7157.118.25a
Welcome!
|
7157.118.25a, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi 7157.118.25a! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
howdy! edit
Just saying "hi" over here. Welcome, again, and good luck! I hope you have a better time of it, this time. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciated the notification about the dispute earlier. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 12 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Álvaro José Negret
- added links pointing to CT, Conservation, Guilford and CIAT
- List of birds of Telangana
- added links pointing to Yellow wagtail and Small blue kingfisher
- Eitan Tchernov
- added a link pointing to Conservation
- Hermagoras Society
- added a link pointing to Hermagoras
- Isaac Leib Goldberg
- added a link pointing to Hibbat Zion
- NBC
- added a link pointing to Today Show
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Appreciate it, changes made. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
edits edit
hey man, you are being very confrontational and making strong statements, but to be frank i do not believe that you understand the subject matter. you are making word salad. you really should not be pushing this hard on stuff that you don't understand. You are interested in lots of other stuff and i think your time would be spent more productively, and more pleasantly, elsewhere. again i am sorry to say this. i would have emailed this to you but you don't make an email available. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- If the cases only involved changes in genitalia from estrogen/androgen, and not actual sexual behavior, your point would be valid. However, the material clearly involved changes in behavior as well, with males engaging in homosexual behavior when treated with estrogen and females engaging in it when treated with androgen. This is why the first paper dealt with changes on brain development from these steroid/hormone products, because it's not just genitals being affected but actual brain gender preference by these artificial chemicals. So all of the research is valid and should not have been removed.
- And I am not trying to be 'confrontational' but I do not like reversion of well-sourced material without a valid basis. You seem to be trying to equate intersex changes with changes in sexual behavior, both of which are involved when addressing estrogen/androgen effects. It's not an either/or scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
oh man, you really are going to push this? I really don't want to go through the science lesson with you. it is not that magical. really its not. (and that you talk about "artificial chemicals" here but talk about Genistein as a sample chemical on the article Talk page.... c'mon). Please let this go. you are really in the deep end here. You really don't have a leg to stand on, per MEDRS. Please believe me. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- Yeah, I did put a lot of thought and research into writing that, and I do think the material is defensible. Why do you contest the Genistein reference? The page itself seems to support my point, see Genistein#Effects_in_males. I've encountered the WP:MEDRS policy before though it's been a while, and am making a good faith effort to find sources that conform to its standards. The MEDRS standards are probably the most confusing policy section on all of Wikipedia of course, which makes it tough to define what does and doesn't qualify, but I am interested in finding sources that conform to the section. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
by the way I urge you to avoid writing things like "Will wait 24 hours for discussion on talk page to occur about edits, and give Jytdog time to explain reverts. ". I am sure you didn't intend it that way, but that is really aggressive. Does not help you. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- (In response to your first paragraph) Yeah, maybe you're right. I am trying make a good faith effort to talk things out here though. I just felt strongly that the edits were defensible. Right after your edits, someone completely removed the polling demographics section also, not just some but all, over a feeling there was undue weight. So I was a bit annoyed at the moment from that, not to mention the User:Flyer22 canvassing (which I never bothered mentioning though I could have). --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
and what you write here has a glint of something that is much more human and reasonable, and flexible, than what you wrote on the article page. Here you acknowledge that you are not that familiar with MEDRS; you are actually not that sure of the sourcing. I can work with people who can admit things like that and write accordingly. I am utterly, completely, uninterested in dealing with your ego, or anybody else's. The more inflexible and arrogant any editor is, the more I will not even try to help, but will just tell the editor what is wrong with his or her proposal. The more flexible and humble and trying to work together another editor is, the more I get invested and put in my own time and help build. I am very responsive to the stances other editors take. But I urge you not to bullshit me. and your stance on the article Talk page - your strong assertion that the sourcing is good - is bullshit. please don't waste my time with that. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
and genistein is a natural chemical. your tossing it around with "artificial chemicals" in the word salad is... just ugh. are you chemophobic generally, btw? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- (In response to your second paragraph, included after I'd written above response) Alright, see now criticizing ego and throwing around terms like inflexible and arrogant is at least as antagonistic than my reference to 24 hours. Especially when using terms like "bullshit" or "word salad." I do think there was some good sourcing. It should be clear that the information itself is verifiable and has been prominent in the news.
