User talk:NPOVarticleNow

Welcome!

Hello, NPOVarticleNow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! NPOVarticleNow, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions for each of pseudoscience and alternative medicine

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Have you noticed that the alternative medicine pages are biased because of team efforts by biased admins and biased editors? Exactly what evidence do you have that I don't want to build an encyclopedia? I am honestly trying to help Wikipedia and I feel insulted by your egregriously ignorant claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia. Provide proof in your statement because you are the one who is trolling, not me. I plea that you include sources not from the FDA or PR-funded "studies," but instead you should use independent, unbiased sources. The FDA is quite infamously corrupt, which is what makes the FDA so unreliable. Your trolling is obvious because of its lack of logic. In fact, the Joseph Mercola page claims that thiomersal is safe, while the page on Thiomersal shows a diagram that points out its toxicity. I hope you understand that team efforts to game the system are not allowed either, and that can get you banned and/or demoted by other moderators. Rules lawyering (using loopholes in the rules to troll and vandalize) is never a good idea and falls under gaming the system. Also, your "team" has an attitude towards alternative medicine that is effectively censorship of unclassified content. Please unblock me, as my edits were in good faith and were in fact attempts to help. NPOVarticleNow (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You won't get unblocked by blaming everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A, "thiomersal is toxic", a classic misunderstanding assiduously fed by quacks and charlatans. Acetic acid is more dangerous than thiomersal, yet we consume it in vastly larger quantities than there would ever be thiomersal in vaccines, and consider it a delicacy. There's no evidence thiomersal in vaccines ever harmed anyone, and in any case it was removed from mos vaccines decades ago due to the ill-informed hysteria, so the point is moot. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are more dangerous things out there, like for example, ammonium sulfate and formaldehyde in Menactra vaccines, which can cause neurological damage. NPOVarticleNow (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]