Justito

CFS Responses

In case you weren't aware, several of the topics that you've responded to recently around the topic of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are over a year old and, more importantly, in many cases you're responding to a banned user (Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)) who can inherently never reply to the topic. I haven't really gone over your posts in detail, so it's entirely possible that it makes sense to respond to these topics even given the above points, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! JustinReilly (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've moved your CCC comments at Clinical Descriptions to a more recent discussion. Sam Weller (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the cesspool

Hi JustinReilly, welcome to the cesspool that is editing the CFS articles. It has been relatively peacefully lately but in the past there have been some major struggles. During an earlier comment I suspect you were referring to this: WP:IGNORE (Ignore all rules), "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Here is an essay (ie someone's opinion) on how to interpret this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense - I can't offer much advice on that, the WP:RULES at Wikipedia are somewhat inconsistent when taken too literally. As there is room for selective interpretation, the rules are often applied arbitrarily, leading to arguments.

Wikipedia claims the rules are defined by what the "majority of editors" believe should be, and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but in practice it is usually most aggressive editors most familiar with the rules who get their own way in such situations. Some people in the past have come to Wikipedia and even proposed or implied that all mention of psychological factors in CFS should be removed completely. This simply isn't going to happen under the current scientific and political climate. Neither has been the reinstatement of a separate article for ME, but I believe one day this will change. Personally I have no issue with genuine well-conducted research into psychological and social aspects of illness that do not starve funding for more important biological research, but that's the catch, standards in research of the former in CFS appear to be disgracefully low and attached to ideological baggage and often riddled with flaws.

Yes, the claims about abnormal illness beliefs and neuroticism in CFS are indeed questionable, but I generally agree with what RobinHood70 said on the issue. In some ways I'm an "inclusionist", for example I would rather the issue of neuroticism be dealt with instead of being excluded. Without it the minds of readers, especially those sympathic to dubious psychosomatic hypotheses/interpretations, may remain uninformed and conclude this article fails to mention the "truth that patients don't want to hear". With the current text however (which could be improved), they are informed that a systematic review into the issue found that levels of neuroticism in CFS is similar to that found in patients of chronic (organic) diseases and can be explained by subset of patients with comorbid depression. In other words, despite the psychobabble, neuroticism isn't really specific to CFS nor a major factor in CFS. It was a major struggle for several editors to include such a caveat in the article!

Note that it is preferable to post new comments on the current talkpages rather than edit the archives. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, Tekaphor. I and all pwME are indebted to you for your excellent work here! JustinReilly (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments! - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Raab Page

Hi there - saw you made some nice improvements to the Jennifer Raab page a couple weeks ago. Another user has since added some contentious content as well as external links, including a blog link, which I don't believe belong in that section. Would you mind having a look? I value your opinion on this. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'polish'

CFS @Doctor Patient relations You recently edited the CFS page to more closely reflect the spirit of the comment by Charles Shepherd. Did you notice that audio file attached to eh BBC page in which Wesley himself said 'it was a tiny minority of patients'? That omission has been annoying me for some time! I may get around to that once I finish work on treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ebola dates

Hi Justito we keep that date as per latest official reports. The us case is not yet in a official global report. Please stick to the article line as per all previous edits.. regards Brian.BrianGroen (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the whole US section should come out here till it is an oficail global report i.e OCHA , CDC WHO or goverments with same dated report for all, but due to tremendous interest i left it on for now... Kind Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for posting so much but there was a dispute resolution an this and this is inline with DRN conclusion.BrianGroen (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Formal notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me that you would even mention the possibility of sanctions, much less denominate it a "formal notice."JustinReilly (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been around long time; do you really not understand the role of formal notices like this in the AE process? If you don't understand, I can explain it, but it would be surprising to me if you needed that. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walden School (New York City), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Diamond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm 4TheWynne. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Fast 8, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Sourian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Universal and The Ring. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Justito. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Mercola. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello. Your recent edit to Hunter College High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Justito. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hunter College High School. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Justito. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme disease

You were alerted above to the discretionary sanctions regime around fringe science and pseudoscience. Just so you're aware, Chronic Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) falls squarely into this category. Guy (help!) 16:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penny Abernathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MS. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most expensive streets by city, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palm Beach and 57th Street.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Bon courage (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hi Justito! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of John Campbell (YouTuber) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not reverted. I have changed wording. You reverted my edits without discussion on talk page. JustinReilly (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:BRD? And you have reverted. The onus is on you to get consensus for your desired changes. Oh, and they all look to me like WP:PROFRINGE bad ones. Bon courage (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Where specifically did I revert? JustinReilly (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

