User talk:PageMaster

Welcome

Hello, PageMaster, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

PageMaster, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

PageMaster says:

I am retired from the telephone company after 35 years. I do not have any connection with Efranat Ltd. I learned about GcMAF from browsing the internet. I became greatly interested in the subject and began reading everything I could find about it. This was a few years back. I read the Wikipedia listing for GcMAF and knew it was wrong because the human immune system makes it for a purpose. The human body is very efficient and does not waste energy on something (GcMAF) it does not need or use. The more I learned the more I became convinced that the human immune system used its GcMAF to fight diseases. So I decided to try it (GOleic) to prevent prostate cancer. I believe the paper published by Dr. Yamamoto on prostate cancer was never retracted despite efforts to get it retracted. But anyway, I was pleased with the results I got when using GOleic in spite of the negative press on it. In case you do not know GOleic is a legal supplement in Germany and is an injectable GcMAF product with Oleic Acid and Saline. So any hint that I have a conflict of interest is absurd. I just know more about GcMAF than most of you. Also since the Wikipedia listing for GcMAF is now mostly wrong and out of date, I am trying to provide current information to show its evolution. There is no question that Efranat Ltd is developing GcMAF as a new cancer cure and for viral diseases. We all need to follow this for our own sake. The general public does not need to be afraid of GcMAF.

Remember this article should discuses just the science of GcMAF. It references Efranat Ltd because they are the ones who performed a Phase 1 Clinical Trial using terminal cancer patients with an all natural substance. No one else has ever done this. This is very rare and practically unheard of for an all natural substance. GcMAF itself cannot be patented. The world needs to know that GcMAF is NOT all bad and I intend to make this known if the science department at Wikipedia is not run by a bunch of pharmaceutical shills.

Also your approved posting for GcMAF includes a reference to Efranat Ltd on this page. You did not ask them to justify why they mentioned Efranat Ltd in the same context as GcMAF. Double standard?

PageMaster (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi PageMaster. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date are promotional with regard to Efranat. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, PageMaster. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Efranat, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if that connection includes being paid to edit, please make sure you disclose that too. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not war editing. I am not changing anything already on the GcMAF post. I am supplementing it with more up-to-date info. You appear to be war editing which makes me think you have a hidden agenda. How can you argue with my references? How can you argue with the completed results of a registered clinical trial? How can you argue with the supporting information posted by a reputable biotech company posted on a public record. Something is wrong here. I welcome that the noticeboard is looking into this matter. Did you notice that ScienceWatcher restored my last post that you removed. What is your problem? I answered your question about not having a conflict of interest. I just know more about the science of GcMAF than you do and that must make you uncomfortable.PageMaster (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. (I fixed the threading of your comment above) Will reply on the substance in a second...Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You were unambiguously edit warring and also violating the WP:SOCK policy by logging out to do the revert. Please don't edit war, and please edit while logged in when you are arguing with people.

With regard to sourcing, the sourcing is not good. We build Wikipedia content mostly from sources that are independent of the subject. This is how we assure that content is neutral and not just PR. Please look at the sourcing you have been using with that in mind. The guideline for general content is WP:RS and the guideline for content about health (and any claim about whether a drug is safe or effective is about health) needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam warning efranat.com

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:PageMaster

A tag has been placed on User:PageMaster requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --PageMaster (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It contains valid and up-to-date information on the subject of GcMAF. The old post is misleading and out of date. It infers that further development of GcMAF is dead. This is incorrect. GcMAF is being developed in Israel by Efranat Ltd. The old post does not mention that a successful FDA registered Phase 1 Clinical Trial has COMPLETED on GcMAF. The old post infers that GcMAF has never gone through any formal clinical trials and has not been proven safe. This is incorrect now. The old post does not reference the results of this official completed clinical trial. The old post does not mention that GcMAF is now being looked at by the FDA and Efranat Ltd as a new treatment for RPP. I stand by my references and submit that they are reputable and reliable.

I am a newbie to Wikipedia and just started posting on GcMAF which is my specialty (no conflicts of interest). I did not delete the old post, just added to bring the information up to date. Then these 2 old timers jumped on me without me knowing really why. They did not question my information. ScienceWatcher did initially because I did not reference my information correctly. I corrected that and ScienceWatcher restored by corrected post. Look at the history and you will see that. I am willing to discuss the status and science of GcMAF with anyone, but these 2 old timers don't seem to be interested in the science. They don't want the GcMAF information up-dated for some unknown reason. I welcome this review so the truth can come out.

P.S. - I think these old timers think they can do me in quickly because I don't know all the rules yet. They are probably thinking I would not know to respond to this tag. They need a good talking too. Someone needs to find out why they oppose the truth on GcMAF.

PageMaster (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You said the following, "I am a newbie to Wikipedia and just started posting on GcMAF which is my specialty (no conflicts of interest)." please could you explain how you are a specialist, and why you have no WP:COI. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at GcMAF. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:PageMaster/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! PageMaster, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)