User talk:Flipper9

Hello there Flipper9, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. From your recent additions I wonder if you're a fellow New Orleanian? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:47 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! Nah, I'm actually from a lot of places, but was just visiting New Orleans a few weeks ago. I had a good picture of the Saint Louis #1 cemetary and a current picture of Marie Laveau's tomb I thought I'd add to the WikiPedia for a first try. Will be back to New Orleans in a few months though :)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wine Guy Talk 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my own defense:

I am simply adding a tag to the article disputing that some information is unencyclopedic, and unverifiable and against the spirit of Wikipeida to present verifiable information and noteworthy information. I have made no disruptive edits to the articles themselves, and am simply raising the issue that the article is unencyclopedic. In fact other editors simply remove my tag because they have a vested interest in the article, and do not want others challenging their content and hard work. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, adding a tag to an article with a legitimate dispute about the content does not rise to the level of vandalism or disruptive behavior. Otherwise, what's the point of raising an issue? If a someone just disagrees with you, they report you to the administrators to be banned. Flipper9 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on April 30 2009 to 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States

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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. --auburnpilot talk 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Flipper9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am simply adding a tag to the article disputing that some information is unencyclopedic, and unverifiable and against the spirit of Wikipeida to present verifiable information and noteworthy information. I have made no disruptive edits to the articles themselves, and am simply raising the issue that the article is unencyclopedic. In fact other editors simply remove my tag because they have a vested interest in the article, and do not want others challenging their content and hard work. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, adding a tag to an article with a legitimate dispute about the content does not rise to the level of vandalism or disruptive behavior. Otherwise, what's the point of raising an issue? If a someone just disagrees with you, they report you to the administrators to be banned. Flipper9 (talk) 8:22 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

You have had sufficient prior warnings about edit warring. Use this time to cool down and read over relevant guidelines so that you can contribute positively once this short block expires. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admin: See also 3RR report on WP:AN3. --auburnpilot talk 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. I have been reading all of the guidelines, and I still believe that my block was unjustified. It was simply a matter of who could get to the admin report board the first to get someone banned that they disagreed with. I simply wanted to raise a legitimate dispute with the article, and start a relevant discussion in the discussion tab until a true concensus was reached. The reporting editor and others simply disagreed with me, and started the edit war by removing my tag without discussion. There is nothing I can do about it; the ban is in place and the appeal denied. What is there to learn other than not to apply tags to articles that others have a vested interest in. If you do, you will be reported as a vandal. Not in the spirit of Wikipedia nor in the spirit of the tags and discussion. I'll keep reading. Flipper9 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Since I'm not sure that you will see my reply to your comment on my talk page, I'm copying it here.

As you have been blocked for your disruptive behavior, I would suggest that little of what you have done today has been appropriate, or constructive for that matter.

For future reference, if you add something to an article and it is removed for a valid reason by another editor, discuss it on the talk page to reach a consensus before attempting to add it again. Wine Guy Talk 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when attempting to leave a comment for another editor, the place to do that is on that users talk page, not their user page. Wine Guy Talk 19:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

Virtually any article discussing a current event is, strictly speaking, unencyclopedic. That does not mean it is doomed to forever remain so. We work on such articles under the banner {{current}}. There's no need for a redundant {{unencyclopedic}}. If we see a specific bit of text that needs to be fixed, we fix it. If we see flaky referencing, we fix it. Step by step the article improves. With high profile topics such as this, it's much more constructive to fix than to comment in the mainspace.LeadSongDog come howl 19:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are better-suited wiki websites such as Wikinews for tables showing the spread of the infection. A wikipedia article is supposed to be something that lasts the test of time, and updated as necessary. It shouldn't include information that is by definition unstable or mutable, such as up-to-the-minute numbers that are designed to expire 1-2 days later. Also, any changes to the article are met by automated reverts by bots from those authors that have a vested interest in the article (and sometimes manually of course), and even raising a flag or discussion concerning those facts and hard work are met vehemently with rage. Long time editors will use administrative blocks, threats of ForumShopping or 3-revert rule (or whatever procedural block they can come up with) to make their point. From reading the policies of wikipedia, the opposite is true regarding changes versus discussion. I've tried to work towards consensus and discussion over the article contents rather than just changing numbers and values, or wholesale deletes of work. If there isn't consensus, then the discussion just goes on. Flipper9 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Edits

