User talk:Togiff

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Togiff, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you indefinitely as it appears that you're here to promote your views rather than to help build an encyclopedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to report the user AndyTheGrump for vandalism of the Psychotronics page. I am not here to promote only my views, but I noticed AndyTheGrump has been censoring and editing the Psychotronics page, deleting talk feedback, and threatening to have the entire article removed. IMO he's censoring, and my post was only on the talk page providing researchers more information on the issue. I request to be unblocked, and for user AndyTheGrump to be blocked for abusing users who want to talk and share information on psychotronic weapons. I will be emailing your administrator as well. AndyTheGrump has several threatening and dominating edits made over the the Psychotronics page, and it's clear he just wants to censor users and have it all deleted. Togiff (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you seem to be here to promote your own views. Wikipedia is based on a neutral presentation of content drawn from reliable sources, without undue weight being given to fringe beliefs. If you're willing to contribute neutral, reliably sourced content, I have no objections to unblocking your account. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work with Wikipedia on the matter. I think it will be hard to have a discussion with other authors on the psychotronics page with AndyTheGrump there, though. I saw he has previously deleted legitimate work that was referenced and cited, and at least two or three others complained about in discussions on the talk page .. On my part, I will try to provide information that is in a little bit different format in the future, like more clearly states the additional research elements I wish to share/discuss without mention of my website. Sorry for any confusion because I realize I had provided SOME information that was not relevant to all about the discussion. I still think it was edited out unfairly because it's just a talk page, not the actual article, where it would not have been appropriate in the format it was in. Togiff (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you'd like to be unblocked please post a WP:GAB-compliant request using {{unblock}}. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Read my talk page, I posted my full unblock request. Apparently, long amounts of evidence can't be included in the unblock request. Togiff (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) Why are you blocked? Because it was felt that you were only here to use Wikipedia to promote and publicise your opinions. (2) Is that true? Yes, absolutely. (3) Does your unblock request indicate that you will not continue to do so?? No. On the contrary, it makes it abundantly clear that you intend to continue to do exactly the same. (4) So what does your unblock request focus on? It does a lot of telling us how evil another editor is, and demanding that he be blocked. (Did you read the guide to appealing blocks? Did you notice the section WP:NOTTHEM?) It also goes on at ridiculous length about how the opinion you have been trying to plug is right, which is to say that in a request for the removal of a block which is there because you have been trying to promote your opinion, you try to promote your opinion. Can you guess how much that is going to help persuade an administrator that you should be unblocked? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

(response to JamesBWatson) That is not the point. I provided evidence that, the information I provided had nothing to do with my own personal views, and I was not thus blocked for the reasons the admin said. I was banned because an editor who had been frequenctly abusive towards other editors, and then made false accusations against me like he had the others before. Therefore my blocking was false from the very start, and I should not have to make elaborate requests when in fact I did not break any rules. The other user had been demonstrated as breaking the rule many times, and I am blocked because of it. I do not buy your response that this is my problem. I believe the user who reported me for blocking needs to be reviewed. I did not violate any rules. Simply as that. I happen to be an expert on psychotronic weapons, and I merely provided information for people to build off on, including patents and weapons names. I have a book called The Matrix Decipher by a CIA/DOD/US DOJ whistleblower named Dr. Robert Duncan who says all this is real and has been equipped in radar and satellite systems since 1976 (they call the system TAMI/Thought Amplifying and Mind Interface), and it's being used to target and abuse Americans with. None of this information is in your article because of censorship. I did not violate any rules by providing the information I did, because it's not my own personal view, it is in fact, fact and physical evidence .. also, why are other users complaining that they did not violate these rules, and this same editor is attacking and removing their stuff? Isn't it possible that AndyTheGrump is the only one violating the rules, and the Admins have over looked it or are protecting AndyTheGrump for some reason?

Decline reason:

I have no doubt that you feel you have a duty to educate the masses on the truth, but, as noted, this is a very poor forum for you to get that word out. We require reliable, published sources - especially for claims that even you must admit seem a little extraordinary. I'm afraid that self-published material or fringe blogs are simply not acceptable. This does not appear to be getting through, and I have zero doubt that if unblocked you will immediately return to your problematic editing patterns and your attacks on other editors. Kuru (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2014 (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.

Full unblock request/details about my blockage:

I was just about to report the user AndyTheGrump for vandalism of the Psychotronics page, when I was blocked by Mark Asten an admin apparently based on false complaints from AndyTheGrump. I noticed that AndyTheGrump has been censoring and editing the Psychotronics page, deleting talk feedback, and threatening to have the entire article removed because he doesn't think any of the information is valid there. IMO he's censoring and removing valid information, and I made a post on the talk page providing a few references of verifiable information that AndyTheGrump kept removing claiming it was "advertisement" or "delusional" material. The problem is, the psychotronics article is bare bones, and lacks many common references and pieces of information about this topic, including information that is verifiable about the US developing and using these weapons on people. I provided a few patents and links to other websites that could be used by potential researchers to get information. HOWEVER, like the smart man I am, I did not include any of this in the article itself, I just started a section on the talk page so we could all talk about it first. Really, what is the harm in discussing or sharing this information for others review there? AndyTheGrump came in within a minute of it's posting, as he must be watching the page, and undid the addition.

