Klortho

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Users are welcome to change their use talk pages as they like. When removing things that aren't insulting or anything, that is an indication of bad faith, but that's their problem. Refusing to use a users username, no matter how self-aggrandizing, is rude. You should stop that. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback. I disagree with you about refusing to use his username. I was surprised to learn that it's not against the rules to delete another's comments on user talk pages. But I think FxC has a nasty habit of using his mastery of WP policies to dominate discussions and bludgeon his opponents, as opposed to having a civil discussion based on common sense and sound reasoning. Klortho (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are both WP:BATTLE-prone, and I fall into that as well sometimes. That's bad. If you are unable to even type out his name, you should probably not interact with him at all. Just don't respond. Mastery of policy can indeed be used to disrupt, the only way to fix that is to read up on those processes as they happen. It's a lot of work, but worth it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. It's good advice. Klortho (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could add your input on this issue: Talk:2016_Sacramento_riot#BAMN_on_FBI_terror_list. Thanks! --Eightofnine (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding your input. I appreciate it. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Klortho, I am still somewhat unclear on what, precisely, you're arguing here. I know you have said that there is a double standard, but I'm not clear on whether you're pointing to those because you think they should be removed, or simply to make a point about "double standards". Which of these are you arguing?

1. You don't actually think there are any problems with those items, but you think editors are biased because those are not any less verifiable than the claims about the DePaul protests.
2. You do think there are problem with those items AND with the DePaul protests.
3. You think there is a problem with those other cases, but you think the coverage of the DePaul protest is fine.

Please clarify. Nblund (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll respond on the talk page. Klortho (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, since you haven't responded, I addressed the specific issues you mentioned in talk with re-wording and additional sources, and removed the POV tag again. If you want to replace it, you need to point to some aspect of the article content that is actually biased. Cleanup tags are meant to signify an issue that can be addressed with article content, not your beliefs about other editors. NPOV does not apply to talk page proposals, and there is no such thing as "prima facie" evidence of bias. If you are actually fine with the article in its current state, then you absolutely shouldn't be adding cleanup templates to it.

I want to improve the article, I didn't find (and still haven't found) verification for the claim related to DePaul. Several other editors also recognized the exact same issue I did. It's counterproductive and, frankly, just obnoxious, to make accusations of editorial bias simply because you disagree with someone about content. Going forward: just stick to discussing article content and keep your views about other editors to yourself unless you have some kind of meaningful evidence of impropriety. I think several of your comments have already been WP:UNCIVIL, but I am still willing to work with you if you show a little more tact. Nblund (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

"there is no such thing as "prima facie" evidence of bias" -- citation needed. I take issue with every point you raised above, especially with regards to my being uncivil. From what I've seen, you've steamrolled every discussion that you've been involved in, repeating the same assertions over and over, wearing everyone else down through attrition, and utterly deaf to valid points that counter your arguments. Klortho (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

We the editors will make changes to pages. You are welcome to help move the discussion but endless threats and circular "discussions" are unhelpful. You seem to have a narrow view but I will try to work with your ideas. It's not personal and therefore I expect the same from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, okay, I will try to be as responsive as I can. I have always said that I think the page could use improvements. And, yes, I know that my viewpoint is a minority one among the editors who have poked their heads up so far. And I'm, of course, familiar with "verifiability, not truth", but nevertheless, I would repeat the same question I asked you before, just on a personal level: Why is it so important to you to besmirch this Nobel Prize winner's reputation? Regardless of what you consider his "thought-crime", he made fantastic contributions to science. And, I think he's 89 years old now, and has paid a great price already. Frankly, even if I agreed with you on the adjective, I can't even see that insisting on adding it makes this a better encyclopedia. Klortho (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updates wijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikael wikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Diptanshu^Talk 10:10, 7 August 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Using Private Internet Access VPN while logged in. IP address == 173.239.192.0/18

Decline reason:

There's no right to edit through a VPN, and given the edits from that IP range preceding the block, I think it's better if it remains inaccessible. Huon (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2017 (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.

Klortho (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

If unblocking is not an option, could someone please point me to the WP policy on editing from VPNs? Thanks! Klortho (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

VPNs are considered a form of anonymising proxy and treated according to WP:OPENPROXY. Huon (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! Klortho (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Swarm ♠ 00:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Klortho. I've granted you this IPBE permission for the duration of one year. Should you need it renewed after this point, please make a request at WP:PERM, or via Template:Admin help. Welcome back, and best regards! Swarm ♠ 00:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Klortho (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01