Well I guess my appeal was denied. If an editor disputes your dispute about the article, they simply report you to the administrators and have you blocked to shut you up rather than using the discussion page to talk about the dispute. My only purpose was to flag the article as being unencyclopedic so a discussion about the noteworthiness and verifiability of this important, relevant topic could be properly presented in Wikipedia. What I have found is that if enough editors become vested in the content of an article, they will gang up on anyone that disagrees with them and quickly get those that they disagree with banned. I am severely disappointed in Wikipedia. Flipper9 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you've decided to make that what you have learned from this situation. Instead, you should take this as an opportunity to realize that the discussion itself is far more important than demanding that any tag be applied to the top of an article. You should also take from this the realization that if multiple editors are disagreeing with your actions, it might be a signal that something you are doing is not the best tactic to take. When the 24 hour block expires, you are free to continue attempting to draw attention to what you feel is an important consideration. But do so through discussion, not edit warring. --auburnpilot talk 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of a tag such as "unencyclopedic" is to generate discussion. If I was simply deleting the information from the page in an edit war, I could understand the need for a ban. But, I was simply adding the tag so that it could be discussed in the appropriate tag. The editors that were reverting my tag were not engaging in the discussion, and simply chose to remove the tag because they had a vested interest in the article. It basically came down to whom could post to the admin's board the fastest, and I guess I lost out on that. The 3-edit rule ban could easily be applied to others. I'm just dissappointed that I'm banned because of the fact I wanted to start a discussion, and other editors didn't want a discussion started in the first place. Flipper9 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that in such a new, highly-charged topic that a lot of people have put a lot of hard work compiling information from various sources about an emerging, new virus. However, the information is not encyclopedic in nature, and is poorly sourced. If it means that all that hard work has to be removed to keep Wikipedia a true encyclopedia, and not just a repository for unverified information, then so be it. If I have to be banned for standing up for what I think is right for Wikipedia, then so be it. Flipper9 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's the biggest point you seem to be missing, and one editors on the article talk page attempted to get across to you. As a content issue, one related to the reliability of sources and verifiability of information, it isn't up to you to blank it or be blocked. It's a matter for discussion and consensus; the basis of Wikipedia. On an article that only gets the occasional viewer, a tag brings attention to a matter that may otherwise go unnoticed. But on an article that is very likely receiving more views than any other on the project, an article that is receiving extremely high amounts of traffic on its talk page, reverting 4, 5, 6 times to add a tag is a problem. That is not right for Wikipedia. --auburnpilot talk 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the tag was intended for; was to bring about discussion about this issue in the talk page. The other editors simply removed my tag because they didn't want to discuss it or come to a consensus. My tag was being removed because people didn't agree with it, not because a consensus was reached. Flipper9 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the policies of Wikipedia, and the intent of blocks and why they are administered, I don't believe that the block/ban against me is justified. Disruptive editing is what I have been accused of, and that is not the case...

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.

I was not impeding the progress towards improving an article, in fact that was what I was trying to do by simply adding a tag that said that the article was "unencyclopedic" and that it needs to be discussed in the discussion tag. A ban in this case is intended against editing wars over the article content, not wars over whether there is an issue with the article. I was banned because I had the courage to speak up and say that the article needs to be discussed. In retaliation, I was banned unjustly. Flipper9 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

I have not threatened to "report you," nor have I even come close to making a personal attack against you. I purposely did not comment on the "tag issue" because my goal wasn't to get the tag excluded, but rather to try and help you "take a step back" and realize why your behavior was offensive to some.

I do realize that the Swine Flu is a very sensitive subject for many people and was just trying to give you some friendly advice. I have personally been involved in difficult situations like this before and found a break to be beneficial. If you choose not to take my advice, that is, of course, your prerogative. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other editors have won. It looks like some people are working to get me banned again for having the audacity to try and question the sources presented in these articles. To keep myself from being banned for life, I guess I'll need to capitulate and withdraw my discussion. Flipper9 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flipper, I would urge you to take ThaddeusB's advice in the friendly spirit it is offered.

Despite what you may choose to believe, no one is trying to get you blocked or banned; you were blocked yesterday because of your actions, and not because of some grand conspiracy. So lets move past stale recriminations and assumptions of martyrdom now.

