User talk:1zeroate
Let us be honest about what we see and what is going on
My behavior notwithstanding let me speak on what I am witnessing.
I would like to call peoples attention to what is going on.
If Wikipedia is all about collating the sum of all the knowledge we can input then it is unacceptable for a minority of wikipedians to control and suppress information?
In the last year I have patrolled the Anthony Holland (composer) page. Holland composed his first work at the age of ten! TEN YEARS OLD. PHD twice over,Conducts the orchestra for the school, has played at Carnegie Hall. These accolades alone should merit his place in wikipedia and it for a number of years. Then I added a bit about his scientific work. Namely that he was using frequency instruments to kill cancer cells.
His biography will now be deleted because of that addition about frequency based research.
The information control should be coming into focus.
The consensus say Anthony Holland is no longer notable. The last 8 years on wikipedia a mistake. These folks will likely all remain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kassin Another more notable person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_H._White Another notable college professor with a shorter bio than Anthonys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hill_%28college_head%29 and heres another professor that is of little concern but for his notable entry in the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_John_Adams
Normally a PHD has a page and is allowed that page. PHD people do notable things more often than your average person. Holland discovered the work of Royal Raymond Rife. And he ran with it. Built his own device with assistance from john crane. And he filmed his progress of microorganisms dying and established his own medical research company to further aid in that research and this man,Anthony Holland, is of no importance to wikipedia.
I repeat , Keyboard cat, Honey boo boo, and Chris Crocker are of more notable merit to this encyclopedia than A PHD researching a novel approach to treating cancer.
An approach that someone else clinically proved before him. NOVOCURE. They did it first. Anthony Holland named his research firm after them "Novobiotronic". Novocure did the impossible. Novocure got a frequency device through clinical trials and FDA approved. It can treat cancer alone or in combination with other therapies and when used with other therapies the survival rate of the patients dramatically improve. Here is what discovery medical has to say about brain cancer
- Abstract: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most deadly form of human cancer. Most patients diagnosed with this WHO grade IV malignant glioma survive about 12 months
Now this device the NovoTTF-100A system can treat GBM cancer by itself as a monotherapy. No known contraindications, mild to no side effects. And how effective is it?
70% reduction in tumor mass.
http://mikehaagcancersurvivor.com/?tag=novocure
OK IS THIS NOTABLE TO WIKIPEDIA?
NOPE!
Novocure the article will be deleted by consensus.
Novocure is also a deleted entry on our own page about GBM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma_multiforme And if anyone wonders who is harmed by adding negative bias to what some presume to be quackery in spite of clinical evidence... You wanna know who is made to suffer over ignorance Read the talk page.If it doesn't hurt your heart then you don't have one.
The article on their modality they call Tumor Treatment Fields, will be lumped in with violet ray tubes and other electro-medical
quackery. Not because those that want to place it their don't understand. But because certain people want it to be seen as quackery.
It does not belong in an article next to radonics but that is where it shall be merged out of site,next to sparky the wonder zapper and the
black light snake oil special. This cancer destroying device deserves it's due weight on Wikipedia. Instead it is getting regulated and
suppressed just as the Anthony Holland article is currently being stifled because of his research.
And just like Royal Rife article has been for years here. 04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Go right ahead and do a quick internet search to see what you find. What you find is a torrent of information that doesn't jive with the
wikipedia entry about Royal Rife.
This is mainly because Royal Rife does not have a Biographical page here. He has a diatribe of a smear written about machines attributed to him. The article is not even about the man. Compared to other biographies it is deplorable in content and context. But that is the way it is kept. The article contains little about the man himself because those that watch the page wont allow it. Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo gets into trouble. You will too, do not even try to update the Royal Rife article with details about the mans family or what his hobbies were or how he got into his lifes work. All that is shunned to say rife machines kill people. Basically. And if you alter that line and stray towards the truth... well think again, their is a dedicated admin these in his own words "must suppress the truth" Honesty in sarcasm it is right there in his edit summaries of the page. That editor thinks manipulating articles toward a bias negative point of view is fun. It is fun to him and his ilk to suppress citable , verifiable facts , while maintaining outdated citations because they contain negative information. They give kudos to each other on their talk pages about it. So proud they are to of kept the Royal rife page on lock down and establish informational content control over Novocure, the Tumor treatment fields and Anthony Holland.