- As far as chemistry, I'll admit that's not my strong suit when it comes to science, I prefer archaeology and astronomy personally. As for Genistein, my impression is that some natural chemicals can be used artificially as well. Some that occur naturally get extracted and used in ways that are unnatural. In the case of Genistein, it may occur naturally, but seems to be a cancer agent that causes irregular hormone changes in nature, which ought to tell you that it's not being used naturally. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
whatever. You are taking the stance you are taking. Thats how it will be. I really, really hate dealing with bullshit. One of the few things that gets me emotional here. And by "emotional" I mean cold. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Your objection then is to my "stance" not my understanding? Why not just be straightforward about that then? --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- As far as chemistry, I'll admit that's not my strong suit when it comes to science, I prefer archaeology and astronomy personally. As for Genistein, my impression is that some natural chemicals can be used artificially as well. Some that occur naturally get extracted and used in ways that are unnatural. In the case of Genistein, it may occur naturally, but seems to be a cancer agent that causes irregular hormone changes in nature, which ought to tell you that it's not being used naturally. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
what is vague in my very first sentence above? sometimes I can talk people off the ledge. sometimes not. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- Not entirely sure which sentence you refer to, but if the stance sentence, you did use the word stance which suggests ideological disagreement with the proposed edits is the basis of your opposition, not concern for the sourcing. Maybe I'm wrong but the word choice was interesting. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
what i am saying is simple. when i run into an editor who doesn't really know what they are talking about but says it taking a strong stance (what I said in the first sentence) - in other words, when they are bullshitting - I try to talk them off the ledge. if they soften, i help them. if they persist, I stop trying to help them. bullshit is what i care about. ideology is your bag. from where i sit, bullshit is ideology-agnostic - you find it across the ideological spectrum. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- In other words you want me to admit my position was wrong and I just didn't "know what [I was] talking about", which is a way of saying I need to agree with your position and abandon mine - which isn't going to happen. I remain convinced the proposed edits are based in fact and supported by the sources. I can admit I need to work a bit on style and wording when it comes to the finer points of WP:MEDRS which I am making a good faith effort to do. That's the most I am going to concede. I've always been willing to talk things through and achieve mutual understanding. What I am not willing to do is change my positions unless persuaded otherwise from factual evidence. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
nope, not what i am trying to say. not at all. you seem to be in battleground mode and can't hear me. that happens, but it is too bad. see you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))- Well, you do keep using phrasing like "didn't know what they are talking about" and "bullshit is what i care about. ideology is your bag" and then expect me to not react in battleground mode... --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
canvassing edit
Pinging Jytdog via WP:Echo to the article talk page is not a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline. And WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, but it should be adhered to. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was pretty clearly canvassing, your goal was not to improve the article but find someone who would agree with you against me. You engaged in campaigning when pinging, also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
and this is petty distraction; the two of are wasting your time with this, in my view. let's deal with the content. my only concern in the article is that the science be accurately described per PAG.Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)(sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
- Like I said earlier, I chose not to focus on the canvassing in favor of a fact-based discussion. I've been trying to focus on content this entire time and will continue in doing so. It just takes time to review sources and do a source-by-source analysis. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- If what I did is WP:Canvassing, then it is an acceptable form of WP:Canvassing...considering that many Wikipedians do it without getting in trouble for it. And, yes, having you adhere to WP:MEDRS is improving the article. But go ahead and ask at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing if what I did -- asking a fellow WP:Med editor who knows WP:MEDRS well and who had previously interacted with you -- was inappropriate WP:Canvassing, and see how many people there agree with you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- If doing so will just mention the words and actions involved without identifying users involved to avoid biasing the result. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are talking about, but Jytdog has been involved with the Homosexuality article before his interaction with you there, and he is well-versed in medical topics and knows WP:MEDRS well; notifying him passes what is considered appropriate WP:Canvassing. But then again, the WP:Canvassing guideline currently mentions nothing about pinging editors via WP:Echo. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
why MEDRS edit
you might find this draft (very draft) essay i wrote useful or interesting. It is about biology as a science and how we think about using scientific sources to generate content about human health/biology. It is here: Why MEDRS?. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. What makes MEDRS really different is that you can't use news sources even though news sources are technically secondary sources. For everything else on Wikipedia, news sources are not just acceptable but preferred, so when getting into medical topics it throws off a lot of people, including myself, that news sources can no longer be used. What is also confusing about the policy is that from the name you'd think it only applies to medical facts, when in practice I've seen it expanded to all scientific references, not just those that are medical-specific.
