User talk:Reasonablelogicalman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Reasonablelogicalman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   Skopp   07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. I am not on an individual ISP. I have been alleged to be Schmoopster, which I obviously am not. I am a relative newbie trying to edit in good faith. I suspect SKOPP User:Skoppensboer is the sock puppet. Why do I suspect this? Because SKOPP, my accuser, is a supporter of the commercial website, www.ChronicProstatitis.com, which is an anonymous website. The links on the Prostatitis[Prostatitis] page keep getting spammed with links to www.ChronicProstatitis.com, or links that link to ChronicProstatitis.com. Even apparently copyrighted medical pictures have been used as Billboards to ChronicProstatitis.com via the links on Prostatitis. Furthermore, Sci.med.prostate.prostatitis was once a thriving USENET newsgroup started by professionals with doctors, researchers, and patients all over the world having coherent discussions. Then www.ChronicProstatitis.com came along and spammed and flamed everyone to death until the newsgroup was driven from a high activity group into almost nonexistance. ChronicProstatitis.com used anonymous remailers, and sock puppets, to spam and flame that newsgroup. Please verify this by searching there on ChronicProstatitis.com. SKOPP User:Skoppensboer appears to be doing the same thing here in support of ChronicProstatitis.com. His editing all mimics the material from ChronicProstatitis.com and the past flaming and spamming at Sci.med.prostate.prostatitis. Here, SKOPP flames his opposition, makes false allegations, and personal attacks. He does not stay on topic about editing. And he keeps spam linking, one way or another, to ChronicProstatitis.com. Silverye User:Silverye has suddenly appeared to ad support to ChronicProstatitis.com: Silverye says, "* The removal of http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/forum has been the worst thing to have happened to the Prostatitis wikipedia page. Very poor decision. Silverye 06:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)" About the apparently copyrighted medical pictures defaced with billboard ads to ChronicProstatitis.com Silverye says, "I found the first 2 diagrams on http://www.geocities.com/myoneuropathy/ to be especially invaluable to my understanding of this condition - shame to take that chance of understanding away from others by removing the link. Silverye 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" So we have two editors at the Prostatitis[Prostatitis] page who support a commercial website, which is anonymous, and not affiliated with any doctor or medical professional. ReasonableLogicalMan 12:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting David Ruben

I would stop changing Ruben's edits if I were you. He's an admin, and a MD.   Skopp   18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. David Ruben Talk 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear David. It was an accident that I was reverting your edits. I was a newbie at the time and could not tell why my sentence with its references was not showing up. Apparently, you were deleting the references for formatting reasons at the same time I was adding to them. Sorry for the accident. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link at Prostatitis

Hi, heads up to discussion thread Talk:Prostatitis#External_link_to_geocities.2Fmyoneuropathy_pelvic_floor_pictures, please discuss there rather than risk edit warring (always commendable to try follow WP:1RR). Link, whilst excellent illustrations, does have some potential issues that might be best clarified on talk page (I'm initially more concerned for their relevance to the article vs I think your concerns for purpose of that website). David Ruben Talk 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Prostatitis. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. In an edit dispute that is under talk page discussion, further reverting is seen as disruptive - allow time for others to feel able to join in the discussion and for that to be concluded (I've notified the other editor about the tone of that discussion).David Ruben Talk 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi, to send me an email, goto my user page User:Davidruben and then under the search box on the left hand side should be a tool box with "What links here, Related changes..... E-mail this user". Errm let me see, direct link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Davidruben

I don't suggest that this becomes a private cabal on my email that discusses the research literature, I've already indicated that I'll be doing my own PubMed searching, just that it never hurts to have a couple of important papers pointed out so that I do not inadvertantly miss :-) David Ruben Talk 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of IP as sockpuppet

Your suggestion that Silverye may be a sockpuppet of Skoppensboer has been found likely, with the single purpose attack account of Silverye being indefinitely bloacked and Skoppensboer warned (see Talk:Prostatitis.

However, likewise Skoppensboer's suggestion of sockpuppetry by yourself (re use of an anon IP to further an edit dispute on 31st Oct & 2nd November) has been felt to be "a clear case ... IP is clearly the same user as the account in question".

Any further personal attacks, lack of good faith or sockpuppetry would I'm sure result in relevant editors being blocked. David Ruben Talk 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cracking down. We will need continued Admin help to solve the SPAM and copyright issues raised. ReasonableLogicalMan 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that after investigation my block has been reversed and I am not a sockpuppet of anyones. Silverye 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, please note that my "feels like" sock puppetry conviction was for the removal of a spam link that apparently also violates copyright law. I try to edit Wikipedia in good faith. I may appeal, but am waiting for Admin action on the spam link that apparently defaces copyrighted medical diagrams. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Minor point, but could you alter your user preferences (at Special:Preferences) so that your signature includes a link back to you (as stated as being required at WP:Signature#Internal_links). Given you have defined the colour, you will have selected for "Raw format", but as such you must manually code for the wikilink to your user page or user talk page (or both) (see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature).