This all revolves around electro-frequency based medicine.
Their are two articles one wikipedia about electromagnetic therapy. One article the acceptable content on electro terapy like shock thearpy and TENS units and the other is labeled (Alternative treatment) after the headline and it is filled with negative bias and quack devices. Thats where they shall put Tumor treatment fields. And the company that make them, Deletion. Other people that may of been note worthy before research in the same area? Deletion. Royal Rife article? Kept to make mockery of him and the field ofelectro frequency based medicine. A bioographical article talks about family , life, subject of the bio.... The Royal Rife Page talks about other people that wrote about Rife and Other people that got arrested for selling what they call rife machines and The royal rife page insinuates that a typical rife machine is little more a 9 volt battery with extra wire to stick on your tongue. Outlandish and wrong. Cited from a magazine that is out of print since 01. The wikipedia entry for the defunct magazine is the citation for the claim. Even though we should never cite wikipedia as a reference for a wikipedia article , the watchers of the Rife page INSIST upon it. It helps them in their paint job of negative bias. So the wikipedia citation for the verifiability of a claim on wikipedia is wikipedia. And thats how the Rife page is run.
I will never ever try to edit any of those articles or any article like it revolving around the subject. Their is no point.
I consensus of suppression is already established.
And they have spoken.
And not much can be done about it. Watch the articles get deleted and merged with medial fraud because of alleged notability issues.
I was right about one thing. Trying to kill the Novocure article on lack of citation was never gonna be an option. Deleting it over a lack of notability, wow, Aids drugs get articles, Cancer vaccines get articles. Novocure gets deleted and their Tumor Treatment Fields get a fringe tag next to the magical magnetic bracelet of immortality.
I write this all in good faith. I share for the enrichment of our educational knowledge base. Please feel free to share with others.
Maybe I am the one who is wrong for finding an issue with all this. But I don't know of too many wikipedia articles that are allowed to cite
wikipedia as a source. BUT according to this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Cancer#Targeted_tumor_treatment
Its all about the drugs. MayYourEditBeAwesome 04:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Read the deletion debate pages here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_%28alternative_medicine%29#Merger_discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Anthony_Holland_.28composer.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novocure
Double check the citations to see if what they say about the sources is accurate. You might be surprised.
Admin help request
 | Administrator help needed
|answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template. |
1zeroate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= My reason for request is so that I can clean up my user page, and continue editing in accordence with wikipedia guidelines and policies. I acknowledge my past unacceptable behavoir and affirm here that I will not continue in that vein again. At the same time I do not want to do a prison sentence of waiting time to be allowed to edit again.You pay nathiong to trust me, risk nothing to trust me. All I am asking is to have a little faith and trust in me and my word that I am being honest and well meaning with no intention to be a disruption ever again |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= My reason for request is so that I can clean up my user page, and continue editing in accordence with wikipedia guidelines and policies. I acknowledge my past unacceptable behavoir and affirm here that I will not continue in that vein again. At the same time I do not want to do a prison sentence of waiting time to be allowed to edit again.You pay nathiong to trust me, risk nothing to trust me. All I am asking is to have a little faith and trust in me and my word that I am being honest and well meaning with no intention to be a disruption ever again |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= My reason for request is so that I can clean up my user page, and continue editing in accordence with wikipedia guidelines and policies. I acknowledge my past unacceptable behavoir and affirm here that I will not continue in that vein again. At the same time I do not want to do a prison sentence of waiting time to be allowed to edit again.You pay nathiong to trust me, risk nothing to trust me. All I am asking is to have a little faith and trust in me and my word that I am being honest and well meaning with no intention to be a disruption ever again |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
MayYourEditBeAwesome 04:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
