User talk:TThor

Problems with upload of File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug! TThor (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for advocacy of fringe and dangerous ideas

You have been warned. Please stop digging. Rife’s ideas are unproven and dangerous. Pinging User:Doug Weller. -- Valjean (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad to see that all you are left with is menaces—in the light of real science and real sources like Cancer Research UK. Anyways, let me thank you for preserving science and medicine from the real quacks throughout the years. Truly. Just remember that throughout history, there has been diamonds in the mud. As we speak, thousands are being cured in approved clinics, thanks to “machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine” (as Cancer UK would put it). 1. https://www.novocure.com 2. https://oncotherm.com/oncothermia-clinics 3. https://www.therabionic.com And no anti-Rife cult will stop them, or the thousands to come... for the good of mankind! –TThor (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any relationship with Rife?

Doug Weller talk 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. I'm happy to read you here. I need your advise. But first, no, I have none. I just love science, honest true science. And I don't like quacks (I earned the medal for highest marks of the entire Arts and Science Faculty of my University and was accepted at MIT with tuition waiver, if it may convince you). I simply feel there is an injustice with Rife. But that's not the point. There seems to be a small but real shift in mainstream medical science. For example it is now sourced that Rife was not Radionics (like a plain radio wave) and more and more serious articles and studies are coming out in favor of his technology (amidst so many warnings and denials obviously). These new studies and approved therapies claim that they don't use the exact same machines as Rife, but confirm that it's Pulsed radiofrequencies, based on Rife's research, the same technology (Pulsed RF is now known to be powerful at the cellular level, what's wrong with that?). I trust in your experience and integrity. What is your advice, should I drop it, or try some more?

Again, concretely, my goal is not to take away the negative sources, citations, court cases, warnings, etc., but to reflect just a bit more the growing mainstream recognition of his technology: add or retrieve a sentence, add a picture or two, with whatever reliable sources available... all presented first in the talk page as I did. Let's say edit 10 to 15% of the actual article, to give you an idea. And I am willing to work with an experienced Wiki editor, even if they are anti-Rife, as long as they show a minimum of objectivity. I am open to learning Wiki's ways in the process. Is that possible? Regards —TThor (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Doug User:Doug Weller, how are you doing? —TThor (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have enough time. But note that any sources should discuss Rife himself. Otherwise it is no original research. Mind you, I could desperately need a good cure for cancer available from the NHS. :) That's one of the reasons I'm short on time, trying to get things done before chemo. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller Thanks for the answer. Will do. As for your treatments, to bad Oncothermia doesn't seem to have clinics in the US. [1] To me, they seem the best in that field to date. They are approved by health authorities in Canada, Europe, etc. Apparently, combined with chemo, the results are very good. Maybe a trip to Canada might be worth it :) Anyways, good luck and thanks again! —TThor (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller Sorry, I took for granted that NHS was in the US. Actually, there is one clinic in the UK https://quantumclinic.co.uk/modulated-electrohyperthermia. I would personally try there. Regards —TThor (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022 1

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before something bad happens (i.e., you get blocked from editing) I strongly suggest that you read WP:EDITWAR, which explains the Wikipedia policy that you are on the verge of violating. Then, you should read WP:OR, especially its subsection WP:SYNTH, which is another Wikipedia policy that will explain, in detail, why several editors have removed (reverted) the content you keep trying to add to Royal Rife. If you restore that content again without first attempting to discuss it on the article Talk page, there is a high likelihood that you will be blocked. No one wants that to happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jojo, you seem to be the one editing without discussing anything on the Talk page. Now you come here menacing. Cancer Research UK knows more about Cancer Research than you and I, don't you think? You should read the studies they talk about. Why are you anti-science? —TThor (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you about edit warring above. Please self-revert this, or a case will be opened at EW. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Research UK is a very reliable source. Stop your subjective bias and your totalitarianism. If you have a point to make, I'll be happy to discuss it with you on the Talk page (which you seem to avoid). Regards —TThor (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Abusive misuse of talk page removed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022 2

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jonteemil (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #55519

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]