User talk:Epididymus10

Go to a talk page
Perhaps you should go to a talk page rather than pushing the edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop the edit warring and use the article talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still edit warring; please stop. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at umbilical cord, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your consistent history of edit warring, adding spurious, improperly sourced information, making nonsense or harmful edits and failing to substantively engage on the talk page indicates you are not interested in improving wikipedia. Leave, or be blocked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalizing? Just because I replaced "sinew" with "tendon", which is a more correct term? Come on!Epididymus10 (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Improperly sourced information? Edit warring? Please review the discussion page at Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine, and you'll see that my edit, which was continuously reverted by you, is completely based on the sources I'm citing. Epididymus10 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Failing to substantively engage on the talk page? Again, I always modified the discussion page at Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine to emphasize the point I was trying to get to. Please stop bothering me. Epididymus10 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah- I've identified the problem. You say "to emphasize the point I was trying to get to."  Wikipedia articles are meant to be entirely neutral- it isn't okay to make a point, nor to emphasize it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sinew and tendon are synonyms, they're the same thing. Your edit accomplished little beyond adding to the database load, but I can understand you might believe it to be a worthwhile edit.  Of course, adding "si" between two square brackets in a wikilink (as you did here in the same edit) is either sloppy editing or deliberate vandalism (of a slightly more subtle sort than simply replacing the page with profanity or all instances of "Asperger" with "Assburger" as you did here; any explanation for the last point?)  Or the addition of a block of pretty obvious mockery, with a nonsense reference at the end, like you did here?  And then edit warred to keep it in?  Or adding "pendejo" (which according to wikipedia is an insult) to the Vincente Fox page as you did here?  I believe this substantially demonstrates that you're hardly being unjustly persecuted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR
That was your third revert today. If you revert one more time, per the three revert rule you will be blocked. You will face escalating blocks as well - each one will get longer, until eventually it is effectively permanent. That will leave you with only sockpuppets to use, and thanks to checkuser, they will be found out and you will become permanently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You can accept this and keep editing as you have been to date (and face a permanent cessation of your editing privilages), or you can stop, accept the consensus is against you (at least for now, discussion could change that), and move forward from there.