Hi there. I have blocked this account's editing privileges. If you were a newbie I would take a different tack, but I noticed you saying here that you have "years of experience" with MastCell, yet this account was only started recently. Do you have other named accounts? If you do you should stick to one account. If you merely mean you have edited as an IP then you should know better about how our project works. If you want another admin to review the block, please feel free to post {{unblock|your reason here}} but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello John, I mean to directly address your concerns here. I do not have other named accounts. I understand only the most basic things
about our project and I obviously have much to improve upon regarding my standards of communication and conduct on talk pages. I understand I have been doing it wrong by the concensus of many as laid out on many wiki pages. I hope that I will be unblocked and if you would like me to address any further concerns please do not hesitate to let me know. MayYourEditBeAwesome 05:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is an edit to make it known that Zad68 may most certainly reach out to me for discussion on my talk pages.It was wrong of me to ask
you not to do so. In multiple ways. My apoligies and since understand more wikiexpectations regarding condoct and standards, I hope to be able to edit together again soon. If I can address any of your further concerns, please do not heasitate to let me know and I shall do so
- This edit is to include and invite Loriendrew to leave any comment or edit any part of my talk page or any page on wikipedia. It was quite wrong of me to ask anything other wise. I will amend my errors if able. MayYourEditBeAwesome 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is an edit to include MastCell,Seppi333,Quadell,AndyTheGrump, and any and every other administrator who may of had the interesting
experience of dealing with me upto this point. I was under a wrong impression regarding my standards and conduct on the various pages of wikipedia here and on various articles here. My scope of interest may be unlimited but I am more inclined to stick with what I know. That said I understand I must go about it a better way. I do harbor many unchanged concerns however I do not intend to allow those concerns to compel me to act in the incorrect manner I had been. Their are many places I disagree with many folks and I desire to resolve and amend contested intention in a more acceptable manner. A better more proper manner becoming the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. If I can address any concerns on your ppart about me , don't hesitate to let me know. MayYourEditBeAwesome 07:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is an edit to include and address the concerns raised by JamesBWatson. My previous actions are undenablable innappropriat. That particular
edit you cite I am unsure about. The could of been my wife too. We were still legally married and living together at that time. Regardless of that factor I accept that it was not a good edit improvement. Further I readly admit that I have much room for improvment by looking at my past Pecident(sp) is against me. I want to convince anyone reading this that I am ready to show a higher level of respectful, polite , interaction on wikipedia . For as long as I am allowed the privlige to edit here. And hopefully expand the privlige back past my talk page. Also , I affirm by my Identity that I have recently shared , that, this is my one and only account. I do not desire to be a disruptor or vandaliser. If you have any concerns I and address or suggestions for me Please feel free to address me if you like. MayYourEditBeAwesome 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)MayYourEditBeAwesome 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)MayYourEditBeAwesome 06:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
1zeroate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edits have not been disruptive,I have no idea why I am blocked. If we are not to bite the newbs heads off why start me off with a perm ban? I have edited here off and on over the years but my skills and know how are not on the level of professinal wikieditors. I am somewhere inbetween a newb and an old hand. I do go after easy edits more often. Things I know should not be challengeable. Like when I check the reference of Novocure on the FDA approval no where did I find the wording "last resort" to quote: "The device, manufactured by Novocure, is called the NovoTTF-100A System and is meant for adults with glioblastoma multiforme that recurs or progresses after chemotherapy and radiation treatment." so this means that the other stuff should be tried first but this does not imply that the novocure system is a "last resort" the words do not even appear as referenced. Such style of writing leads to give the read the idea that this is a modality to be avoided if possible as it is one of "last resort" according to the article. IN TRUTH it should always be included in chemo and radiation treatments because of the improved effectiveness it provides in conjuction with those modalities. But I am being strongly discouraged from pointing out netrual things like that. A small but prominent clique of wikieditors are working to target me personally and some