Hello, Immortale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Scientizzle16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help with the Aspartame article
Its great that you are willing to work on the Aspartame article. However, my experience with new and angry editors is that they often break a number of WP policies and Guidelines and get blocked. If you want to make a lasting contribution I would suggest that you spend some time to understand WP:RSWP:NPOV and other rules. WP editing can be rough and your opponents are really good at Wiki-lawyering.MaxPont (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
January 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbalchat14:35, 6 January 2009 (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).
I used the Talk page, consensus was reached by a majority of contributing editors, waited 25 days for any more comments until I added my edit, assuming WP:Silence_and_consensus. User:Verbal disagreed and removed it without discussion, accused me of misreading policy. User:Verbal seldom debates issues, and boldly removes edits that are not according to his side of the article.
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.
Hi Immortale. This message is regarding the 3RR report regarding yourself found here. One of the policies here is the three revert rule, which really was set up to avert revert-warring on articles. On Aspartame controversy, over a 24 hour period, you have made 3 reversions to the article, with an IP edit that was reported to be you accidentally logged out making a fourth edit. Even discounting the IP edit, the reversions you made are considered as edit-warring on the article, and I have blocked you for 36 hours pursuant to this, given a prior 3RR block on the same article. My suggestion is to look over WP:3RR one more time. Many editors find it best to adhere to no more than one reversion in 24 hours, and to take things to the talk page at that time (and not to make reversions or edits equivalent to reversions on the article). As always, if you disagree with this block, you are welcome to use the {{unblock}} template for a second administrator to review the situation. Thanks for understanding -- Samir05:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I work on the article in between a lot of other things not related to Wikipedia and I'm not always aware of the clock. In my defense, a trap was laid out by user:Tom harrison, who is a very experienced Wikipedian, and inserted a reference to a bogus site, more specificly, to a forum that contained a pasted text from another unqualified site according Wikipedia policy. I should have known better but will enjoy the extra holiday from Wikipedia nevertheless. Immortale (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first must say that you have an incredible patience, because what you had to endure from some mean-spirited editors was not nothing. You recognized an editorial injustice and stuck by it and tried to get neutral opinions. It's good that you didn't fold because of the intimidation thrown at you. Anyway, the above mentioned reference is [here] and the removal of that edit by me [here]. There are some dirty games being played in the aspartame article. I appreciate it that you devoted your time to fight that. Immortale (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took it as an experience ;) It is interesting to note that when looking at the old talk pages many of the very same discussions have come up again and again, with editors being discouraged to continue working on wikipedia as a result. Karloff, should he not return, would just be the latest in a long line of casualties. The Aspartame sources have also repeatedly come up on WP:RSN: Published means published, and others that you were directly involved in. I was searching thru leda, and there are 4 articles with 'aspartame' as a keyword on the Harvard server (Cornell seems down, so you have to select search local). I found it somewhat amusing to see that one of the arguments of Hayes that is consistently given is that for the mouse experiment they should have looked at the control group for indication of baseline cancer incidents. The Ramazinni (sp) experiment was criticized for having 'abnormally' healthy control groups. To be totally honest with you; I don't care one way or the other if Aspartame gives you cancer or makes your pee glow in the dark. I do care about getting the details right though :) I am going to try to approach this as an exercise in Great Article midwifery. I am sure we are going to have a lot of fun with it. Unomi (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This type of behavior is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Discussions and debates should be aboveboard and conducted without subterfuge and false reinforcement.
As this was a fairly serious violation of Wikipedia policy, I am blocking your apparent main account (Immortale) for one week. I am blocking Unomi indefinitely.
Please do not create any further accounts or attempt to edit pages other than your talk page during the time that you are blocked.
I appreciate that this is a topic which you consider important. However, it is never acceptable to try and "cheat" Wikipedia discussions in this manner, no matter how right you feel about it.
Checkuser evidence indicates that the behavioral identification I made above was likely a mistake. While it is not impossible that you and Unomi were somehow working together, the checkuser was emphatic that you're not anywhere close to each other.
Reexamining the evidence, while your cooperation with Unomi and behavior were extremely suspicious, I don't see enough cause to conclude that you have to be coordinating at a distance somehow if you really are some distance apart. While I am still suspicious about some behavioral similarities, we have a higher standard of evidence than mere suspicion, even by experienced administrators. I don't think I can meet any reasonable burden of proof versus a verified geographical distance between you two.