For example changing, and then changing again to call Science-Based-Medicine just "a blog" (this is called poisoning the well). WP:REVERTING is continually changing to your preferred wording – and don't think you can game your way around it by making slight wording changes in subsequent attempts. Remember WP:NOTDUMB. Bon courage (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Shibbolethink. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, epidemiology of autism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WHO news pages are not WP:MEDRS, the level of citation required to revise incidence/prevalence numbers for diseases. See also WP:BMI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please be more careful in how you use citation formatting. On Aducanumab, you linked to a bare URL which was already cited on the page [1]. I've fixed the error. But this is your responsibility as the person who adds the citation. Make sure it isn't already cited, and if it is, add the proper citation reference. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender article

Hi Justito, I am writing to follow up on my revert of your edit and removal of sources from the first sentence in the Gender article [2]. Please note that there has been extensive discussion on the Talk page about this sentence that recently had a consensus develop, and further discussion can continue on the article Talk page, of course. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Justito! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:34, Saturday, February 18, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Late termination of pregnancy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi Justito! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, I don’t think Ive reverted an edit of mine twice, at least since I’ve become more active. If there is a policy against reverting once, I’d like to see it ‘cause then I would rarely be given the opportunity to revert if others didn’t revert my edits. As a rule I explain in detail my reasoning w my reversion (or before w my original edit) and not uncommonly am I then reverted or rereverted for no good faith reason and or de minimis or no explanation. So, I think your hall monitor attention should not be wasted on me. JustinReilly (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: It takes two to tango. Sennalen (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Protecting articles is good. Trying to WP:POVPUSH is not. May I recommend WP:BRD as a way of proceeding? Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Polio

We need to discuss your edit on the safety of oral polio vaccine. Bob (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory. Thank you. I am notifying you as although I did not name you, I did mention your actions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Justito. Thank you. jps (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@jps

@Courcelles

@Tamzin

@Johnuniq

@Bishonen

The above notice that a report had been filed about me was left here about 10:30pm July 11th. A few minutes later, a comment was left in the “Result” field of the report.

Around 12:30am, a warning notice was left here on my Talk Page under the next topic “July 2023,” alledging “disruptive editing.”

A few hours later, a couple of more comments were left in the Result field of the report.

Around this time, I responded in the report that I strongly objected, but I needed more time since I was about to go to bed and that I wouldn’t be able to look at it for probably a couple of days. Since then, I have gotten sick. I am also disabled.

Then around 6am @Bishonen blocked me indefinitely in response to the allegation of “disruptive editing.”

He claimed “tendentious editing.”

He communicated his block in the Result field of the report. Johnuniq said he agreed with the block and closed down the discussion around 8am.

I ask that the report be reopened so that I can respond. Id need to get unblocked for that page to do so. So can you please also do that. Id also

Ask for a week to respond as I am sick and disabled and I am blocked so there is no “danger” of my editing anything in the meantime. JustinReilly (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You may leave your notes on the talk page but not the subject article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent tendentious editing. Compare [3].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 06:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Bishonen A couple of requests: (1) Can you unblock me from editing [4], so I can respond to the the request for sanctions or blocks against me that is pending there? (2) Can you provide more information and reasoning re: why you have blocked me? I understand the block was for “persistent tendentious editing” for reverting back to my edit: a “multiple issues” tag. And that the tag had bad formatting that you could see when you opened it up, which was the reason it was reverted by another editor (the one who left the warning notice above). I couldn’t figure out how to fix the formatting after numerous attempts.

Hi, Justito. The request for enforcement was closed shortly after my block, so you can't edit it and I will consequently not unblock you for that purpose. Note that I blocked you as a regular admin action, not as an WP:AE action or per any admin consensus at AE. I blocked you because I read User:ජපස's report, where he said "I challenge to find recent diffs from this user that are not active WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH WP:AGENDA edits".[5] I checked your recent edits and unfortunately I had to agree with ජපස. Here are some recent examples of tendentious edits: PROFRINGE removal of text, POVPUSH addition, less NPOV, POVPUSH. I blocked you for persistent tendentious editing; not just for some “multiple issues” tag or for formatting problems.

The way to appeal your block is not to edit the no longer pending WP:AE report, but to read the guide to appealing blocks and then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. That will call an uninvolved admin to this page to review the block. Bishonen | tålk 22:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for the greater detail. JustinReilly (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)