- Compounding the problem is that for the layman it can be difficult to even tell the difference between medical articles, and distinguish what is a primary vs. secondary source. Systematic reviews often appear very similar to primary sources, and MEDRS doesn't really explain how to tell the difference between them. Whereas news articles are easily recognizable as secondary sources, it is much more difficulty to identify what is a secondary vs. primary medical article. You really have to search an article and know what you're looking for to find out what kind of medical article it is, whether it is a systematic review, narrative review, research article, etc. Wikipedia doesn't really explain the difference between them in the MEDRS article so for your average Wikipedian they won't even know what they are looking for.
- Furthermore, finding medical-specific sources that are secondary specific is not something your average layman will find easy to do, Google search will produce many results that aren't relevant, as well as primary sources, while Google Scholar will include many that aren't publicly accessible. Going to NCBI for searching really helps but you still have to learn how to navigate the site and run searches, and even then tend to get results that aren't publicly accessible. Finding sources that meet MEDRS is tremendously more complicated than finding other sources, and to compound the problem Wikipedia does not really explain the process at all. Figuring it all out individually is complicated and time-consuming.
- Most of your average Wikipedians will be initially frustrated by the tremendously higher standards imposed under MEDRS, and the lack of good information on the MEDRS page at how to meet them. The amount of time and energy it takes just to individually figure out how to meet the MEDRS standards could be described as onerous. The MEDRS page could really use some additional information about how to distinguish between primary and secondary sources, and how to find the sources; material that isn't really addressed right now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes health-related articles are difficult to work on across the board; understanding MEDRS; getting one's hands on great sources, digesting what they say, and then crafting great content based on them. It takes a lot of time and work. We unfortunately get a lot of people (IP editors as well as people with accounts) who want to add terrible to just-kind-of-bad health-related content to WP, too many of whom don't understand what they are talking about (source-wise and science-wise) but are very passionate. I spent over half my WP time dealing with editors like that. I think many of the members of Project Medicine do. I would like to spend more time building great content but I get pinned down a lot. It's too bad, but that is how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer to think most of those people aren't trying to be obstinate, they have what they feel are sufficient sources and are frustrated by new policy demands they haven't heard of before. I like finding solutions to problems. Perhaps I will propose some changes on the MEDRS talk page, as I think some improved detail on the page might help new users. I would conservatively guess that only 10% of Wikipedia users are able to meet the MEDRS standards right now, either through difficulty understanding the requirements or difficulty finding the sources. I think some improved detail on the MEDRS page about how to find sources and to distinguish between primary and secondary sources would go a long way towards improving compliance and ease of transition for new users. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Like you've noted on the Homosexuality talk page, WP:MEDRS is clear that news sources can be used for biomedical content; however, it is also clear that news sources are generally poor sources for biomedical information and should be used sparingly or not at all for such material. If one is going to use a news source for it, the news source should be used as an adjunct (placed beside, preferably after, a scholarly source). I've used news sources in that way for biomedical information, but I generally stay away from using them for biomedical information these days.