On that basis, I have unblocked both of your accounts. While your behavior raised eyebrows and caused me to investigate in more depth, if you really aren't coordinating with Unomi then there's nothing about the current behavior that requires an administrator to intervene at this time.
I apologize for the disruption the block caused.
I want to ask you to make an effort to cooperate with OrangeMarlin on a civil and constructive basis - there is obviously some pain and distrust there now. Hopefully you all can get past your mutual distrusts and cooperate on making the encyclopedia better.
And not a second too late as I was just typing up a reply. Next time look at the evidence first. I haven't created any accounts and haven't worked together with any of the other editors behind the scenes. Orangemarlin is behaving very disruptive and acts like he has special privileges after 25,000 edits. That sort of behavior happens in the real world as well. I have contributed to Wikipedia using the guidelines it requires. They know it, but they try finding ways to get me blocked because of their disagreement with my contributions. Immortale (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing this as a warning because I cannot be held responsible whenever an individual comes along, which makes edits that agree with some of my edits. My edits were made within wikipedia's guidelines, and some of yours were not. Your edits - even wrong ones - get the support from your buddies, and only when I got a neutral third opinion, they undid your edits. When someone comes along who is not hostile towards my edits, this whole witch hunt starts. Focus on the article please. Immortale (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I blocked, I spent over an hour and a half, and I looked at literally hundreds of edits of yours and Unomi's and Karloff's, looking at times of editing, what content you added or removed, edit comments, and sources and references used. This was not a slapdash or rushed block. If I had not been concerned over the behavior your accounts were displaying I would not have invested an hour and a half in reviewing activity. I also ruled out Karloff's account as related, based on that behavioral comparison, despite OrangeMarlin's being convinced he or she was part of this.
It is extremely rare for multiple accounts to appear like that, with a similar viewpoint which is on the fringe of normal scientific belief, and for there not to be some sort of coordination to push an agenda on Wikipedia. We do these sorts of investigations all the time. The hit rate for confirming as sockpuppets with the checkuser, once we proceed with an investigation that far and conclude based on behavior that it's likely enough to act, is extremely high. Many many many actual abusers are detected for every case of mistaken identity such as we appear to have here.
I don't want to be as forceful as Verbal was above - I did make a mistake - but I did the investigation because there was an apparent editing problem. If there was no apparent problem I would not have spent so much time on it. I don't want to get involved in resolving that - the action I took and its being a mistake mean I've got a conflict of interest now. But I again strongly urge you to try and cooperate with OrangeMarlin. I asked him to do so with you.
If you ever have another hour and a half to spare, compare Orangemarlin and Verbal. They are 2 people, but because of their convictions, have many similarities in their edits. That's not unusual in people. There are many abusers and cheaters on Wikipedia and I applaud anyone to fight that. You have my cooperation. Immortale (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still blocked?
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Sorry about that. This was an automatic mechanism, not something someone did to you. The autoblocks kick in under some circumstances like this - which was unfortunate, because I was in the process of unblocking you as the autoblock came on. Let us know if it happens again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I convince you to amend this edit? The clause (in reference to reading the RS guideline) have you or do you just like to decorate your posts with wiki references? and the sentence There's more to say, but you probably come with another wiki abbreviation to justify what you're doing. add little or nothing to your point, and might be construed as rude. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Verbal doesn't contradict his edits with wikilawyering, there's no need for me to comment his edits. Many times he makes comments or accusations about me that have no ground and use Ad hominem arguments. If you bring "rude" into this, then you should have a look at his comments that many times contain false accusations directed at me (the whole sockpuppet ridicule for example that he hasn't dropped).This summary edit shows that he is rude by referring to me as a fringe editor while his edits are often incorrect quotes from the references he sources. He mentions edit warring while the reality is that no one reverts more edits than he in this article. And almost always without any discussion on Talk. Instead he keeps pointing to wiki laws. Is it a surprise that I get tired of his behavior? Immortale (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This characterisation is laughably very inaccurate, apart from the chilling accusation that I follow wiki "law". Yes, I follow wiki policies and guidelines, and I don't have to wikilawyer to do it. I think you'll find my behaviour considering the level of personal vindictive and baiting has been well within wikipedia norms. That is not the case for everyone, as shown by some participants block logs and agenda driven single purpose editing. Verbalchat20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, and I'll no doubt regret this, but which part of my involvement in the mediation was unjustified in that forum? Verbalchat21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many times you don't follow wiki law, that's my point, you just mention its references to the wiki guidelines (and they are guidelines, much depend on the consensus of contributing editors) and they don't reflect what you intended to do. The most recent example is when you referred to WP:RS at this post. I replied with it that I had read it and cited a section that said: "Statements of opinion. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." The pattern I noticed in your editing behavior is that when you obviously are wrong, you ignore further discussion and start editwarring, with or without some of you edit buddies, of which some of them have been blocked. You are very biased regarding the Aspartame Controversy article (we all have bias of course) and you are convinced that the whole controversy is laughable (one of your favorite words). It's that you want to be right, not that you want a fair and balanced article according wikipedia's guidelines (which I try to follow of course). Immortale (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are very biased, but I have no interest beyond writing a good, accurate article. Your reference to op-eds in newspapers is misleading, as the article is not an op-ed in a newspaper. You do seem to not fully understand WP:RS, hence my reference to it. I also referred to AGF as you gave false motives to what was a simple copy/paste error, which also highlighted a duplicated reference. Please stop using the term "wiki law", there is no wiki law and it weakens your argument to use incorrect terms. Also, I have no idea about or control over other editors, and I have never been blocked, unlike yourself for problematic behaviour at this very article; please don't attempt to smear me by reference to the behaviour of others. I ignore irrelevant or disruptive comments, and baiting. Laughable is not a particularly favourite word of mine, another possible attempt at a smear? I think the controversy is misguided considering the overwhelming scientific evidence and lack of evidence of harm, if the balance of evidenced changed (it would have to be significant) then I would accept that, and wikipedia should accept that. Until then, and it's unlikely, it's fringe and mostly a hoax.
It said EXAMPLE in the above citation. I'm sure op-ed pieces in news MAGAZINES or News WEBSITES or an opinion in a journal for students at a university fall under the same category. I'm also sure that the majority of neutral editors will agree with me, as they have always done so far. The above mentioned blocks were because of reverts that you and your friends did just as many times if not more. Difference is that I don't immediately jump on anyone with warnings or inform a friend that he can revert it, which you did here, 2 minutes after I reverted your edit and you couldn't revert a 3rd time. Regarding the simple copy and paste error you made, fair enough, but it illustrates that you don't even check your own edits. But take it easy, I didn't ask for a block based on that. NPOV states: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." The majority of editors and I established in the article that there is enough weight to claim that aspartame is controversial. Only you keep stating it's a hoax. Calling me a Fringe POV pusher while at the same time you never answer what POV I'm supposed to push, see here: "I still haven't been told what POV Immortale is supposedly trying to push." by mediator Tealwisp. A FEW of your comments in the sockpuppet investigation are extremely exaggerated or plain lies:
the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming
These sockpuppets are causing damage to the project
There has been other abuse, such them making and backing up each others ridiculous COI attacks on respected long standing editors.
There is no "real" dispute, just smoke and mirrors advocacy.
It seems to me that you base a lot of your arguments on your statements that you have a lot of (scientific) experience and that you want respect for that. That it is your status that validates a statement, not necessarily fair wikipedia guidelines. I know we're not going to agree with each other so maybe we can agree on that and move on. Immortale (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by all those statements, and they were made in the appropriate forum using appropriate language - the self-described mediator at no point took issue with me; in fact he conceded points. Shouting does not further cause. As to what POV you are trying to push (not my words), you have describe yourself in this very thread as a biased editor, and your actions speak for themselves. I'm afraid that your actions and yours alone are responsible for your blocks, blaming others will go against you in any future admin action. I call the hoax "chain letter" a hoax, because that is what it is and is backed by RS. You continue in a most disappointing way to fail to WP:AGF about an honest mistake, which I admit, but which has none of the import you are ascribing to it - this complaint is indeed laughable (justifying my description above). You are editing from in support of a fringe position, and frequently go beyond WP:UNDUE. You have admitted your bias, perhaps it is time for you to reflect on how that is colouring your views of WP:NPOV. Again, I honestly have no interest in aspartame (although I am drinking a diet coke as I write this). I hope you take this as a constructive dialogue. Apologies if I missed any of your points, à plus. Verbalchat10:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, there's no point in discussing anything with you because you don't present arguments. I didn't say I'm very biased. I said that everyone has bias because that's human nature. And to quote from WP:NPOV: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." You're the one who emphasizes the copy and paste error. I only mentioned it once without contest. You brought it back here. This is again trying to exaggerate the situation and pull the attention away from the real errors and accusations you have made. (one example: here, which you replied to as "smearing your reputation"). You had an opportunity at the forum to explain what POV I'm supposedly pushing, and you stayed silent. Because I'm not pushing any POV, you are. You've admitted that you think that adverse effects of aspartame are hoaxes and therefore deny or contest every valid source that proves otherwise. Immortale (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is: cant we all just be friends? lets not live in fear of each others edits or of re-evaluating our beliefs now and then. Unomi (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how your lengthy comment is relevant to the article at all, let alone the subject of the external link [1]. I suggest removing it, or rewriting it in a new section so it is relevant and follows WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been a lot of incivility at Aspartame controversy, and it has been a barrier to improving the article. I probably shouldn't have put even one comment on the talk page about civility, myself. It didn't advance the article, and I'm sorry. I didn't express myself very clearly, either. Here's what I meant to say: while I think is productive to say something like "I think your recent edits continue to improve the article", it can cause hard feelings to say "I think your edits are better than some other person's edits". And I don't want hard feelings. I think our discussions are more productive without them, and I think we are all happier without them.