As is, I'm pretty sure you're just a vandal slightly more subtle than most, but feel free to prove me wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  23:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's already been warned several times, has been previously blocked for edit warring, was warned again today and still reverted a fourth time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the only  warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit  you made to Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from  editing without   further notice. Donald Duck (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Vandalism
I have a copy of the source you keep claiming has that story in it you keep adding to the article. There is nothing of the kind in the paper. Please stop this vandalism. If anyone else would like a copy of the source this user claims has a story about a 16 year old with AS being bullied, let me know and I can send it to you. I repeat, there is nothing of the kind in the source. (The paper is about MRI in AS kids). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit, where Epididymus10 announced his intent to continue edit warring, should be factored into block length if the disruption and subtle vandalism continues once this block expires. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the history of the account, I believe it is fair to describe it as vandalism-only. There is a consistent pattern of inserting changes that do nothing to improve the page; the mere fact that it's not 60K worth of "FUCK" doesn't make it any less vandalism.  There's assuming good faith and then there is just wasting time.  I think we've firmly established that this account, along with all editors, is only doing the latter.  I can't recall a single valid edit that actually improved a page; I think a permablock is appropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please obey your block. I have seen you edit with IP's before, and although it was not a blockable offense to do that then, it would be now, since a block on your main account indicates that you shouldnt be editing at all.  If you want to ever get the content you're seeking into the university article then I suggest you take a break for a week and then come back and calmly explain yourself.  If you are found to be editing while blocked it could lead to an extension of the block.  —  Soap  —  14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC
 * Not anymore. My edit was reverted several times before by the same users, without even writing on the talk page or explaining why it was reverted. User:WLU reverted it at least 10 times before even verifying the source information with a Spanish-speaking user. Finally, someone is intelligent enough to take a look at the source and verify what I'm stating is completely true, but some others (i.e. User:SandyGeorgia) keep bothering me by finding ANY possible reason for undoing my edit, by stating it violates WP:OR (which is not true, I've explained it at least 3 times on the article's talk page, so don't say I'm editing without discussing). This is really ridiculous. If you're not interested in helping new users improve Wikipedia's database, that's OK for me. Thank you for your time. Epididymus10 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And, of course, we had no reason to doubt your good intentions. None whatsoever.  I'm sure you have excellent reasons for how each of those edits improve wikipedia, and you've just forgot to mention them.  So no, if new users are interested in these kinds of edits to "improve" the database, and edit warring despite consensus clearly being against them, we're not interested helping them improve the database.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, as noted, the article used to 'reference' the story about the kid added to the Asperger's page has nothing at all in it about the anecdote that was added. I find it hard to assume good faith here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit is the only one that may be considered vandalism. I was so tired of you repeatedly reverting this valuable information considering it as vandalism; even though my contribution helps the reader understand such a complicated phenomenon that has many different clinical presentations. So, if you wanted a reason for considering me a vandal, I gave it to you. However, that's the only one. This information remained in the Asperger's page for about 2 weeks until you arrived; the only modification it had was a "citation needed" tag. And, by the way, the article used to reference the story is actually related to it: I know the main purpose of the article is to describe MRI in patients with Asperger Syndrome; the kid I'm describing in my edit is one of the patients being included in the article (precisely, one of the patients in which no important MRI findings were associated with his syndrome; you can consult the related references at the end of the article if you want to read the exact clinical case). But you began reverting some of my previous edits, which were obviously made in good faith.
 * As I've told you before, I don't know why replacing "sinew" with "tendon" (as in here) should be considered vandalism; although both words are synonyms, "tendon" is the correct term when according to the anatomic terminology. The Mexican president's edit was made in good faith as well: I was just adding the popular President's nickname among poor people in the country; but, since this user kindly explained me the content was not appropiate, I never edited the page again. So please don't say I'm warring just to bother you guys: I really consider my previous edits are helpful for the reader. Come on WLU, I think that you should have unbiased criteria as a "respected" Wikipedia editor you are. Anyway, thank you for your comments.Epididymus10 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What page precisely in the MRI article mentions anything about a 'french accent' or the episode with the kid. I have read the article (I have some expertise in the area) and searched the article as well and I can find nothing related to what you have mentioned at all.  Frustration is no excuse for vandalism (re the 'assburger' addition). Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Considered vandalism"? Do you think we're stupid?  It's vandalism, as is your nonsense "rabbit punch" addition.  You're a transparent vandal who takes us for fools.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're assuming bad faith there. I think I'll look for a third-party based resolution whenever I have a problem with you continously reverting my edits without even writing on the discussion page, because your position is clearly biased. By the way, can you please tell me what's so wrong with this edit, or with my edits at Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine? Can you please tell me what's so wrong with using the term "rabbit punch"? Epididymus10 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Assume good faith is not an excuse to let some vandal run roughshod over the page. There's no-one defending you, 'cause your edits are obviously intended for vandalism. What's wrong with your edits is a lack of sources, and a failure to listen to consensus. What's wrong with using the term "rabbit punch" is that the reference doesn't mention it. Which you know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus is not about reverting my edits at Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine without further discussing in the talk page, even though a Spanish-speaking user finally did a correct review about the source (which you never considered, and you reverted my edits several times before even contacting a Spanish-speaking person). Epididymus10 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for upon the expiration of a block for edit-warring at Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine, immediately resumed making the same edits, although the talk page does not yet show consensus for those edits. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You say "nobody was able to tell me what's so wrong with my edit." I didn't realize that you didn't understand the discussion; I'll be glad to help, if I can. The current consensus is that this information is not so important that an encyclopedia article would need to include it, since no other secondary source writing about the school has thought it was important enough to discuss. If that's wrong, and there is a chapter about this in one of the books about the school, or an article in an education journal that highlights it, you should mention that source on the talk page as a reason for people to change their minds. Right now, though, the consensus does not agree with you- and that means that you respect that until you change people's minds. Simply disagreeing with, or not understanding, the current consensus is not a good reason to ignore the current consensus, and, since you're already familiar with the rules now, there's no reason to let you repeatedly revert other users the way we did when there was a chance you simply didn't know the rules. Be aware that future blocks will likely be even longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, there are several users who think that, since quite a few of your edits have been simple vandalism, you are a risk to the encyclopedia, and should be permanently blocked. In giving you the benefit of the doubt and only blocking you for two weeks, I was being quite generous, and many of the people familiar with your edits so far will be annoyed with me for not blocking you permanently.  Me, I'm willing to give you a chance to follow the rules and work together with others, but the next administrator might not be as generous as I am. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: you've fully and completely explained your reasoning, and the others simply don't agree with you. What's more, their reasons for disagreeing are solidly based in Wikipedia's policies. They aren't bothering to discuss further because there isn't anything more to say- you explained your point of view, they explained theirs, a decision was made, and, unless new information or arguments come to light, it's finished. You don't always get to 'win' a content disagreement; sometimes, consensus goes against you. It happens to all of us, from time to time. That doesn't mean it's okay to keep trying to force your desired edits into the encyclopedia, though, and it isn't fair of you to waste their time with repeatedly undoing your attempt to ignore the consensus that has been reached. As for your second statement... I think people are troubled by your flat refusal to acknowledge your vandalism, which makes people think that either you don't know what vandalism is, or that you're planning to do it again. I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the repeated "nobody was able to tell me what's wrong with my edit..." I tried. So did others on the talk page.  I'm afraid that written English is the only tool available for communicating on Wikipedia, though- if you don't understand even after several people explain as clearly as they can, it isn't really fair to blame them.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

April 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you are trying to add the same information that there was a clear consensus not to add. You know, by now, how to discuss things on the talk page. I think that you were hoping that you could add the information and no one would notice, by waiting an extended period of time and blanking all of the discussion from this talk page. It doesn't appear that you are interested in making the encyclopedia better in any way, and it doesn't appear that you are ever going to be willing to get consensus for your edits (and accept it if consensus disagrees with you). I even made it clear, at your last block, that I was being generous in not blocking you indefinitely, and that you could expect an indefinite block if you continued. For those reasons, an indefinite block seemed appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen, please take a quick look at the information I've just added today, it's not the same (the source is updated with the last results, as in 2010). I think you're getting me wrong, all my edits are made in good faith, I know I've made several mistakes in the past but I'm trying to correct them. Epididymus10 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)