I undid that, and tried to get in touch with him, and left a note on the reason I undid his removal of it was because he was censoring the page. I did this one other time, and he undid it again.

I was researching methods on how to contact Wikipedia when he apparently got there first, and I was blocked by Mark Arsten. I think this is very unfair, and Mark Arsten did not even research the issue. He claims I only want to push my agenda, when I only have 2 posts on talk pages about this, and 1 link reference to the hospital where this incident happened. The website link that has been posted on the Oregon State Hospital page for more than a year was there appropriately and posted by someone else besides me, was also removed by AndyTheGrump (notice: I merely went in and edited the Oregon State Hospital page to correct and issue with the link I saw to my website, and I was not the original user who added it).

I use Wikipedia for much more than sharing information about this issue, and I rarely make editions to pages; however I do want to help give the researchers on the psychotronic/mind control issue a few more legitimate resources of information to research, as I am basically an expert on it and am very well connected in the community. I included patents and actual names of United States Weapons and research programs NOT mentioned on the Psychotronics page, so that if anyone wanted to research it more and include the details later, they could. I provided a couple of links there with information that is not only available on my site, but thousands of others, and most of my links are to those other sites. For example, there are at least 2 patents for mind reading and mind altering technologies, including one owned by the US Air Force (voice to skull), and another owned by a US defense contractor (mind reading via satellites & remote firing devices for remote mind control and covert communication).

I request to be unblocked, and for user AndyTheGrump to be blocked for abusing users who want to talk and share information on psychotronic weapons. AndyTheGrump has several other disruptive or threatening and dominating edits made over the the Psychotronics page, and it's clear he just wants to censor users and have it all deleted. For example, here is another comment made by him there:

We require direct and explicit sourcing for the proposed etymology: none has been provided. Further discussion at this point is disruptive. Topic closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we don't have articles on the meanings of words, we have articles about subjects. Can someone please provide a clear, sourced definition of the subject of this article, covering all the subject matter - because without one, it is hard to see why the article should be here at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly he is a crique of this, or is just someone who found a target group to harass and bother over this problem. Apparently he also edited out dozens of cited references and reports someone made, and users are complaining about him dominating the page:

The use of "pschotronics" on this page has nothing to do with the words most common meaning, which is referring to a well documented Russian weapons program. I've taken out the comments about "mind control" and forwarded them to a new page. The "US Psychotronic Assosiaction," along with the meaning presented on this page, has absolutely nothing to do with "mind control." There is plenty of source material to write a new article. I've created [[Psychotronic Weapons" to document the history of the Russian program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your assertion as to what is "the words most common meaning"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC) We don't need a source for the "most common meaning." I created a separate page. This group honestly has no idea what the subject matter is about. If you want this page to be about one Czech doctors machine, so be it. There is so much literature on the internet pointing to a broad Russian research program that this page is a joke. I will move my research to Psychotronic Weapons and we can create a disambiguation. There are definitely two meanings of the word. The one used in [the US Psychotronics Assocation] has nothing to do with the Russian program.Also, the previous user deleted numerous citations saying the sources "didn't reference psychotronics" at least two of those were taken from articles with "psychotronics" in the title. I'm not sure why this community demands to provide the most useless information possible, but you cannot honestly consider this page a reflection of the information provided last night, on the talk page, from the NSA and Russian Security Services.Damonthesis (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Content forking - you can't create another article on the same subject because you don't like this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC) See comments above, it's not the same subject. You have an article about 1 doctor, and have spent the last 4 hours removing well sourced material from Military journals, and NSA textbooks referring to a 30 year long research program. This article is about "parapsychology," and has no relevance to a well documented multi-decade research program driven primarily by the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. Damonthesis (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

HERE IT IS AGAIN. AndyTheGrump removing content from the page, again, for no reason at all, even though it's real and backed up by real references and information:

