Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi TheDoctorIsIn, may I help with archiving? Currently your talkpage is around 70K in size, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. If you'd like, I could set up an archivebot, which would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain period of time (like 60 days?), and then you would haven't to worry about it anymore? Up to you though! --Elonka 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. . . So kind of you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) I manually archived threads prior to 2008 into User talk:TheDoctorIsIn/Archive 1. Sometime within the next 24 hours, the bot will kick in, though I don't know when it's next "pulse" is. But it will periodically check your talkpage on a daily basis, and if it sees any threads that have had no activity for a couple months, it will automatically archive them. Don't worry, it'll never completely clear out your talkpage, as it's smart enough to leave a certain minimum number (5) of threads. If it fills up an archive, and I've set "full" to be 100K, it'll automatically top it off and then move on to the next archive number. Bottom line: It should all work automagically at this point, and you don't need to mess with it. If you'd ever like any adjustments though, please don't hesitate to ask! --Elonka 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if this thing is working okay or not?TheDoctorIsIn (talk)

By how long the talkpage gets.  :) So far it seems to be working fine. --Elonka 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. . . I think I get it.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've asked you before, but would you consider activating your email address through the "my preferences" navigation at the top of the page? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... but I would prefer not to at this time.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a page ban for you here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are hurting my feelings. . . really.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TheDoctorIsIn for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this comment you seem to be pretending to be a newbie while not logging in when you already have a registered account. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another IP who was not logged in. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TheDoctorIsIn. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was someone else using the same computer as me, but whatever. I really do not care one way or the other.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are talking about???TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Chiropractic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]