User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Dec

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!

Hey Zad68, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrb yes I've been lax on my vandal-reporting! Will try it out! Zad68 03:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

82.43.7.254

I probably should let you know of the following: the above editor claims to be from Nonsuch High School, but I'm using it from Overton Grange School and so I've adjusted the template. In my opinion, there's no point in school blocking for three years; we don't know who was responsible for the vandalism and thus we don't know which year. If they're in their final year, any block after September 2014 isn't necessary. Where is the policy on schoolblocks?--Launchballer 10:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer sorry just getting back to this. I've only been doing schoolblocks for a few weeks, and all I can tell you is that 3-year IP blocks associated with schools are not uncommon. They are not at all the most common kind of schoolblock, but not uncommon. There are some schools that are just years-after-years consistent sources of vandalism, class after class, and the cost/benefit equation ends up requiring the few Good Guys who want to do good editing to register from home, because there's always a new crop of Bad Guys who want to use the public computers in the library for Beavis & Butthead-style vandalism. Zad68 04:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

BP

Do you have time to help out with BP#Health effects? I'm busy, and they want someone who knows a thing or two about medicine-related sources. So far, it's pretty much been sourced to newspaper articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You're an admin, and I suck!

SO sorry I was not here to support you. :-( KillerChihuahua 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


KC let me tell you how unbelievably relieved I am to find out you're still around. Thanks for the kudos and advice! And don't worry, the bloom's already off that rose... :-P (not really!) Zad68 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Done

I'm done. I've thought about it a lot and been watching things. There is far more bickering and dysfunction on wikipedia than productive work getting done. You can even be totally productive and not bother anyone and sooner than later someone will come by and mess with you. HalfGig talk 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, HalfGig. Can't say you don't have a point. Editing can be frustrating and there are indeed people here who are difficult to deal with. As you've obviously been considering this decision seriously, all I can say is that I hope you're not leaving for good but rather are taking a break and might be back to editing later. Take care... Zad68 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup: Neonatal encephalopathy, Cerebral hypoxia, Intrauterine hypoxia, Perinatal asphyxia

Note to self to continue clean up the following constellation of articles to reflect ICD-10's recategorization over ICD-9, and general change in terminology from HIE to neonatal encephalopathy:

  • Neonatal encephalopathy -- needs to be new top-level article
  • Cerebral hypoxia
    • Redirs:
      • Anoxic brain damage
      • Anoxic brain injury
      • Brain anoxia
      • Brain hypoxia
      • Cerebral anoxia
      • Hypoxia, brain
      • Hypoxic encephalopathy
      • Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy
      • Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy
      • Hypoxic-ischemic cerebral injury
      • Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy
      • Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy
      • Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy
  • Intrauterine hypoxia
    • Redirs:
      • Fetal hypoxia <<== MeSH Term, "Deficient oxygenation of fetal blood"
  • Perinatal asphyxia -- needs to be rewritten to focus on lack of respiration at birth; restore WHO data
    • Redirs:
      • Asphyxia at birth
      • Asphyxia neonatorum <<== MeSH Term, "Respiratory failure in the newborn"
      • Asphyxia newborn
      • Birth asphyxia ==> MeSH redir to "Asphyxia neonatorum"
      • Neonatal asphyxia ==> MeSH redir to "Asphyxia neonatorum"
      • Neonatal asphyxiation
      • Newborn asphyxia

Zad68 21:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us talk of your recent edits pretty please

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)

You undid a recent edit regarding Novocure establishing conclusive clinically acceptable proof that electromagnetic "Tumor treatment fields" do indeed work well in the treatment of cancer. FDA approval and put into practise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2893108/

So unless you can find a refference proving Novocure and their "Tumor treatment fields" to be charlatoins or scam artists or in some other way disreputable I would like to see the recent revisons made undone. The whole article needs alot of work but if we do a little at a time it will eventually get better. The place to start is with the verifiable facts. It is scientificly verified. This is not radonics. This is Electromagnetic Frequency and it is killing GBM brain cancer. Undeniably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

