User talk:Quantummech

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Quantummech, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Verbal chat 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorpuncture

I have started a discussion at Talk:Colorpuncture#Presentation and context - large undiscussed edits. Your participation is welcomed. As a side note, please do not mark large edits such as this as minor. There is a setting under the Preferences link at the top of every page where you can control whether edits are marked as minor by default. In general, the only edits which should be marked as minor are those that are trivial, such as fixing spelling or punctuation or adding an obvious wikilink. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colorpuncture. 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no reverts at all or undos. Though my contributions have continuously been reverted off the article. Please, I'd appreciate a reasonable discussion and some room for change rather than experiencing constant accusations and reverts here. Maybe we can begin again . . . Quantummech (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Colorpuncture. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 23:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does editing the acupuncture sentence to acknowledge the obvious controversy add my own personal analysis? Perhaps you would be willing to edit this to an appropriate portrayal of NPOV since I don't seem to get how to do that in an acceptable way. Leaving this statement as is - is biased and as I have stated on the talk page, the reference is an opinion and out of date (being 13 years old). There are certainly better references to the research on acupuncture and some of them are included on the wiki article of that topic. Who is so invested in keeping this one reference? Quantummech (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talk pages

Hi QM, could I politely request that you keep your comments on article talk pages to discussing improving the article, please? I know that there are many conventions on Wikipedia that are not immediately intuitive when you start editing, and you wanted a response to your question about your user page, but this page is the place for that question. You can ask those sort of questions in a new section here and place the {{helpme}} template on that section (click the link for a guide). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quantummech (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I am new here and working on getting in the habit of adding that Quantummech (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colorpuncture. 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. Fences&Windows 03:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made absolutely no reverts at all or undos. Though my contributions (which have not been the same as I have attempted to find an acceptable way to address this towards a NPOV) have continuously been reverted off the article. Please, I'd appreciate a reasonable discussion and some room for change rather than experiencing constant accusations and reverts here. Maybe we can begin again . . . I have been making requests for discussion on the talk page - I don't understand how wanting to find an unbiased and NPOV here is perceived as so disruptive. I'd appreciate someone showing me where the consensus is that the Felix Mann reference is absolutely essential to this article. Quantummech (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Spectral Light Rods.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Spectral Light Rods.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Perlux 117.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Perlux 117.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Peter Mandel.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Peter Mandel.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lightset-p117.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Lightset-p117.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I have never had multiple accounts - I have only the one- as you can see from the discussion page and here I have been accused of all manner of bad behaviors without evidence which I have not done - I am new to wiki and find this utterly frustrating and disgraceful - do not the usual tenets of justice apply here? Where is any evidence that I have multiple accounts? I do not so there cannot be any - should not the accuser be required to prove this before blocking me? There is an element of bullying going on here and repeated attempts to accuse without evidence and block me without cause - is this type of "hazing" just a common experience for the uninitiated? As there is no evidence, I ask that the record be cleared and my reputation as a wiki contibutor be restored immediately.Quantummech (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; you're not blocked, at present. See also my comments, below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quantummech, your block was only for three days and expired on December 18. I don't think a block log can be "cleared" but an administrator might know better. There was an investigation of your activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantummech which you can read. Other than your block log, I don't see where you were informed of this, and I agree you should've been informed of the accusation and allowed to defend yourself. Still, you are free to edit and contribute constructively to Wikipedia now. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Mysdaao's comments, appealing an expired block with the {{unblock}} template isn't possible, and the block log itself is permanent. A notation could be made, if the block is proven to be erroneous, but that is exceedingly rare when checkuser evidence exists. You're free to edit normally, if you wish, and no one will ever bother you about the block again - assuming you edit within policy, which you seem willing to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]