User talk:Dr.Vittal

Hello, Dr.Vittal! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

To change your username, go to WP:CHU. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes

Note that Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism is a sub-page, not a content fork. It is a draft held in talk space, and you can't get to it by searching the main box - you have to know exactly where to look, or be searching off-wiki. I have already asked Filll (the page creator) if he would delete it, but irrespective, it is an old draft that shows no reason to be put into mainspace.

Please stop bringing this item up in multiple places. This is referred to as canvassing or forum shopping. Your concerns on talk:homeopathy have been addressed already. You may not like the responses, but they are appropriate and within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. In order to make the page more "positive" you require reliable sources indicating it is a better treatment than placebo. Since the research has already been done on this topic, and there is absolutely no reason within the sciences of chemistry, physics or clinical medicine for homeopathy to work as anything but an elaborate placebo, it is unlikely you will find it. Irrespective, it is inappropriate to complain that an article is wrong or biased without sources to substantiate that point. Right now the page is critical because the best science available is critical. That is appropriate, and the reality of wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vittal, I have asked some questions for you to answer here. Please go there and answer them. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments here.. Please respond there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:PARENT - the only real reason to bring an issue to the attention to more than one noticeboard or other is because of a lack of response. To keep bringing this up at different noticeboards, particularly when there is extensive, ongoing, polite discussion on the talk page, is generally frowned upon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vittal, you haven't responded yet here. Please do so promptly. It would also be a good idea to activate your email function. You can do that using the "my preferences" link at the top of the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how the hell is someone able to e-mail me?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your e-mail is enabled, perhaps it wasn't when BR first tried. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Your email is enabled now. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.Jhingaadey?

I just have to ask you something. Do you know of, are you acting for, or are you actually User:Dr.Jhingaadey? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know anyone by that name.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he uses American English (I don't).-Dr.Vittal (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a difficult thing to alter. Irrespective, I have moved your comment, and the whole conversation at NPOVN, to talk:homeopathy and added a comment [1]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVN comment

Your comment here is problematic for a variety of reasons:

the original posting is about an unrelated matter, the discussion at talk:homeopathy is already pointed to in the homeopathy section
your statement first of all assumes that the existing discussion is POV, which is a failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as it insults the other contributors as being biased when all have pointed towards both policy and source problems with your preferred version of the page
it assumes administrators are superusers. Adminship is no big deal and there is no tool-based intervention that is required on any of the pages; ergo, a request for administrator attention is both inappropriate and again, insulting.

The issue is you wish to edit towards a version of homeopathy that is much more sympathetic to it. To date you have not shown any policy-based reasons for doing so. In other words, you disagree with the page not because it misrepresents the sources or state of the field within the scholarly mainstream, but because you personally believe it is incorrect. This is not how wikipedia is built. If you can not substantiate your edits with high-quality sources, this suggests you should not be making them. The issue may be with your personal opinions being contrary to how homeopathy is percieved within scientific, scholarly or medical circles. Since editing contrary to the sources is prohibited, I would suggest you conduct a series of highly-controlled, well-designed experimental interventions to test homeopathy against standard medical care. If your studies indicate that there is merit to homeopathy beyond placebo effect, you can then suggest they be used to adjust the wikipedia pages. Until these studies exist, there is no reason to change the main page. The fact that so many of such studies have come back showing no difference from simple placebo suggest the issue may be your beliefs do not reflect reality, not that the studies (or wikipedia's treatment of the topic, policies or guidelines) are flawed. That is not our problem and that is not a reason to change any pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I believe there is sufficient behavioral evidence to suggest this account is a reincarnation of the banned editor Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs). As such, I have indefinitely blocked Dr.Vittal (talk · contribs).

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

— Scientizzle 18:47, 12 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not Dr.Jhingaadey and I have made only one edit here on Wikipedia, in an area that is not controversial. I am looking for someone to 'adopt' me and I will start editing here only after I get to know the rules a bit better. I therefore believe that this 'block' is unfair and ought to be reversed

Decline reason:

You've made an awful lot more than one edit. As such I am inclined to distrust your self-representation, and will not unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What I meant was that I have edited only one article (I don't think the others count as editing an article), in an area that is not controversial. I repeat that I am not Dr.Jhingaadey

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I did read that 'guide'. Let me answer what you asked point by point: *I have not damaged or disrupted Wikipedia in any way (in fact I haven't even posted any comments anywhere since 13th April).**I understand that I was blocked because someone thought I was Dr.Jhingaadey, but since I am not, it is unfair to allege that I am him.**I promise I will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia (I was considering being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, but got blocked before that.**I promise to make useful contributions after I get to know the rules (like WP:NPOV, WP:NPA etc.)

Decline reason:

It's hard to tell whether you're the same user, or a different person with the same goal: to add information to Wikipedia which supports your opinions but isn't verified by reliable sources. Either way, since your only purpose at Wikipedia appears to be to promote your beliefs, which the best available reliable sources indicate are untrue, I don't see any way that your continued participation in the project could possibly be good for Wikipedia. Your claim that Homeopathy is 'noncontroversial' is rather bizarre, given the circumstances. FisherQueen (talk · contribs)

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never edited the article on Homeopathy (please see my contributions). I did read that 'guide' Scientizzle, Daniel and Fastily mentioned. Let me answer what Fastily asked point by point: *I have not damaged or disrupted Wikipedia in any way (in fact I haven't even posted any comments anywhere since 13th April).**I understand that I was blocked because someone thought I was Dr.Jhingaadey, but since I am not, it is unfair to allege that I am him.**I promise I will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia (I was considering being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, but got blocked before that).**I promise to make useful contributions after I get to know the rules (like WP:NPOV, WP:NPA etc.). I am sure I can contribute to a whole lot of articles on Wikipedia after discussing things on the talk page.

Decline reason:

I've taken a look, and agree that there is far too much similarity here for you to be another user. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (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.

So, how would your continued participation be good for Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I can contribute to a whole lot of articles on Wikipedia after discussing things on the talk page.-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]