User talk:80.168.87.20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unblock You should be unblocked. --Pilotguy (roger that) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tenofalltrades,

I'm new here. I don't even understand what the Pirate Bay site is about, it has no interest to me. Rest assured the vandalism of a month ago is nothing to do with me. I now seem to have a "blocked" banner on my page, and two warnings, as a result of having a point of view on this matter. People are warned that their writings will be edited unmercifully. My point of view concurs entirely with more or less everyone with relevant qualifiactions, though I make my points a little forcefully at times.

I'd like to revert the Gerson article to the far more even handed version of about a week ago. Is this editwarring? Is there any way in which the Gerson article and Gerson therapy article can be amended to show the scientifically accepted facts about this hokum, with any of the proponents comments which can be backed by anything even remotely reliable as criticism, which seems to me to be the right way round?

Contents

[edit] Gerson therapy

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Gerson therapy. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Waggers 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We are going to have to disagree about this "waggers",I think what I wrote to be fair comment. The article as it stands is however unsupported nonsense in its entirely.80.168.87.20 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, agree with you that the Gerson therapy is mostly likely a sham effective only in separating cancer patients from their money, it's not appropriate to describe it in its article as a 'con' or a 'scam'. We are responsible for presenting material in this encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, without allowing our own biases to colour our writing. We report on the verifiable statements of reliable sources. Original research is to be avoided—instead, we need to be able to cite published sources for any statements of fact.

To illustrate, the following phrase is not appropriate:

The Gerson therapy is a fraud and a sham.

Instead, you might write something like,

The American Cancer Society has reported that the efficacy of the Gerson therapy is unsupported by experimental evidence to date, and that some aspects of the therapy (including coffee enemas and the injection of liver extracts) are potentially harmful or fatal[1].

(Note the use of an inline link to the outside web source.) Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never been on the "pirate bay" page before checking to see what it was just now. If this erroneous attribution has played a part in my being blocked, it is in unjustified.

As far as gerson is concerned, I agree with most of the other contributors on the discussion page, the article as it stands to day is ridiculously biased, written by gerson's grandson, and based entirely on unsupported assertions. I am attempting now to merely correct the more glaring falsehoods, though I admit I was a little teasing at first. Apologies. The link to an external supposed list of sources I deleted recently was presenting a list of dodgy old papers by gerson supporters from the 30's, collected by gersons grandson on some entirely non-medical, non-science site as of equal weight with valid sources. In fact, this is someone effectively quoting themselves as a source.

The article is a disgrace. Block me if you want to, but get rid of this propaganda for harmful quackery. I also see that someone has removed the word "pseudoscientific" from the top of the page, and filled the page with unchallenged gerson propaganda. What are you doing about that?

I also note from your profile that your area of expertise is heavy metal music. How are you differentiating between debate and vandalism in an area you know little about? Could I ask you to speak to tenofalltrades?

I see also that contrary to practice, I was not warned before blocking, unless you count the wrongly attributed vandalism of the pirate bay site.

The Gerson site now contains acres of unattributed nonsensical propaganda, without any verifiable sources, and a link to a gerson front site at the top of the external links section.

If you are going to block people who were trying to prevent this from happening, I suggest you try to get someone who has an education in this area to cut the nonsense out of this page.

You were quick to block me, but you don't seem so quick to put me back on now I have noticed that you had no valid grounds.

I'll respond to this. First of, at the moment of blocking I was under the impression that the Pirate Bay vandalism was done by you. So in a way, you were warned, but for things of which I didn't know that they were done by you. Now that I know better, I'm not holding you responsible for vandalism anymore.
Furthermore, one doesn't need to be a specialist in a subject to notice the difference between making productive contributions and editwarring. However, since vandalism is not can't be used as a reason to maintain your block anymore, I'm lifting it. But consider this a warning as well; no more edit warring or you could be blocked again.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Soothing, without wishing to be disagreeable, when you blocked me I was reverting the Gerson article to a previous more even handed version which had been up for at least a week, before someone vandalised it with pro-gerson propaganda. It was the only time I had done it on that day. This is not edit warring by the definition you sent me. I'm not sure your warning is valid.

[edit] Edits to The Pirate Bay

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There, I've removed the banner for you; it doesn't look very nice on a talkpage and since it was a partially mistaken block as well, I figured I could go ahead and remove it. Anyway, WP:3RR should give you a pretty good idea when one is to consider something 'edit warring'. I wish you the best of luck with that article and your health.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I partially agree. I still think that you were edit warring (its actual definition is at WP:EW; WP:3RR only refers to the policy trying to stop this practice), but I also recognize that there were no violations of the 3RR policy. That's why I unblocked you; editwarring on itself is not something for which someone can be blocked. I've never accused you of breaking the 3RR, only of editwarring. However, also note that the WP:3RR page says: people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. I would consider doing things several times a month to be "excessive". I trust on your sense of maturity though; I don't think it would be necessary to block you anymore. I do guess the word "warning" had a stronger impact on you then I intended it to have. My comment was just a short repetition of relevant wikipolicy. Nothing less, but certainly nothing more.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail to Tuspm

Sorry but that warning was not left in error. I reverted this edit and that is clearly vandalism.

[edit] Note

A note to whatever anonymous users edit from this IP address. IP addresses are often shared between multiple users who use the same internet service provider or write from the same school or place of business. When contributing 'anonymously' – when not logged in to Wikipedia – we have no way to distinguish one person from another when those people share an IP address. Looking at the edits made from this particular IP address, there were indeed a number of vandalism edits made to The Pirate Bay back in July. (List of contributions here.)

That said, I suspect – or at least hope – that this IP wasn't blocked due to vandalism that happened more than a month ago, precisely because the human beings associated with a particular IP do tend to change from time to time. Looking at the blocking log, this block wasn't placed by Tuspm, and Tuspm probably didn't know anything about it until the anonymous editor emailed him.

The block was placed by User:SoothingR, whom you might wish to contact for an explanation of the block. To seek rapid review by another admin, you can also place the {{unblock}} template on this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)