1zeroate, just in case this isn't evident to you, the USFDA has absolutely nothing to do with almost all (99%+) medical journal publications - that one included; it's also a primary source, which makes it a garbage citation for medical articles.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Here seppi333 a few more links just for you
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/9/3288.abstract http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=69172456 http://www.papimi.gr/ttf.htm
Novocure..... enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
1zeroate we will pick up these content-specific discussions at the appropriate discussion pages. Zad68 02:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
And if you want to be addressed on your talk page that is fine please Do NOT address me on mine but stick to the talk pages of the articles if youd like to address me.... and I haven't reverted your edits three times nor am I edit warring. I am disappointed by your unfounded accusation but promise to do my best to continue to work with you . elsewhere. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs)
Yes please let's keep discussion specific to article content at the article Talk pages, where everyone can see and be involved. Thanks for understanding... Zad68 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Carnotaurus for FA

Hey Zad68, Carnotaurus is a featured article candidate now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting it to FAC Jens Lallensack! It's a worthy article and I will indeed support, although I am going to watch and wait for a few days first to see how the FA regulars handle it. Zad68 20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Possible review schedule.

Your user page indicates a possible interest in medicial article reviews. My present thoughts are to nominate an FA review in medicine, do you have any interest for it? BillMoyers (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Zad68, Thanks for your comments on the DSM5 upgrades. I followed all your comments and confined virtually all my comments to the Talk page there. My list of transition edits I have expanded from 8 items to 15 items still pending. Then, during the last 3-4 days, there was an explosion of edits there from multiple users, and I was wondering if you could glance at that Talk page (Schiz) and let me know if what is happening there is positive in your eyes. I added a new subsection on Quality Control on that Talk page and thought to ask if you might offer a short drop-in comment. Hope you can glance at it. BillMoyers (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What's in the box?

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

!! And a happy happy to you and yours Bishzilla! Zad68 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green

Sorry. The case was closed while I was composing my comment. I didn't refresh, so I didn't see the closing. Lou Sander (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem Lou Sander. If I might comment on what you were writing, it would not be something considered at AE: take a look at the top of the WP:AE page, an individual AE request is not the place to generally reconsider a particular Arbitration decision area (like WP:ARBPSEUDO) or make amendments to or clarification requests about such an area, so your comments would not have affected the outcome of that particular decision. A better place to pursue your thoughts might be at WP:ARCA, if you'd like to. Zad68 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I mostly just edit articles, and am reluctant to get involved in this other stuff, plus I don't know much about the procedures. I DO want to pursue this specific point elsewhere, though. Lou Sander (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, the hell with it. Too much learning curve, too much trouble. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I was about to return to this, but I don't Wikipedia on Christmas as a general rule, and definitely not AE.--Tznkai (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Tznkai were you going to make a substantial change to the comments you had made previously? When I looked at it this morning consensus was very clear... Zad68 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to some concerns raised shortly before closing. Not a big deal, just wanted to point out that a discussion trailing off is inevitable during the holidays.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Tznkai, OK, if there are any loose threads left, I am happy to follow up with you on any details of the matter you'd like to pursue. Zad68 18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As you state in your ruling, "I see unanimous agreement between Georgewilliamherbert, NuclearWarfare, Tznkai, MastCell and Sandstein that, after due warnings and previous attempts by administrators to get Alfonzo to stop disruptive editing behavior (see block log), Alfonzo has persisted in engaging in disruptive edit-warring behavior."

Did you notice that all their comments about me were posted before I'd even made my case? Once I had a chance to issue my statement, not a single administrator posted a response.

You also write, "In Alfonzo's statement here, I don't see any indication that the tendentious edit-warring behavior will stop; in fact all I see is a justification for it." In my statement, I don't justify edit warring; I explain why it's not edit warring.

"I also see in this edit by Alfonzo that he is invoking WP:Ignore all rules as justification for breaking the rules against edit-warring at this article." Sure, but in this case, I did not invoke Wikipedia policy to justify edit warring. Instead I made it clear that I was not edit warring. The basis of your ruling has no applicability to this case.