If you have valid concerns about some specific citations (such as the MN data), present them calmly and succinctly, and they will be dealt with (as you yourself saw). If you can edit within wikipedia's content and conduct policies, your input will be welcome; if you wish to withdraw instead, that is fine too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was working to bring up valid concerns but was being attacked round-robin style by some of the major contributors to the article who didn't want their content questioned. I notice that another user has brought up the same issue on the same discussion page; Go attack them now. Flipper9 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice ThaddeusB that on the WP:NOR board, you were attempting to envoke WP:FORUMSHOP against me that inevitably leads to a ban from discussion. Care to elaborate? Flipper9 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand why some people would be hostile to someone coming in and trying to remove all of the hard work that so many editors have put forth into the table and article. However, the information IMHO is incorrect, and all the hard work in the world doesn't make it right or correct. This isn't any attempt by me to vandalize or make trouble in wikipedia...on the contrary I, like the rest of you, am trying to make the best information available to wikipedia readers. Flipper9 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Support

Sad to see admin rage massacre towards you. Every point you made is valid and according with Wikipedia policies. --201.78.11.227 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the observation "admin rage massacre", I do largely agree with what you're saying, Flipper, and am stepping in more heavily at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Don't let the people there push you out of editing; stick with the discussion, but even if it doesn't go your way immediately I'm certain it will by the end of the month per WP:RECENTISM, and that the editors involved there will have burned themselves out from doing day-by-day updates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've experienced so far with Wikipedia, Policies are a big joke. If you have multiple editors working on an article, you basically have mob-rule where policies are thrown out the window and everyone invokes WP:IAR and does whatever they want. I find many editors to basically be rude, obnoxious, un-welcoming, assume bad-faith, and use admin tools to achieve whatever ends they desire. I used to be a big supporter of Wikipedia to my friends and colleagues, but at this point I'm very uncertain about Wikipedia as a medium. As a medical professional, I wonder if any of my time is well spent here trying to add my expertise to the discussion or content. I can now see why so many academics and professionals reject Wikipedia. It is anarchy, pure and simple and can't be trusted when people just ignore policies that are intended to make Wikipedia a true encyclopedia. Flipper9 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources

Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)

Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess

Have a look at some related WikiProjects

Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page.

Again, welcome!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Totals

I see your point totally about the Wikipedia Totals section of the swine flu epidemic page. Oh, I was the IP address that left the comment in the discussion pointing out it's original research.

It seems I wasn't the first to make that distinction. It is original research or at the very least a synthesis of two previous ideas which is also against the rules of wikipedia. But some people cling too strongly to rules like 3RR or the golden rule of ignore all rules if it agrees with what you want to do.

I'd love to help out in the fight against the insanity of that page but I really don't have time. I'm in the final year of a chemistry degree, I see you're doing a medicine course so that must be an insane amount of work. All I can say is good luck with your course and good luck with the edit war but remember which is more important.

I don't edit wiki properly anymore after I got incredibly angry in a deletion row over The Rules Of Chess. It's madness, the rules of chess is clearly a page worth having but somehow someone decided it counts as a Game Guide and should be deleted. The Rules Of Chess is a bit different to a map of all the stars in Mario 64. But anyway, I digress.

Good luck with the page. Simondrake (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Medicine

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to template IP vandals

As you have so far failed to do here.[2] It's very embarassing when I go on to invite such people to the project because editors patrolling for vandalism do a half-assed job. The template you usually want is {{Uw-vandalism1}} but pump up the number as needed. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know you invited random IP addresses to edit when they have obvious vandalism reverted. I added the template to the IP talk page of the offending user, after figuring out how to use them and what they were (long time, very part time editor here) in the first place LOL. Thanks for the heads up! Flipper9 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Flipper9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. I am using Private Internet Access to access the web. Flipper9 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; we can't find your IP address so we need you to provide it to us, or provide the exact block message. Note that 'Private Internet Access' often means 'VPN' and vpn endpoints are often hard-blocked due to rampant abuse. But we'd love to take a look and see if it would be appropriate to lift or soften the block on the IP. Yamla (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It looks like Private Internet Access (a VPN provider) was unblocked. I don't see why IP ranges are blocked when legitimate, logged-in users are logged in. Oh well, arbitrary policies abound and it's one of the negatives of those in charge of Wikipedia. Looks like I'm back in business undoing IP-only edits that are attempting to vandalize Wikipedia and making edits to things here and there to advance our shared goal of improving Wikipedia. can't get edit Wikipedia and get around these arbitrary blocks.

Edit: oh wait, I can edit my talk page but not the rest of Wikipedia. I guess Wikipedia doesn't believe in those attempting to protect privacy. Good luck getting professionals (I'm a physician) to edit medical articles.