Hence instead of:
<span style="color:blue">'''ReasonableLogicalMan'''</span> 
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan 
 
Instead perhaps:
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:ReasonableLogicalMan|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''</span>([[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]])
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk)
Or for coloured talk link too:
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''([[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]])</span>
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk)
Or superscripted (the spaces either side of the "sup" tags seem to be required)
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''<sup> [[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]] </sup> </span>
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan Talk

David Ruben Talk 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Nearly, but not yet quite correct - wikipedia is case sensitive so no capital L or M in Reasonablelogicalman, hence the [[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]] use of alternative displayed text in above example to display User:Reasonablelogicalman as ReasonableLogicalMan. User:ReasonableLogicalMan, with the capitals, is a broken non-existant red-link. David Ruben Talk 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have redone the signature and tested it in the sandbox. I'll see if it works here now. Reasonablelogicalman(Talk 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Signature hyperlink did not work properly, so now trying again. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK :-) David Ruben Talk 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock?

Re: "You convicted me of sock puppetry. I would like a chance to appeal that decision. May I have the opportunity? Thanks, ReasonableLogicalMan", uh, I don't understand this. I did not block you, see there are no blocks in your block log. I do not find diffs nor recall doing anything to you. You may be caught up in an autoblock, which occurs sometimes when blocks are placed because of the way IPs work, this is unintentional. See {{Autoblock}} if such is the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

I gather you would like Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology undeleted. An article removed by PROD can be undeleted on request, so I have just done that. Please make sure you improve it, though: it needs:

  1. Links to the WP articles on each disease, if there is one.
  2. At least one actual reference for each disease, to a good recent published reliable source--take a look at PubMedPlus.
  3. A separation between the ones where the cause is now known--you might in fact want to remove them into a separate article, beccause the title does not really apply.

I placed an "underconstruction" tag on the article so people will give you at least a week or so to work on it. Any problems, just let me know. (I will now remove the "requested article" request for it, which I think you no longer need.DGG (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly a synthesis of ideas by the author. Wikipedia follows, not leads, and WP:OR clearly forbids original syntheses like this. Nominated for deletion. Surprised admins cannot see the breach immediately.   Skopp   01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

An article that you have been involved in editing, Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. Thank you.   Skopp   01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported the article "Inflammatory Diseases of Unknown Etiology" which has now been been ruled a KEEP and is becoming an excellent article. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, again

A couple of editors have asked on the talk page for information about your vision for this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it's not appropriate for you to ignore or dismiss other editors (who might be willing to help, if you'd explain the big picture). Please take a minute to answer the questions on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology ( diff ). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have had warnings to desist in personal attacks, but you continue. Please stop it at once. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer makes personal attacks and then falsely accuses me of making personal attacks. I do not believe that this strategy will fool anyone on Wikipedia. User:Ratel has published my alleged initials, my alleged name, and has attacked my alleged father, all on Wikipedia. I suggest that anyone go read all the material posted by User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer. This is a dispute of a new legitimate neutral point of view editor with medical training against a supporter of a commercial website associated with spamming and flaming. The facts are these: 1. A website called ChronicProstatitis.com, a commercial website. This is public knowledge. [1] 2. User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer is a supporter of ChronicProstatitis.com per his own statements. 4. ChronicProstatitis.com spammed and flamed sci.med.prostate.prostatitis relentlessly. All this spamming and flaming can be seen here: [2] The spamming and flaming drove off a group of doctors. 5. User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer is attempting to "own" prostatitis in my opinion and does not allow neutral point of view edits, while relentlessly maintaining links to ChronicProstatitis.com and mirroring that site's information. The gist of the commercial website appears to be that that chronic prostatitis, often an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology, is caused by "stress," but the full website is there for anyone to read. 6. I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia and have made some newbie mistakes but have done nothing to deserve the relentless stalking by User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer. This user seems to follow me everywhere on Wikipedia. 7. I invite moderators, who are not affiliated with User:Ratel aka user:Skoppensboer, to look this situation over. 8. If a moderator thinks I have made a mistake here please edit it. I have tried to be factual and to follow all the Wiki rules of which I am aware. Thank you. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Wow! I wonder just how far you have to go to get an indefinite block on Wikipedia, Reasonablelogicalman. I think you've broken just about every rule there is. ► RATEL ◄ 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
you're both coming pretty close to it. Final and equal warning to both of you not to talk about who is who in the RW, and to stop attacking each other,& stick to editing and discussing the articles DGG (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:DGG. What does RW stand for above? ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Real World" -- Avi (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Avi. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am fighting Spam

I could not agree more with what Wikipedia Project Spam says below: "Currently link spammers enjoy a lot of advantages from the lack of cohesion to the spam fighting process. It is possible to sneak links into relatively unwatched articles successfully. Such links may lay unexamined for months, gaining the appearance of legitimacy from having remained in an article so long. When spam links are reverted, there is not much communication. Spammers can return and add links when different editors are watching who do not know their history of editing-with-an-agenda. Frequently spam contributors take advantage of Wikipedia's Assume good faith policy. They may engage in straw-man or special pleading arguments for inclusion of their links under the guise that they have only the welfare of Wikipedia at heart, usually in the presence of evidence to the contrary." ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC

This is another equal notice to both sides: stop fighting about tags and try to improve the article. Discuss proposed revisions on the talk page. Discuss the merits of particular links on the talk page--and look for better ones. So far both of you have technically avoided 3RR, but that is not a license to keep reverting each other, and if the tag warring continues, I can and will block. DGG (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)