- Above, you stated, "For everything else on Wikipedia, news sources are not just acceptable but preferred." But the "preferred" part is not true; I was clear before why that is not true. If you look at articles such as the Big Bang, for example, you will find that news sources are barely used. For an encyclopedia, scholarly sources are often the better sources. And for scientific topics, they are preferred to news sources. If it's a political topic or media topic, or something similar, then news sources are usually fine to use. But Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news is clear why news sources often get matters wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- That though is because WP:MEDRS seems to get expanded to all scientific articles, not just medical articles, which is partly why new users get frustrated. As I mentioned earlier, "What is also confusing about the policy is that from the name you'd think it only applies to medical facts, when in practice I've seen it expanded to all scientific references, not just those that are medical-specific." I actually wasn't aware of that Breaking News policy though, it must be more recent because I never heard it cited years ago. If WP:MEDRS standards are to be applied to all scientific topics though, not just medical ones, the page's language should probably be updated to avoid confusing new users. While news sources can be wrong, so too can articles in scientific journals, and old research is constantly being disproved by new research. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS does not concern all scientific articles; anyone using it that way is using it wrongly. It concerns the medical field, yes, and that field is broad, but it clearly does not include all scientific areas. The Big Bang article is not adhering to WP:MEDRS and nor should it; it mainly uses scholarly sources because, as I've stated above, those are the better sources to use for scientific information. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS only concerns the medical/health aspects in articles. The parts of the Homosexuality article that are not about those aspects do not need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. Also look at what WP:MEDDATE states about historical content. Yes, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news is a new guideline (not a policy), but Wikipedia has been cautious of breaking news sources for years. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have just proposed some suggestions on the MEDRS talk page that I think would improve the policy and reduce conflicts.[1] Will provide further specific proposals as needed. --7157.118.25a (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 19 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Gendercide
- added links pointing to British and Chihuahua, Mexico
- Homosexuality
- added a link pointing to Gallup
- Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
- added a link pointing to National Baptist Convention
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Changes made, thanks. --7157.118.25a (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP policy edit
Just a reminder that WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages too. I have edited your latest post on Jimbo's page accordingly - an arrest is not a conviction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I altered the wording, is this better? --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Marginally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015 edit
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
Drmies, do you know what happened to his previous user page? Did you delete it before tagging it with the WP:Sockpuppet tag? If so, why? Things he stated on his user page can obviously be considered evidence, including his admission on his user page (the reason that you gave for indefinitely blocking him). Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Probably don't need it. When Josh is caught he usually doesn't lie or fight about it. Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I saw it for what that is worth. Chillum 05:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't lie, ever. Still keeping the Obama page scrubbed clean of controversy I notice. I wouldn't have made the admission if I was the dishonest type like those I disagree with. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- From my WP:Watchlist, I see that Drmies did delete the page: "04:44 . . Drmies (talk | contribs) deleted page User:7157.118.25a (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)." See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. I knew that, on his user page, 7157.118.25a had stated that he was very familiar with the way that Wikipedia works; he likely did that to keep suspicion away regarding his obvious experience with editing Wikipedia, but I was still suspicious, which is why I immediately WP:Watchlisted his user page after I saw him at the Homosexuality article. The vast majority of people don't have a lot of experience with the ways of Wikipedia by just reading about Wikipedia. And an editor usually has not been editing very long as an IP without ever having gotten a registered account, which begs the question: Which account did he previously edit under? I didn't see that he'd acknowledged his previous account on his user page; but then again, I didn't keep up with his user page writings. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
7157.118.25a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Original block of main profile was baseless and excessive, and by blocking user talk page discussion allowed no way to appeal. The Barack Obama page was operated as an advertisement in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and proposed edits were reasonable. 7157.118.25a (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The evidence is clear that you are engaging in block evasion. If you want to be honest you can stop evading your block and request an unblock on your original account (User:Jzyehoshua) if you like. If your talk page is locked you can use WP:UTRS, however it does not appear as though you are locked out of your talk page. I suggest at least 6 months without evasion before you try. Chillum 05:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
- Flyer22, I deleted it under WP:G5. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the problem. Maybe you can't see the admission, but administrators can, and I can tell you that it was there. There is no obligation to preserve evidence in a generally-accessible way if it's part of some kind of propaganda campaign by a sock of a righteously blocked editor. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Explanation edit
For the record, I was indefinitely blocked after never having had more than a 24 hour ban because of edits I made to the Talk:Barack Obama page.[2] Apparently JzG instituted a topic ban against me.[3] Since JzG was one of the ones to originally oppose my edits it wasn't that surprising he created the ban.[4] I was then indefinitely blocked[5] for making the following edits to the Obama talk page.[6][7] I didn't know editing the talk pages counted as editing the articles, since JzG said it was articles specifically, and thought discussion alone was allowed.
