User talk:Amandazz100

Welcome

Hello, Amandazz100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Copyvio

You copied large pieces of text from [1] onto George D. Lundbergs article. This is not allowed per copyright policy WP:COPYVIO. If you want to add a reference try and summarize it or only add brief quotations. Directly copying lines and lines of text is not acceptable.Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Spam

In a deletion discussion you only get to vote once. Also please stop spamming Wikipedia with huge pieces of text [2]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Amandazz100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23665 was submitted on Dec 27, 2018 23:57:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THIS BLOCK I have been accused of using " multple accounts " this is simply untrue. The blocker references a number of other users which are have nothing whatsoever to do with me as a check of the IP addrssses would have confirmed. I set out blow these various accounts that are nothing to do with me. I have always posted under my own name, except possibly by making a mistake and pressing the send button before I learned how to log on on an occasion which would then assume appear as anonymous.

I am not a bot and I do not deserve to be treated as such. I did post a long list of scientific references to a talk page where the subject in question was the account proposed to be deleted has no scientific support.

I also posted a link to the HarvardMedical School usage of the term "Leaky Gut" because the page is now seriously put of date that parlance having now become common not only in public discourse but also scientific discource and journals. That reference wasfound and deleted within 60 seconds with the comment" fringe" which it is not. I was blocked shortly thereafter with no attempt to communicate whatsoever.

Please remove this block which is not justified. Amandazz100 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

   User:Angela A Stanton  - nothing to do with me -  shes a scientist on linked in according to my own search on linked in,   

   User:Anoynmous7343

This account appears to be blocked but there is no data linked to it at all. I do recall once posting something then realising it had gone in as anonymous at which point I added my name amandazz100. As othing is assocaited with it then it appears that addition was successful

C

   User:Cholesterol Con

"No Delete

The medical community have committed create fraud, it is exposed by Malcolm Kendrick in his book. This is censorship to removed Dr Kendrick's article. Cholesterol Con (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)" Nothing whatsoever to do with me

L

   User:Low-carb man

"Low-carb man (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Low-carb man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic". Nothing whatsoever to do with me "

S

   User:Support from Malcolm Kendrick

"WE WILL BE HEARD https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/ Support from Malcolm Kendrick (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) " nothing whatsoever to do with me

T

   User:The Amanda ZZ  - I appears I made a post and the word The got into my user name, that is clearly just a mistake, I am hardly hiding by using the same name - in practise your system allows anonymous edits, that means that as a new user if one forgets how it works then its easy to end up having  gone down the wrong attribution path. 

Here is wht I posted - which is a perfectly valid update of the science today regarding control of diabetes - a) very low calorie, b) low carb or c) bariatric surgery - I have no idea why one would want to delete that.

There may not be a single dietary pattern that is best for all people with diabetes. For overweight people with type 2 diabetes, any diet that the person will adhere to and achieve weight loss on is effective. + − In 2018, increasing evidence has shown that T2 Diabetes can be reversed or controlled with a resulting reduction in diabetic complications. Individuals have been shown to be able to record non diabetic HbA1c through adapting their nutrition in one of three ways a) low carbohydrate diets b) very low calorie diets and c) ketogenic diets. These methods are increasingly being trialed by heath organisations including the National Health Service in the UK. Similarly, new research published in the The Journal of Pediatrics reveal the power of a very low carbohydrate diet to normalize blood sugars for Diabetes mellitus type 1 in all age groups.

Your statement is that I am a VERIFIED SOCK PUPPET that is an UNTRUE statement, you cannot have verified it becuase these people are not me. Please remove this block . Amandazz100 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC) If for some reason all of these posts are coming from the same IP address then please let me know the details becuase it is not me doing it and I need to follow that up.

?

So "The Amanda ZZ" is not you? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As I explained in some detail in my appeal, you have accused me of being a sock puppet by assuming a number of accounts are me which are definitely not. In my appeal I specifically explained that The amandazz was me and that is was an error. I also mention all 4 of the further accounts you accuse me of being a sock puppet on that have zero to do with me. Why are you now sending me messages about The Amandazz, when I have already specifically stated that this is me?

