You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete   Skopp   07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet. I am not on an individual ISP. I have been alleged to be Schmoopster, which I obviously am not. I am a relative newbie trying to edit in good faith. I suspect SKOPP User:Skoppensboer is the sock puppet. Why do I suspect this? Because SKOPP, my accuser, is a supporter of the commercial website, www.ChronicProstatitis.com, which is an anonymous website. The links on the Prostatitis[Prostatitis] page keep getting spammed with links to www.ChronicProstatitis.com, or links that link to ChronicProstatitis.com. Even apparently copyrighted medical pictures have been used as Billboards to ChronicProstatitis.com via the links on Prostatitis. Furthermore, Sci.med.prostate.prostatitis was once a thriving USENET newsgroup started by professionals with doctors, researchers, and patients all over the world having coherent discussions. Then www.ChronicProstatitis.com came along and spammed and flamed everyone to death until the newsgroup was driven from a high activity group into almost nonexistance. ChronicProstatitis.com used anonymous remailers, and sock puppets, to spam and flame that newsgroup. Please verify this by searching there on ChronicProstatitis.com. SKOPP User:Skoppensboer appears to be doing the same thing here in support of ChronicProstatitis.com. His editing all mimics the material from ChronicProstatitis.com and the past flaming and spamming at Sci.med.prostate.prostatitis. Here, SKOPP flames his opposition, makes false allegations, and personal attacks. He does not stay on topic about editing. And he keeps spam linking, one way or another, to ChronicProstatitis.com. Silverye User:Silverye has suddenly appeared to ad support to ChronicProstatitis.com: Silverye says, "* The removal of http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/forum has been the worst thing to have happened to the Prostatitis wikipedia page. Very poor decision. Silverye 06:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)" About the apparently copyrighted medical pictures defaced with billboard ads to ChronicProstatitis.com Silverye says, "I found the first 2 diagrams on http://www.geocities.com/myoneuropathy/ to be especially invaluable to my understanding of this condition - shame to take that chance of understanding away from others by removing the link. Silverye 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" So we have two editors at the Prostatitis[Prostatitis] page who support a commercial website, which is anonymous, and not affiliated with any doctor or medical professional. ReasonableLogicalMan 12:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would stop changing Ruben's edits if I were you. He's an admin, and a MD.   Skopp   18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. David Ruben ^Talk 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, heads up to discussion thread Talk:Prostatitis#External_link_to_geocities.2Fmyoneuropathy_pelvic_floor_pictures, please discuss there rather than risk edit warring (always commendable to try follow WP:1RR). Link, whilst excellent illustrations, does have some potential issues that might be best clarified on talk page (I'm initially more concerned for their relevance to the article vs I think your concerns for purpose of that website). David Ruben ^Talk 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Prostatitis. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. In an edit dispute that is under talk page discussion, further reverting is seen as disruptive - allow time for others to feel able to join in the discussion and for that to be concluded (I've notified the other editor about the tone of that discussion).David Ruben ^Talk 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to send me an email, goto my user page User:Davidruben and then under the search box on the left hand side should be a tool box with "What links here, Related changes..... E-mail this user". Errm let me see, direct link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Davidruben

I don't suggest that this becomes a private cabal on my email that discusses the research literature, I've already indicated that I'll be doing my own PubMed searching, just that it never hurts to have a couple of important papers pointed out so that I do not inadvertantly miss :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that Silverye may be a sockpuppet of Skoppensboer has been found likely, with the single purpose attack account of Silverye being indefinitely bloacked and Skoppensboer warned (see Talk:Prostatitis.

However, likewise Skoppensboer's suggestion of sockpuppetry by yourself (re use of an anon IP to further an edit dispute on 31st Oct & 2nd November) has been felt to be "a clear case ... IP is clearly the same user as the account in question".

Any further personal attacks, lack of good faith or sockpuppetry would I'm sure result in relevant editors being blocked. David Ruben ^Talk 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cracking down. We will need continued Admin help to solve the SPAM and copyright issues raised. ReasonableLogicalMan 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that after investigation my block has been reversed and I am not a sockpuppet of anyones. Silverye 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, but could you alter your user preferences (at Special:Preferences) so that your signature includes a link back to you (as stated as being required at WP:Signature#Internal_links). Given you have defined the colour, you will have selected for "Raw format", but as such you must manually code for the wikilink to your user page or user talk page (or both) (see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature).

Hence instead of:
<span style="color:blue">'''ReasonableLogicalMan'''</span> 
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan 
 
Instead perhaps:
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:ReasonableLogicalMan|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''</span>([[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]])
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk)
Or for coloured talk link too:
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''([[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]])</span>
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk)
Or superscripted (the spaces either side of the "sup" tags seem to be required)
<span style="color:blue">'''[[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]]'''<sup> [[User talk:Reasonablelogicalman|Talk]] </sup> </span>
  showing as ReasonableLogicalMan Talk 

David Ruben ^Talk 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly, but not yet quite correct - wikipedia is case sensitive so no capital L or M in Reasonablelogicalman, hence the [[User:Reasonablelogicalman|ReasonableLogicalMan]] use of alternative displayed text in above example to display User:Reasonablelogicalman as ReasonableLogicalMan. User:ReasonableLogicalMan, with the capitals, is a broken non-existant red-link. David Ruben ^Talk 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have redone the signature and tested it in the sandbox. I'll see if it works here now. Reasonablelogicalman(Talk 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Signature hyperlink did not work properly, so now trying again. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You convicted me of sock puppetry. I would like a chance to appeal that decision. May I have the opportunity? Thanks, ReasonableLogicalMan", uh, I don't understand this. I did not block you, see there are no blocks in your block log. I do not find diffs nor recall doing anything to you. You may be caught up in an autoblock, which occurs sometimes when blocks are placed because of the way IPs work, this is unintentional. See {{Autoblock}} if such is the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you would like Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology undeleted. An article removed by PROD can be undeleted on request, so I have just done that. Please make sure you improve it, though: it needs:

1. Links to the WP articles on each disease, if there is one.
2. At least one actual reference for each disease, to a good recent published reliable source--take a look at PubMedPlus.
3. A separation between the ones where the cause is now known--you might in fact want to remove them into a separate article, beccause the title does not really apply.

I placed an "underconstruction" tag on the article so people will give you at least a week or so to work on it. Any problems, just let me know. (I will now remove the "requested article" request for it, which I think you no longer need.DGG (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly a synthesis of ideas by the author. Wikipedia follows, not leads, and WP:OR clearly forbids original syntheses like this. Nominated for deletion. Surprised admins cannot see the breach immediately.   Skopp   01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. Thank you.   Skopp   01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]