User talk:Drgao

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit, not the editor

Again, your edits indicate you have not taken WP:NPA to heart. This is completely unacceptable, and I won't surprised if you get blocked, considering your repeated transgressions of this policy. -- Scray (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained, it is not a personal attack if I my remarks refer to the comments made. It is only a personal attack if my remarks attack the person. Drgao (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making false accusations of "stalking" is also a violation of WP:NPA. Together with your disruptive and tendentious editing, as well as forum shopping, Scray's suspicion that you may soon get blocked or banned is well supported.

A word of advice: if your personal research is connected with this topic, it would be wise to ignore it altogether. For my part, I've never even looked at a single WP article related to microbiology or any other field related to my own research. I don't need an ulcer. Furthermore, your expertise means nothing here on WP, and appealing to it will only backfire. WP is not the place to "do science". If that's what you want to do, publish in high-impact, reputable scientific journals so that other independent researchers can replicate and confirm your results, and so that they can deserve wide and substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not stalking, do you call it when all the editors of the Morgellons article are invited by Zad68 to view my activities elsewhere on Wikipedia — activities that have nothing to do with Morgellons. Is there a word for that? And what is your opinion on the acceptability of that behavior? Drgao (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secrets here on WP. All of your edits are clearly visible to all other editors here on WP, and all editors are free to respond to them anywhere on WP as long as they are not accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks or other disruptive behavior. The word for what Zad68 did is "perfectly acceptable". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, on refection. Zad probably thought my inquiry was Morgellons page related, so invited the editors there, which is fair enough.

PS. I am not a researcher, not on Morgellons or in any other area. Drgao (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I came away with the impression your inquiry was related to the Morgellons page after you wrote I would like to know whether three studies from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology (Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol) published by Dove Medical Press can be used in the Wikipedia article on Morgellons disease. Zad68 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Given that, I apologize for my stalking comments. I only mentioned the Morgellons article because at the top of the RSN page it tells you to specify the article in which the source is being used, and you cannot just get an answer from RSN on the general reliability of a source. Nevertheless, I have to say I did not find the arrival of the Morgellons editor entourage on the RSN page a welcome sight. Drgao (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I could persuade you to take a step back, take a little time to think or maybe have a good night's sleep, and come back to WP later? You've made your response on ANI now and it seems like this continued flurry of responses to people could reflect very negatively on you in the ANI process. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am taking your advice, 198.199.134.100, and will stop making comments there, unless something really needs my response. Drgao (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that I have closed the discussion, judging the clear consensus to be that you should be banned indefinitely (not necessarily permanently) from editing within areas covered by WP:MEDICINE. This includes talkpages, project pages and the like as well as articles. Please see this page for more information on what a ban means, how it can be overturned and so on. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked you for the time being because this and associated edits broke the community-imposed topic ban mentioned above. I'll assume that this was because you were unsure of exactly what a topic ban means, and if you're uncertain you need to have a look here which explains the situation. Specifically in your case you are banned from discussions or suggestions about medicine-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, exactly as that section says (and as I spelled out above.) You are not only banned from articles and article talk pages, but from discussing any medical topic anywhere on Wikipedia. If you would like to have my block (which is indefinite but not permanent) removed, please appeal it following the instructions above and let me know that you now understand your ban conditions. I will then unblock you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you are blocked, but we can use for our discussions my talk page on Commons:User_talk:Ruslik0. Ruslik_Zero 06:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I did not realize that I was also banned from discussing medical topics on user talk pages; I assumed it would only apply to articles and their talk pages. I also assumed that I would be physically prevented from editing medical pages by software block; ie, I did not realize it was up to me police myself on this issue. As a matter of interest, my discussion on the talk page itself was not strictly medical, but was about the scientific definition of the terms "associated with" and "caused by", although in this case admittedly the terms were used in medical articles. Even if you do not lift the ban, you might want to unblock the IP address, as my ISP (Plusnet) uses dynamic IP addresses which change all the time, so the IP you blocked is not me. Incidentally, I am also going to appeal regarding my ANI ban on editing medical articles, as I cannot see any real basis for this ban. At one stage, when it seemed that many editors were all disagreeing with every point I suggested, I did unfortunately make a series of angry personal remarks; however, on request from the said editors, I promised to stop making such personal remarks, and had kept to this (though they in turn did not stop disagreeing with every point or suggestion I made — and it seems unlikely that I should be wrong on every point). Thus I am not sure of the reason for the ANI, which came out of the blue on some pretext, and I want to clarify precisely why the ANI was raised, and if it there was a legitimate basis to it. However, I appreciate that appealing against the ANI is a separate issue here. Drgao (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you, my two questions weren't meant to trick you - I really wanted to know if you now understood what the ban means, and it seems you do. The answer to the second question (consequences of flouting ban) is that an indefinite block would follow, but hopefully that will not become necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you if you can answer the following two questions to my satisfaction. (1) On what page/s in Wikipedia does your topic ban permit you to post on medical topics? (2) What will be the outcome if you post again on a page where you are NOT permitted to do so? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (1): No pages at all. I am not allowed to edit any article pages, talk pages, category pages or portal pages on Wikipedia that are medical, and I am not allowed to talk about or contribute to any medical subjects whatsoever on any part of Wikipedia, including on people's personal user talk pages (though I am apparently allowed revert vandalism on medical articles, without flouting the ban). This is a shame, because these days nearly all of interests are medical, so this is rather a severe ban for me.