The Amandazz  is me yes, however as a not particularly sophisticated user this was not " sock puppetry" merely that in trying to log on for some reason a " the"  was inserted incorrectly in the log in page.I did not notice and even if I had I would not have known how to change it. To this day I do not even know how that name would have been created.    Sock puppetry would suggest an attempt to conceal, I doubt anyone attempting to conceal it was amandazz100 would then use the name The amandazz.     There was nothing inappropriate about my post as The Amandazz in any event so I fail to see why that would of itself give rise to anything negative. You have also accused me of using other sock puppetry account which are nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Your characterisation of me as being involved in sock puppetry is in appropriate.

Please note, that once again I forgot that its perfectly possible to post anonymously to wiki, and as such the above comment will have come from 92.251.108.30 left a message on your talk page. The comment was made by amandazz100 now logged in Amandazz100 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I did not see your comment about that account buried in the wall of text that you posted above, and you appeared to be saying that you had not used any other account. Thanks for correcting me on that.
2. So, logged into the account Amandazz100, you made an edit. For some reason the Wikimedia software made some sort of glitch which in the editing record made several changes to your user name. It added the word "The" and a space before your user name, inserted a space between "Amanda" and "zz", capitalised "zz", and omitted the "100" from the end of your user name. It also entered an entry into the account creation log falsely recording an account of that name as having been created two minutes before you made that edit. That is a kind of software malfunction that I have never before come across in my 12 years here. By a remarkable coincidence that glitch happened to an editor for whom there is already extensive evidence, both behavioural and technical, of sockpuppetry. Unfortunately it may be difficult to convince an administrator of that. Even more unfortunately, if any administrator makes the mistake of thinking that your explanation of what happened there is a lie, then he or she is probably even less likely to believe the other claims you make than would otherwise have been the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Amandazz100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23712 was submitted on Jan 05, 2019 08:05:34. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank your for your response, however you have completely misunderstood what I said

"wall of text" - I responded to each of your accusations of sock puppetry separately that is completely sensible as they are all separate accusations. In view of the seriousness of th accusation it would seem appropriate that your reviewer actually read the contents of the appeal by reference to each of the actual accusations.

" The Amandazz" - you have now stated that this is a confirmed sock puppet- this is ridiculous. Your characterisation of what happened and what I suggested is completely wrong. I stated that yes The Amandazz was me and that is had been created in error. it is ridiculous to think that anyone would deliberately try to hide behind a sock puppet account by calling oneself pretty much the same name as another account. I did not state that it was some " wiki glitch"

I will explain in more detail - You can check the timelines. I am a T2 diabetic currently reversed through diet. This is a relatively new interest as I was only diagnosed 2 years ago. Having succeeded I noticed that the wiki page was out of date in that it does not recognise the three currently accepted mechanisms being low carb, very low calorie and baritatric surgery. So I decided to create a post to update it. I did not think it was controversial, it is now accepted by both ADA and the UK. I drafted it, then when I came to posting it realised it would be better coming from an identified user not an anonymous one. It was a long time since I had posted anything and indeed previous posts had been on entirely different subjects. I simply forgot my original accout existed and therefore tried to create one. That new one was pretty similar to my old one unsurprisingly because I use that same basic name, amandazz in many places, sometimes with and sometimes without the 100 depending on when they were first created. (ie in some plces amandazz is already taken, in others not.) I do not know to this day why "the" appeared in that name, it wasn't deliberate,just a mistake. indeed at the time I did not think I had even successfully created an account, instead I had expected it would still have the anonymous on it because I couldn't quite figure out what I had done or how ( I am a novice user). I then got an email from you confirming it existed, at that stage I didn't actually notice the The, but I then switched between my email and wiki, to check the post that had gone in. My inbox is often full, once an eail is read it no longer shows up, so I had to search for wiki to find it. When I did the search an old notification from you showed up which showed me that in fact I had an account with you with the correct name on it, which I had made earlier. As that is my correct name, I then used that for all subsequent posts. If I had known how to change the user account for the one created in error to give it my correct name I would have done, ditto deleting that new account. I didn't think it mattered much either way bcause in practise I had posted a perfectly sensible post under a name very similar to my own.