Fair enough. I'll go over the whole Aspartame controversy article this weekend, if not next week and answer your questions on its Talk Page. I appreciate you have put a lot of time in it and hopefully I can contribute to make the article better. Immortale (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. While you are at it, perhaps you can collect the references for the FDA COI stuff you want in there. I've been putting them in the Timeline. The same for the Monsanto stuff. I think you've gotten a feel for what the consensus on WP:RS is going to be in the different sections of the article -- government reports and mass-media sources to document the WP:CONTROVERSY sections and WP:MEDRS sources for the "preponderance of medical opinion" sections. Then we only need to string together the acceptable sources to create content in the article. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Your constant insinuations that editors have a COI and are somehow in league with or support the aspartame industry are way out of line. They are gross personal attacks and are failures to AGF. You ask how long you must AGF? Forever! -- Brangifer (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have tried searching a couple of the usual databases (LexisNexis, Gale) and I could not find this article that you added. Could you please provide me with a copy of it? NW(Talk)19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scanned article can be found here, scroll down. Otherwise there's the NYT article but it cost money to read the whole article. I did write the date of origin wrong, it should be 1976, and the date of publication April 8, but I'm blocked now. Immortale (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Immortale, I too am interested in this source. We already use that content in the article, and you're trying to insert mention in the lead. That attempt may well be legitimate, but there are difficulties with that content which need to be worked out first. Your paranoid charges that we're trying to keep this out of the article are totally false. We were already discussing exactly this existing content on the talk page in a section which I had created, and in which you never participated, in spite of being invited to do so more than once.[3][4] (note the edit summaries) Instead you chose to edit war and then file a dubious AN/I complaint which of course backfired on you big time.
Caveat: From my explanation above it should be clear that you brought all your problems on your own head. We were trying to work with you, but you wouldn't listen. I still think the block and topic bans you have received are more than justified and actually far too lenient considering your offenses. Usually people who engage in sock puppetry and block evasion are banned indefinitely. I don't understand why that didn't happen in this case. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (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).
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.
For repeated block evasion and disruptive talk page activity through IPs (83.185.26.203 and 83.185.43.161(talk·contribs·WHOIS)) your block has been lengthened to 1 week. Moreover, you are now topic-banned from articles about Aspartame and related discussions for a period of four months. Fut.Perf.☼15:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Per consensus at AN/I, you have been topic banned from editing all material on aspartame and artificial sweeteners. This ban is of indefinite duration, however indefinite is not infinte; if you, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, are able to demonstrate to the Wikipedia community that you can edit constructively in this topic area, you may request that the ban be lifted. If you wish to appeal this topic ban you can do so at AN/I. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
almost all primary and non-reliable sources (with one passing mention) unsuitable for BLP and failing to show notability at all, hasn't been well-sourced since creation in 2008
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You are under a topic ban from aspartame. This also applies to Talk pages and will continue to apply unless and until it is successfully appealed. Any further violations will almost certainly result in the topic ban becoming a site ban.
I have to tell you that an appeal is unlikely to succeed as you have done absolutely nothing on Wikipedia since the ban, a period of nearly three years, other than to violate it once earlier this week. I encourage you to find other areas of interest and edit there. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Immortale. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