Answer (2): I could not find what the consequences were of breaking this ban (which I don't intent to do) on the Wikipedia banning policy (though I do suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome and ADHD, which makes reading documents difficult sometimes). For bans of a finite duration, it appears that flouting them will lead to the ban duration being increased; but as for indefinite bans like mine, I could not find in the said document what the consequences of flouting them might be.

Please note that I did, out of courtesy, give user Ruslik0 my personal email in case he wanted to finish the discussion I started on the definition of the terms "associated with" and "caused by". Presumably if any such email discussion take place between us, being offsite, it would not violate the topic ban (but please let me know if I am wrong here, and I will desist). Note this was just out of courtesy, as it was me that started the discussion; I do not plan to conduct any further offsite email discussions like this. Drgao (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have just read the section on proxying under a ban, and it would seem that using email to direct another editor to change an article does constitute flouting the ban. But all I said to Ruslik0 in my email was that he might like to consider a more precise use of the terms "associated with" and "caused by". However, I think it might be better if I did not engage in any such email conversations, just to ensure I do not inadvertently break the ban. So I will not send any further email from now. Drgao (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

This ban on the Wiki Medical area has been in place for two years. I would very much like it if I could be considered for unbanning. The reason I am asking is because I would like to partake in an AfD discussion on a Wiki Medical page that I originally created, namely the page List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens Drgao (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not currently blocked, not banned so this is the wrong venue. Please request a review of your ban at WP:AN. Max Semenik (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2015 (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.

Nomination of List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: topic ban appeal

I wasn't aware of this history at the time of the AfD nomination, but in response to your question there: the best place to ask about this is to start a new thread at the administrator's noticeboard. You should also notify the admin who closed the original discussion, Kim Dent-Brown, though it looks like he's been only sporadically active recently. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Opabinia regalis, I have raised this new topic on the Administrators' noticeboard, asking for a review of my ban on editing medical Wikipedia articles, and informed Kim Dent-Brown as you suggested. Drgao (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior at the AfD - jumping in instead of waiting for consensus that you can participate, is probably the most damaging thing you could have done to your appeal to have the topic ban lifted. It is clear that you are unwilling to restrain yourself and to actually listen to the community. I tried to stop you - but you are driving right off the cliff. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just astounded that you did not seem to know what the technical term "associated" means, which fundamental in understanding the purpose and significance of that article, so I felt I could not let it go. I have not voted though, you may have noticed. Drgao (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block for violation topic ban

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've instituted a 72-hour block for your violations of the topic ban with your edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens (2nd nomination). A few editors can tell you they think it's not a violation but you opened the ANI discussion and failed to wait on any consensus there before jumping back in, in particular for an administrator to make a decision on it. When you made your first comments there, it may have been considered a small oversight but you responded at ANI acknowledging that you would need to request a complete removal of the ban and yet you went back to the AFD again. Rather than a block for the entire duration of the AFD, it's a short block so that you can return to the ANI discussion if need be or go somewhere else. Otherwise, you've made your points and, unless the ANI discussion results in the elimination of your ban, I'd suggest you watch the AFD from afar and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there was a further violation of the topic ban in the section above, here, as well as on another editor's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what is going on here

...but that is okay. Listen I don't want to see your article deleted and it looks like you are unable to participate in the editing that it might need to meet the requirements of keeping it 'live'. I intend to copy it to my user page or off line to fix it up at a more leisurely pace. If I return here periodically in the next few days, do you think you can give me some better references that I put in the article that will help it meet MEDRs? Bfpage |leave a message 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, the user is topic banned from discussing anything medical in WP. Their post on your talk page was also a violation of their topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bfpage: Please review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Considered_for_unbanning. If you want to argue to userify the page then request it at the AFD but don't start some sort of copyright violation by copying and pasting it for your own editing without the full history. If it's deleted, it can be advocated for and restored at a later time if there's consensus to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Ricky81682. I will comply with your instructions. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that a topic ban did not extend to a user's talk page. Now I know better. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another issue but that's not the point to me. If you think the article is worth keeping, discuss it at the AFD. If you can convince people it's salvageable, it can made into a draft but otherwise it's Drgao's topic banning that's caused Drgao problems and no one else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]