I then found that Skeptic from Britain had deleted my post anyway - to this day I do not know why though his responses suggested a major bias against anything that mentioned low carbohydrate ( only 1/3 of my post). Unsurprisingly in the circumstances our discussion got a little heated. Any attempt to try to correct the attribution of the post became otiose because it had aleady been deleted. Had it stood then I would have wanted to see how to correct it to show it was properly from amandazz100

Having become interested in what wiki was actually saying on the subject of health I then came across the fact that Dr Malcolm Kendrick was about to be deleted - He is a public notable in the UK, author of many books and go to expert from the entire UK press. I voted against that deletion and at the same time updated his page to reflect the fact that George Lundberg, himself a notable figure had actually cited Dr Kendrick as a key source. That post was also deleted by Skeptic from Britain. who at the same time posted something negative about Lundberg onto Lundberg's page in retaliation. I now understand the reasons that post may not have been appropriate ( being a quote from Lundberg ) but that is something that could have been explained properly to a new user.

Having realised that many other low carb notables were also being listed for deletion , including Uffe Ravnskov ( also by skeptic from Britain) on the grounds that there was no science attached to his views, I then attempted to show that there was much science, by posting a list of scientific references to the talk page, thus confirming there was science. That resulted in a further deletion now of materials on a talk page - it ws a genuine attempt to provide the science. I had not then appreciated that even the talk pages could be deleted.

Another issue that I had noticed is that the term "leaky gut" is treated as " quackery" on wiki based on data from 2009, whereas today it has become an accepted both in usage in scientific journal titles and by Harvard Medical School. So I attempted to update that to give the relevant references. Within 60 seconds of posting that reference , it had been deleted. This suggests that either my name or certain pages are being targeted by someone to ensure that no updates that do not agree with a particular point of view , can be put anywhere. 60 seconds is not long enough to even find the post, never mind open the references to determine if it is valid unless it is coming up and being notifid by someone as a " targeted account".

Shortly after that my account was blocked and I was accused of sock puppetry citing a number of accounts that have zero to do with me and "the amandazz"

Since that time Skeptic from Britain has been removed from wiki.

Your reviewer has not actually read my explanation and has instead posted a made up scenario that I did not describe at all and used that to confirm " sock puppetry" this is simply not true. The explanation above is perfectly sensible and agrees with the time lines and my posting.

I have no desire whatsoever to hide behind sock puppetry and I have never done so, nor intend to. It is true that four other users appear to hold similar view to my own on a number of mattrs, that is because there are thousands of people reversing diabetes, finding they do not need statins, reading the works of Kendrick, Ravnskoff, Andreas Eendfeldt ( also listed for deletion by Skeptic from Britain though in that instance he himself had to withdraw his own vote when faced with indisputable evidence of notability) . I myself refrained from even voting on that page, because by that stage I knew that anything at all I said would be likely to result in some worse outcome for the person I attempted to support. As shown by the 60 second deletion on leaky gut

I am not into sock puppetry, I stand by my views firmly and publicly, I was the finance director of a FTSE listed insurance company prior to my retirement wtih all of the probity checks that that entails. You are quite welcome to details of that.

I request once again that you stop sullying my name by making accusations of sock puppetry that are unwarranted and do not accord with the facts of the case. Please re-open this account. I am perfectly happy to have all references to anything posted by theamandazz reattributed to amandazz100, however as stated before, I believe that any such posts were already deleted by skeptic from britain before he himself left the wiki editorial team.

best Amandazz100 Amandazz100 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

.I note I have not received a reply to this since 5 January 2019, when can I expect a response? Amandazz100 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)