User talk:Perpetual808

Welcome

Hello, Perpetual808, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- samtar talk or stalk 08:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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).

Perpetual808 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made valid edits and had a neutral and balances view. It seems to be a group working in concert to undo my edits without explanation. I got help in the chat and they said they would watch the page and how to complain. I will ask for arbitration when Wikipedia allows me to make the requestPerpetual808 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even if your description of your changes were correct, that still would not be an excuse for edit warring. Unfortunately, those "neutral and balances views" were anything but and violated WP:BLP, our policy on biographies of living persons. Huon (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (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.

Excuse the typo. I meant "balanced". It was a balanced view. Another party's point of view which was extreme criticism to the point of calling the man a fraud does not belong in the first 2 sections of his page. Also show me another page where a quote repeats in the first 2 sections other than that page. People are abusing their editing privileges. Perpetual808 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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).

Perpetual808 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't need to make this edit myself but I do think it needs to be made. A repeating quote in the first 2 sections of the biography is not reasonable. An irrelevant criticism of the subject does not belong as his second paragraph either. Clearly his page is under attack and needs arbitration.Perpetual808 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2016 (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.

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Gary Null shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gary Null shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the dog. bark 16:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Third warning

Your recent editing history at Gary Null shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Fences&Windows 17:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Some facts....

Edit summary: "It falls under p.o.v. Barrett is de-licenced. He is a said to be a quack himself. http://raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html)"

1. Properly sourced POV is allowed here. Without it we'd have far less content and fail in our goal to document the sum total of human knowledge, which happens to include opinions. Barrett's POV is the mainstream one, backed by good science and evidence.
2. Barrett has never been "de-licenced" or disciplined. He is retired. There is a difference. That claim originated with the paid defender of a real quack, Hulda Clark.
3. Sahelian is the quack. When Barrett called him out on his unethical practices, that page was Sahelian's retaliation. You are believing a quack's word against a quackbuster.

BullRangifer (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the latest edit again. It was contested, and I agree that it does not belong in the article. Per WP:BRD it stays out unless there is talk page consensus that it should go in. I doubt very much such consensus can be reached. Returning from an edit warring block to make the same type of material on the same article is a very bad idea. Meters (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gary Null. 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. Meters (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions notification

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 that 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.

Nick (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't apply to this situation. If nutrition is pseudoscience then why is it licensed by the state? Steven Barrett calls Gary Null and Dr. Oz quacks yet Dr. Oz is an M.D and Barrett is not. Barrett could be called a quack by his own definition according to a medical doctor.

On the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, says this about quackery: "Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed." Taken from a February 10, 2106 article by Ray Sahelian, M.D. Perpetual808 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

I've reverted your edits to Stephen Barrett as more of the same types of problems that you've been notified and blocked for already. If you have questions, I'm happy to explain. If you feel the material or something similar should be added to the article, please bring it up on the article talk page where others can review your proposal. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In no way does Stephen Barrett's opinion of Gary Null belong in his introduction in his biography. I don't feel it even belongs at the bottom of his page. It seems there is a group people dedicated to making Gary Null's page about Stephen Barrett's opinion. Null's page is not written from a neutral view.

Perpetual808 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Fences&Windows 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You just came off a 24-hr block for edit warring - and you promptly did four reverts. I'm blocking you for a week this time to stem your disruption to Gary Null. This behaviour is not acceptable, do this again straight off this block and I will block you indefinitely. Fences&Windows 01:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett and some advice

Copied from here to make sure you see it. The context is on that page.

A few facts:

1. Key items used in the lead section MUST be duplicates of content already in the body of the article. That's the way it's supposed to be.
2. Barrett has never claimed to have a "degree in nutrition," so that attack is a straw man logical fallacy. Neither does he claim to have the same knowledge as an RD. His specialty is still as one who recognizes false claims, in this case about nutrition. Interestingly, he is so knowledgeable on the subject, and especially in recognizing when false claims are being made about nutrition, that he received an honorary membership in the ADA. Here is some content from the article relevant to him and nutrition: "In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.[13] ... In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association.[13]"

This is advice. When you meet resistance here at Wikipedia, stop and take stock of the situation. Regardless of how right you think you are, you must cooperate with other editors. We edit collaboratively here. You must also assume that other editors have more experience than you and that you need to learn from them. Instead of attacking or accusing them, ask them to explain what's wrong. That approach is much more likely to ensure smoother sailing. FYI, I have been here since about 2003, first as an occasional IP editor, and since 2005 as a registered editor.

BullRangifer (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Except this repeated "key item" is another's negative point of view of Gary Null. What if Barrett put his opinion of everyone in their biography and his gang of supporters came and defended it? What would Wikipedia become? Barrett also thinks Dr. Oz, a licensed M.D., is a quack. Should his opinion be on his page in he key sections? No. Perpetual808 (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand Wikipedia. Anything related to the subject which is mentioned in a RS is fair game for inclusion as content. It won't always happen, but it can, especially negative commentary because censorship and whitewashing are not allowed. We do not write sales brochures here. NPOV requires we tell all sides of a story and include both positive and negative content about the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please give me another example where a notable person has another's criticism about them on their page in their opening section. Barrett is not involved with or related to Null in any way Perpetual808 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to look them up, but there are literally thousands of other articles with negative commentary which is also mentioned in the lead of the article. This is not at all unusual. Just look for controversial persons. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, those are irrelevant and not facts to qualify him to speak on the subject. Stephen Barrett is neither a MD or an RD. He has not held a license in psychiatry since 1993. You don't need a degree in nutrition to give nutritional advice in the United States but you do need a degree as a Medical Doctors (MDs) or a Registered Dietitians (RDs) is to provide medical nutritional therapy such prescribe nutritional changes specifically to treat disease. By his own definition, he could be called a quack. Barrett is retired and his license has now lapsed since 1993, he is unable to perform peer reviews or clinical reviews

Perpetual808 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

His qualifications aren't really at issue here. He's a notable person who commented about Null, and that's enough, but for good measure he's a subject expert on quackery and health fraud, so Null is on his radar, as well as the radar of numerous others who consider him a quack. Barrett isn't the only one. Dietitians also find fault with Null, whose education is dubious and substandard.

Stephen Barrett is an MD and will always be an MD. That's how it works. His licensing status doesn't affect the fact that he has an education as an MD. "His medical license is now listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing: "No disciplinary actions were found for this license."2" His license number is MD005361E -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it is obvious that Barrett getting an honorary ADA membership while a licensed M.D. is not the same as having a degree in Nutrition or a dietician license. Since he received that membership, the name of ADA was changed to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The name change and removing "American" is relevant. "The Academy has faced controversy regarding corporate influence related to its relationship with the food industry and funding from corporate groups such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola,[5] Mars, and others."

The ADA is not the subject here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is a credible source for this quote? "In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery." The link just repeats this information with no source nor is the website still active. Why not add Barrett's other irrelevant "credential" since he also is "a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)".

Perpetual808 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference satisfies our requirements, and adding mention of more credentials is not necessary, although the CSICOP one is quite a notable honor.

So far you have not succeeded in getting any agreement with your attempts to denigrate Barrett or whitewash Null. Further attempts will likely get you blocked indefinitely. You need to get a few years experience here so you at least understand how things work here, because you obviously don't understand our policies very well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)