of the kinds of articles I would work on. I try to stick to subjects I know. Occasionally I make mistake. If good faith is assumed then a permenate ban or indefinite ban seem egregiously over the top. I may want to advance knowledge on certain subjects but not at the cost of true , reliably sourced, and verified reliablity. If we can't prove it via 1st ,2nd,and 3rd sources then we do not have creditblity and lacking creditblity makes our word and/or the word of the article worthless and useless as a tool to help improve knowledge. Wikipedia is all about improving our knowledge base,Humanities knowldge base. We do this by working together and not against one another. Even though I feel many strains of oppistion I still understand the afor mentioned quality of collaboration .I'd like to be restored with my editing privliges and be given full faith that I am acting in good faith in aderence to the basic princables and philospohies of Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
As noted above your account of your own knowledge of Wikipedia policies (and as further evidenced by this TL;DR unblock request; thank God I realized there's an easier explanation for the block!) suggests you are not the newbie your edit history would want to suggest. So, as the blocking admin asked, what up with that? — Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)/concurrance This user has not addressed the concerns of the blocking admin, even in a very long reply. Looking over the user's activity, it appears to be a single-purpose account with no interest in NPOV. Nearly all edits in article-space decrease the quality of the articles in question, and edits in non-article space make rambling and evidence-free accusations against other editors. I don't believe an unblock of this account would benefit Wikipedia in any way. – Quadell (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
1zeroate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If I have acted out of turn I acknowledge that with the appeal to be allowed to correct any mistakes on my par.This is my only account.I do not sick.I do not cheat. I would like to be unblock by the Autoban because this is my only account. I gave up my anon status to formally register myself to enjoy the same privliges I used to enjoy as an anon editor. With that I am learning new things. Please note I am trying my best to do the right thing , follow instructions and prompts. I may not be accomplishing it all correctly but I am doing my upmost best to correctly follow instruction and particpate in a proper manner as expected by you and WIKIPIEDA. I want to play in your sandbox in the sand. I understand that I have to be nice to you and play by your rules. I may not understand everything but I !AFFRIM! that I am doing my best to play nice by the rules. I am completely willing to try even harder. If I have acted out of turn I acknowledge that with the appeal to be allowed to correct any mistakes on my par.This is my only account.I do not sick.I do not cheat. I would like to be unblock by the Autoban because this is my only account. I gave up my anon status to formally register myself to enjoy the same privliges I used to enjoy as an anon editor. With that I am learning new things TalkFirstThenEdit (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have looked at the editing history of this account, the editing history of an IP address that you say you have used (and everything about the editing strongly suggests that you and only you have used it), and the editing history of another IP address that seems closely allied (it geolocates to the same area, it has edited the same pages, it has expressed the same opinions, it uses exactly the same idiosyncratic English). Unfortunately, while for the most part your statement "I am trying my best to do the right thing" seems valid, trying to do the right thing and doing the right thing are not the same. You edit contentiously, plugging a point of view and failing to take in the essence of what others say; you persist despite clear consensus against you; you make unsubstantiated accusations against other editors; your editing frequently contains non-sequiturs and failures to get the point; you sometimes either refuse or are unable to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines; your English is often very poor, which doesn't matter much in talk pages, but it does in articles. I have also seen content you have added to articles which does not appear to be your own writing at all, suggesting copyright infringements, though I have been unable to find any sources to confirm that. Most of the problems seem to be caused by a lack of understanding of what you are doing, rather than any ill-intention, but there are occasional exceptions, such as this edit, which I find hard to see as anything other than vandalism, and there have been occasions where the two IP addresses I have referred to above have supported one another in discussion. It all adds up to the conclusion that, unfortunately, whatever your intentions, your contributions are not a net positive for the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
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.