To prevent anyone from finding out what a bogus reason I was blocked for, I was banned from being able to use all talk pages including my own, User:JzG wiped the talk page discussion, and my own talk page was redirected to my user page by User:Innotata so nobody could see the discussion or what I had ridiculously been blocked for.[8] This occurred over 5 years ago. I've been blocked for 5 years for making perfectly reasonable edits to a talk page. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then follow Chillum's advice. Simple. BTW, I consider your edits of last night to Jimbo's talk page disruptive already (in content and in number). I don't know what got into you all of a sudden, but this is not the way to get back in the community's good graces.
Also, I see that you were blocked by Georgewilliamherbert, and I don't see a single unblock request in those almost five years of iniquity--so you'll understand if I take all this with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did follow Chillum's advice already, I couldn't file an unblock request previously because I was blocked from editing and couldn't see my talk page so I didn't even realize what exactly I'd been blocked for until recently. And I did not think I was anymore disruptive than others voicing their opinion on Jimbo's page (like JzG, whose edits there were what interested me in the discussion to begin with). --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The whole thing was complicated enough and so long ago I am having to read up on what happened myself to figure out just what occurred. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- User talk:Jzyehoshua is not protected and Special:Block/Jzyehoshua does not show talk page prevention(I don't even know if we had it in 2010). You should be able to edit your talk page under your original account, assuming you are logged into your original account and not this one. Again if you cannot edit your talk page for any reason you may file a request under your original account at WP:UTRS.
- What is not acceptable is for you to be editing under any account or IP when you are blocked under any account. Again, if you want to be honest do not engage in block evasion. Chillum 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just so you know we often allow people back after a long time has passed. Please look at the standard offer. It involves among other things not evading your block for at least 6 months. The community is often willing to forgive and indefinite does not mean forever it just means without a defined duration. This would have to be done under your original account. Chillum 20:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the blocking basis was false and excessive to begin with, as was the case with an indefinite ban for reasonable edits to a talk page when not under any talk page ban, then there should be no 6 month requirement. Either way, I already filed the appeal process. And I do not appreciate the vandalism by Binksternet on the User talk:Jzyehoshua page in attempting to remove history there. The vandalism on the talk page attempting to prevent me from filing an appeals process by redirecting the page to the user page is a violation of WP:HUSH. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- {od}The talk page for your user account is back the way you wanted and should stay that way, and is editable. Please comment there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert, it's not the way the user wanted it now; it was blanked again within days, with no edit summary. It does seem odd for an indefinite ban to be placed for edits to a talk page when the user was not under any talk page ban. Even if the edits were intended to result in a ban, it's been 6 years. For the record, I don't agree with the user's POV a bit, but do think the rules should be applied fairly. The blanking should be reverted to restore the user's comments, but the user can't do it, as talk page access has been revoked, and I'm not about to edit war with an admin. The response to a revert of one's own talk page should not be to remove talk page access. I agree with you that wikipedia should allow the user to request unblocking on their talk page, and if there's been no bad behavior for a while, a partial unblock should be considered. IMO. --Elvey(t•c) 21:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)