User talk:1zeroate
 | Administrator help needed
|answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template. |
- Greetings KillerChihuahua
I shall re-read over the guidlines but I assure you that the guidelines have become part of my daily reading. That given could you point out some action I could further take to demonstrate my willingness to behave. If you are on my team and I am on your team then I very much would like to work together to make something better. Even if that means never touching subjects I have an interest in. So if their is anything I can do for you or the community to further this effort please do not hesitate to let me know and if I could get a suggestion other than "clean start" to demonstrate my willingness to be a team player by the rules and guidelines and policies of wikipedia I would do my beat to act in good faith by said suggested demonstration. I have a revert of a proper unblock request. But being locked up and doing time here in this talk pen I also have time to examine things and reflect. But if those reflections are counter productive or disruptive please edit them out or let me know so I can edit them out. Thank you MayYourEditBeAccurate 23:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Since you are asking for advice, I will advise you that you should take the advice already given to you. I can tell that you have not read and fully understood the Guide. Pay careful attention the underlined words in the lede. ParacusForward (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you ParacusForward , Sometimes, I have to re-read some things many times to retain and demonstrate the true "spirit of intent" of the
words of our guidelines and policies , it is something that comes with understanding. As I begin to grasp a better understanding of many things I realize their must be some doubts as to my irredeemablity. The strong message of indefinite is pretty overwhelming upon first inclusion. Understandably many people must completely flip out. Upon being offered the clean slate option I could imagine a great many more opt for that as a means to an end. The end I seek is to be a meaningful, properly conductive , participant in this affair. This wikipedia. I shall read over the GaB again first off. By BRIEF I take that to mean my unblock request inside the request itself but I have wondered about all my extra words. I mean I really wonder why novocure must be lumped up next to snail massage. But even if their is nothing I can do about it I still want to be a part of this if the community would think it of merit to include me. If you have any more advice or suggestions, I would welcome them gratefully. Merry Christmas and thank you.MayYourEditBeAccurate 04:21, 20 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:
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=By all means there is what I know is right, what I think is right, and what I need to be shown is right. Feel free to edit any part of this page to further that end. Yes anyone who is already familiar with myself and this problem of mine that I have contributed to , I'd like it to be clear that I have more to contribute, appropriately, with guidance. Thank you. MayYourEditBeAccurate 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC) |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=By all means there is what I know is right, what I think is right, and what I need to be shown is right. Feel free to edit any part of this page to further that end. Yes anyone who is already familiar with myself and this problem of mine that I have contributed to , I'd like it to be clear that I have more to contribute, appropriately, with guidance. Thank you. MayYourEditBeAccurate 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC) |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=By all means there is what I know is right, what I think is right, and what I need to be shown is right. Feel free to edit any part of this page to further that end. Yes anyone who is already familiar with myself and this problem of mine that I have contributed to , I'd like it to be clear that I have more to contribute, appropriately, with guidance. Thank you. MayYourEditBeAccurate 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
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.
Justin Carter has a stub here. I know to look for that because I am a local. Yet,
There has got to be a better way.
If Wikipedia is all about collating the sum of all the knowledge we can input into one shared space , then it is unacceptable for a minority of wikipedians attempt to control and suppress information unchecked and with out regard.
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 did 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 Treating 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 talk page regarding that article. 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.
The Big Pink Elephant in the corner of the room
This all revolves around electro-frequency based medicine.
Not because I made some edits but because others are making it a mission to control what edits will be acceptable in certain articles strictly in accordance with their purview.
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 Electromagnetic therapy (Alternative treatment) after the headline and it is filled with negative bias and quack devices. Thats where they shall put Tumor Treating fields. And the company that makes them, Deletion. Other people that may of been notable before research in the same area? Deletion. Royal Rife article? Kept to make a mockery of him and the field of electro frequency based medicine. A biographical 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 smear 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.
A 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 and placed 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 05:46, 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.
And why does Barry Lynes have talk page with with no article page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Lynes&diff=224136800&oldid=223823201 Barry Lynes even had an article of his own. It would be a BLP I believe. I'd look up on wikipedia to get an idea but alas trying to do so only redirects, redirect, redirects. No way to create article offered, No explanation that it was deleted just redirect redirect from the search to the historical linkings I see no way to access the Barry Lynes Page for reading. And their are ten other different phrases that all do the same thing self redirecting. Investigate for yourself.MayYourEditBeAwesome 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone correct me if I am in error please.MayYourEditBeAwesome 09:41, 19 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.
last point
This is not a point. This is me in a box locked up. Having your digital essence on restriction is tough in every sense of the meaning. So I may even talk to myself being locked up on the talk page. If I did make any points I would like to know where score stands and what the rules are I don't mean to play games even if I am playful. Feel free to edit anything or address me with any concern or issue. I will gladly welcome any and all criticism and advice. I'm kinda wondering If I should read something old or something new? IF my text is taken as point making PLEASE feel free to correct it. Further addendum ; I also understand the current version of my talk page might seem a bit conspiratorial but that is only a present reflection of surface thought. I stand by everything said in this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1zeroate&oldid=586660877 and I assure you that we are on each others team. I do not believe I can be indefinitely blocked forever nor do I believe any of my breaches are unforgivable. I am willing to learn , behave, accept any change or make any change. As well as will to wait although I do cringe when I see some folks with months and years of time on for editing"blunder". In the cyber universe time seems to take on a faster and slower realm. a Weeks worth of time is incredibly long.... a year is like a lifetime. of course I suppose I would take another route However, If I still have time I still remain curious. And so I wait to see what happens.MayYourEditBeAccurate 14:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Unblock request 3
1zeroate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
I remain unconvinced, and see no reason to unblock. No case has been made that there will be any benefit to Wikipedia if you are free to edit at will again. If you choose to re-request unblock, I strongly advise you to read the guide first, as you have already been instructed above. KillerChihuahua 19:33, 19 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.