User talk:Corpuskrusty

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now

Hi there, I see you're adding inappropriate external links per WP:ELNO to articles and then accusing those reverting your edits of being "shills" for the pharmaceutical industry. This is disruptive and uncivil. Please stop now, or you may be blocked. Zad68 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links were valid and appropriate. The removal did not adhere to the guidelines. Your comments were not warranted. Kindly review the guidelines before you falsely accuse. --Corpuskrusty (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Corpuskrusty[reply]

December 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. 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. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for a variety of disruptive behaviors. In no particular order: 1. throwing around accusations of vandalism and disruption, of edits not meeting various Wikipedia criteria, is more than a bit silly given that your edits fall foul of a number of policies, with this edit as the most blatant example; 2. edit warring--which is edit warring even if you're right; 3. all these accusations of editors being "shills" for the pharmaceutical industry. I could find more, perhaps. Point is, I can't tell if you're being a troll or if you're a good-faith editor who's being hard-headed and hard of hearing, but it really does not matter: we have no time to deal with this disruption and until you change that tune it is unlikely that an administrator will grant an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The number of Wikipedia's editors have been falling since 2007. With good reason. Well intentioned educated academic individuals like myself, are bullied by editors like yourself who are only interested in maintaining dominance. You are definitely not interested in discourse. Sadly, Wikipedia is failing due to the loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operating a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.. Obviously this is why new users shun the site and Wikipedia criticism abounds on the Internet. Now I have first hand experience as to why. --Corpuskrusty (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Corpuskrusty Corpuskrusty (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I care a lot about improving Wikipedia's demographics and atmosphere; one thing we must do in order to ensure we do so successfully is to ensure we don't let disruptive users use our cultural and demographic problems as an excuse for their own disruptive behavior. In any future unblock requests, please directly address the actual reasons you were blocked, otherwise your talk page access will likely be removed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2014 (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.

I did nothing wrong

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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the terms and conditions. I have followed the rules. Yes I am not an expert in HTML. This is true. I expressed my opinion. I tried to make the articles more neutral. That is what editors are supposed to do. Wikipedia is not for just for a few editors with a gender bias. It is for everyone. My views are my own and I am not beholden to any other interests besides my own. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. I believe you are blocking me to suppress me. I believe you are blocking me in order to stop me from including peer reviewed literature which runs contrary to the beliefs of editors such as hyperionsteel, formerly 98, etc. It is sad that you allow a few biased editors to be the sole authors of important articles. Corpuskrusty (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)corpuskrusty[reply]

Decline reason:

Textbook case of Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs and WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:40, 2 December 2014 (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.

I read the article you linked to

Here is an example of lying by USERS Formerly 98 and Zad68. I did NOT add anti-psychiatry or anti-pharma advocacy links. One was a website that lists SSRIs in the media and the news . The other a support group for Benzo users. They lied to get me blocked.

"This new WP:SPA user has registered today for the first time, and begun methodically adding an anti-psychiatry link to multiple psychopharmacology articles, including Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, benzodiazepine, and Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. His addition to benzodiazepine was immediately reverted by a Medicine project administrator @Jfdwolff:, and the edit to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor by myself. He immediately responded to my reversion by attempting to edit war the link into place, left a nasty note on my userpage calling me a shill, and raised this ANI complaint against me without leaving notification on my user page. I respectfully submit that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and request that at a minimum, he be sternly warned against edit warring and attempting to use Wikipedia to WP:SOAPBOX. I have been here for a full year, and have never been blocked or warned in many thousands of edits. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) In their one day as an editor, or at least one day registered with this name, OP has 16 edits, most of then fiddling around with external links to anti-pharma advocacy sites that fail WP:ELNO, then a revert citing WP:FRINGE, an edit-warring warning laced with an accusation of acting as a "shill for the pharmaceutical industry", blanking well-sourced content, restoring duplicate content, blanking MORE content, and then right to ANI complaining the OTHER editor is blanking. OP is clearly a sock/"returning editor" with an axe to grind if not an outright troll. Zad68 02:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)"

I am neither a "sock" nor a "troll" as they wrote. I have no "axe to grind". He also lied that I did not leave him a message before the ANI complaint. I did. I am just a new user who wanted to help out on Wikipedia! --Corpuskrusty (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)corpuskrusty Corpuskrusty (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't see how it applies to me. I am simply wanting to edit articles to make them more neutral and to remove bias. You seem unwilling to accept any diversity on Wikipedia by constantly accusing me of things I have never done. It makes you all look very paranoid. Here is an example; one of your editors wrote this to me; "Sorry buddy, but as a sworn agent of the Forces of Evil, its my job to spread as much misinformation as I can. You'll be hearing from my contacts in Homeland Security in the next couple of days. Hope you enjoy the weather in Guantamano. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)". That sounds pretty insane to me. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? I listened to a report on NPR which said that Wikipedia lacked diversity so I thought it was a good idea to sign up as an editor. So far I have been blocked and falsely accused by a cadre of Wikipedia users like yourself who's only mission seems to be to threaten and intimidate people like myself from joining. This is becoming quite an experience that I don't think the general public is aware of. They should be. I think they would be surprised at the bullying that goes on of new members like myself.--Corpuskrusty (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)corpuskrusty[reply]

Decline reason:

Persistently posting unblock requests that continue exactly the kind of nonsense that led to the block is not going to get you unblocked. Since you keep posting unblock requests that make do not address the reasons for the block, and persistently failing to take in what you have been told, your talk page access will be removed to stop you wasting administrators' time by doing so again. If you prefer to believe that all I have written here is lies, and that really I am what you call a "shill", declining your request to further the cause of the great pharmaceutical conspiracy, you are free to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2014 (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.

The "diversity" that NPR was talking about has to do with editor demographics. It has nothing to do with adding psuedoscience/anti-science stances and adding links to sites that clearly don't meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

You can see from my contributions history I never added any "pseudoscience/anti-science stances" or added any "links to sites that do not meet reliable sources guidelines" per the link you posted. You are confusing me with another Wikipedia user. If you check my contributions you will see you are making a mistake. It's all there for you to see if only you would check, instead of regurgitating the other users comments. You will see that in fact they are the ones violating the rules, not me. Maybe you already know this and are just perpetuating this ruse with self-serving comments? I hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me since this has been the case from the beginning. --Corpuskrusty (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)corpuskrustyCorpuskrusty (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please only open one unblock request at a time. And no, I haven't mistaken you for another user; you've been told more or less the same thing by a number of users. If you don't understand how advocacy links don't meet reliable sources, Wikipedia is probably not the project for you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]