Given that not a single administrator responded to my defense (presumably due to Christmas), you might consider reopening the case. Otherwise it will reflect poorly on you and the other involved administrators once the inevitable appeal is filed. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green, it's possibly reasonable to pursue the idea that not enough time was given for the commenting administrators to consider what you had written starting with your initial 10,000+ character response here due to the Christmas holiday. But, I do note that both Tznkai and Georgewilliamherbert commented on the AE request concerning you after you made your initial statement, and neither one made any indication of being swayed by your statement. Sandstein is probably the most regular patroller of AE, has been actively editing since your statement, and hasn't seen reason to update their comments on your case. MastCell has edited since your statement and hasn't updated their comments either. Only NuclearWarfare has not returned to editing since your first statement. I'll point out here that acting on an AE request only requires one administrator, and at the time I closed the request, there were five admins (not counting myself) in unanimous agreement that a sanction was merited. Based on all this I think my close of that AE discussion is well-supported. However, considering the holiday yesterday, in the interest of fairness I'll do this: I will ask all five admins who commented if they were considering changing their thoughts on the case based on your comments, and if even just two of the five say that they were going to change their comments or otherwise felt the case was closed prematurely, I will revert my close and re-open the case.

You are of course free to appeal but appealing an AE closure immediately after it is closed is almost never successful. Zad68 21:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo - I reviewed your comment prior to the decision, though I did not comment. I will state on the record now here, and there, that reviewing it did not change my opinion on the underlying issue or appropriate response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks George (feel free to ignore the request I just left you on your Talk page!) Zad68 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I am forced to agree with Georgewilliamherbert. While I had intended to close the request myself today, my substantive call on you (Alfonzo Green) is the same as Zad68's. I read your defense, but I disagree with it. Whether or not something is edit warring does not depend on the elements you identified - edit warring is any short circuiting or depreciation of discussion by using article edits to override the contributions of others. From the policy language: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". The elements that I had wanted to address were primary ancillary matters: responding in due course to all points raised, and to reiterate that serious questions were raised about @JzG:/Guy's behavior but should be examined under a separate enforcement request.--Tznkai (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the closure also. Alfonzo Green, I read your statement and it does not change my view. Any misconduct by others does not excuse misconduct (such as edit-warring) by you. Misconduct by others can be examined in a separate AE request (but not one made by you as long as your topic ban is active). Moreover, I am of the view that you are a single-purpose account here only to promote a particular point of view with respect to one article or topic, which in my view is sufficient grounds for a sanction even without considering the edit-warring. As a procedural matter, it should be noted that AE actions are not consensus-based, so there is no need for one administrator to wait for others to express an opinion (though in practice they often do wait).  Sandstein  22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with all that has been stated so far. I reviewed AG's post and the other posts to the page before the discussion was closed. I just didn't see a need to comment again, as everyone was obviously in agreement on how to proceed. It is also important to remember that AE is not a consensus based process for the sanctioning phase. An administrator may choose to wait to levy sanctions, and indeed many choose to do so precisely because AE actions are so difficult to overturn compared to normal administrator actions, but this is not mandatory. Zad68 acted well within allowablediscretion, and I support his action. NW (Talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed the misapprehension that I was threatening admin action, on my talk page. I completely understand that people facing a topic ban get very agitated, t's not personal. Alfonzo's problem was pretty clear: a single purpose account adding heat, not light, to the debate. The single-purpose accounts are steadily being excluded; I think that time will see improvement. David in DC is back, which I think is entirely positive even though we disagree on most of the contended points. I've said it before: if David and TRPoD can agree, then we have good content. I will continue to do what I can to get to that point. People are more than welcome to kick me under the table if I am being ambiguous or coming across as presenting myself as an authority figure rather than as a very experienced Wikipedian, which is all I'm claiming, whatever anyone else reads into it Guy (Help!) 01:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

OMG- I am so sorry!!!

I am so sorry! I must have clicked your account name by accident- I was trying to block another user that has created a sock and is trying to spam Wikipedia for their movie. I am so incredibly sorry about that! I owe you like, an electronic beer or something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer on me!
You're getting a full e-meal on me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!


Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Yum! I can haz cheezburger for doing nothin' but just sittin' here! And Tokyogirl79, no biggie on the accidental block, no harm done, really. Zad68 23:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Aww, Zad68's first block! You can't really ever call yourself an old-timer at Wikipedia without some sort of block log. (It's like that scene in Jaws: "You call that a block? I remember the wheel war of aught-nine, when a half dozen admins blocked and unblocked me back and forth for hours. Two editors lost their admin status that day. Good men.") – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2013_Dec"