamla 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Thank you Yamla. Having blanked the paragraphs x3 (1, 2 & 3), you received a number of warnings (above). Following a discussion with User:AngelOfSadness, you raised the above points on Talk:Acne vulgaris and the correct next step would have been to do nothing and wait for other editors to dicsuss these points. But your further 3 blankings (4, 5 & 6) taking you to 5 reverts on your original, and reverting 5 different other editors in the process, was therefore revert-warring & disruptive. Block imposed to stop the disruption and allow other editors to consider the talk page thread (but so far its 5:1 editors who felt the material should stay), suggest you sit out the block of 24hrs and then consider any talk page responses - there is no deadline for The world will not end tomorrow :-) David Ruben Talk 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)