Just 2 comments.1. What's interesting about this topic is that none of the sources really agree as to what psychotronics mean, so this article should represent those sources fairly in an NPOV manner and not try to force one meaning onto a word which doesn't have a single meaning. For that reason, I don't think the lead is too bad. It briefly mentions the origins of the term, then explains that the term has been applied in different ways over time - ie, it summarises the article. I agree there's room for improvement, but suggest that improvement should be in working on a better structure to the article body first and then thinking about how the lead can best summarise that.2. Damonthesis, don't blame me for your actions in spending hours last night adding almost nothing but original research to the article, which had to be removed - and I went through your edits carefully paragraph by paragraph giving reasons for every reversion I made rather than just removing it wholesale. You did, however, find some excellent sources which this article sorely needed. Thank you for that - your work has not been wasted. I tried to represent those sources fairly in the article and you seem to be the only person who has a problem with my edits. GDallimore (Talk) 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) This page. in its current incarnation is nothing more than disinformation. You are attempting to obfuscate and hide a 50 year old russian research program, which has been noted time and time again in the news, military publications, and government legislation in both Russia and the US with a page about once scientist. This page is a completely inaccurate reflection of the term "psychotronics" and does nothing but confuse the general public into thinking it's something that hasn't been talked about for 50 years. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian, just released a statement saying they were spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016. Do you think they are researching this man's machine? Your edits this morning did not "have to be done" your reasons were not correct. You removed numerous sources noting that 'psychotronics" were not mentioned, yet the names of the articles themselves included the term. You do not have a good concept of what the term means, and thus have created a page that has no historical significance whatsoever. I'm not sure what your intentions are, but what you are doing is called censorship. 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) Would you care to provide a citation to a reliable source for Putin's statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC) http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120322/172332421.html is an original. It's repeated nearly everywhere. CBS etc. It's amazing that this group thinks this page has any relevance at all. If we were in the 60's I'd be calling you commie spies.Damonthesis (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) You stated that "Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian, just released a statement saying they were spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016" - the article you link was from a year ago, and clearly isn't "just released". Furthermore t says nothing whatsoever about anyone "spending upwards of 100 million dollars on psychotronics research per year until 2016". How about providing sources that actually back up your claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC) We're talking about a 50 year old program. that this article states "interest in died out" when the original inventor died. Relatively speaking, a 2012 comment from the President of the second most powerful nation on the planet is recent and meritorious for inclusion. You are doing nothing but attempting to deflect from the fact that this information has been removed repeatedly for no reason at all. It is on topic, well sourced, and relevant to history and this article. The edits today have served to completely misrepresent the subject matter, and do nothing but create a false illusion that this program does not exist, which is clearly refuted by the article I linked. Further, you have repeatedly removed references to US knowledge of this program, which is also meritorious, and pertinent to the subject matter. Damonthesis (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I know AndyTheGrump's type. They are naïve and don't have any knowledge on this issue. They censor legit information about mind control or surveillance issues, or issues that the government tends to try and censor and keep secret from the public. I have heard of this happening before, like on the Synthetic Telepathy page Wikipedia took down because of edit wars in 2010; here's a link to that article: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html

Legitimate information and references kept being removed from that article, and eventually the entire thing was deleted from Wikipedia over the issue, prompting users to archive the information elsewhere. I noticed that in general, Wikipedia is void of all legitimate references to this issue, and I think it's because you're allowing users like AndyTheGrump to censor the pages and delete content unchecked. And when people like me provide more discussion and research material, they get banned for no reason, and the censorship is left to continue without the ones who were banned.

Here is the "talk page" only entry I added.

..Other resource for information on these weapons..

Someone might want this material to research for this article. Notice, since this is just the talk page, there is nothing wrong with posts that are or aren't "Wikipedia" material (AndyTheGrump). You are unduly censoring peoples posts here, and it's you who is the problem for months it seems.

There seems to be a complete lack of information on the United States actual development of these weapons despite a rich history. There are references to mind control devices being developed during MKULTRA under the CIA program, including a device called Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control Electronic Dissolution of Memory, which flooded the mind with acetyl choline and drowned off nerve activity, killing or incapacitating targets. I do believe this is mentioned in official MKULTRA documentation/records, including who provided the invention.

Furthermore, the US Military at Walter Reid Institute (1970) had invented microwave weapons which could beam words and voices into the mind (during MKULTRA, mentioned in Mind Games article), which I think is a different device than the US Army invented and patented in 1996 called "voice to skull". The patent for voice to skull describes the RF Hearing Effect, which uses pulse modulated microwaves encoded with an audio signal, that once absorbed into the skin or bones of a subject, converts to sound energy and which transmits vibrations / sensations to the cochlea (inner ear), thereby beaming communication at the individual that only that target can hear.

There is also a patent from 1998 which includes information on using remote firing devices for remotely stimulating and controlling the brain, as well as reading the brain waves of individuals for communication purposes and transmitting it by satellite. Both patents are provided on the NSA Remote Neural Monitoring landing page below, and may be researched more for inclusion into this article.

Another article, who's info has been completely removed from Wikipedia due to abusive edit wars by people like AndyTheGrump, is the "synthetic telepathy" article from 2010. It was taken down from Wikipedia shortly around that time, and replaced with the brain-computer interface forward which still lacks all this information: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html

Modern psychotronic weapon devices are actually just environmental weapons and brain-computer interfaces. There are also classes of weapons which might work to simulate the paranormal on our environment, using directed energy and other manipulations. Something for researchers to look up is ghost hunting, which has attributed ghost phenomena with energy and various environmental issues. Weapons which control these mechanisms would be invented by the military to simulate the effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_hunting

I am pretty sure that today, the US government has a large amount of these devices out there. The NSA is who is charged with monitoring signals remotely, and I think they allow access to the FBI/CIA/local police as well. The NSA or whoever monitors remote signals, could tap the signals of neuron and brain emissions, and do remote mind reading - and targeting of individuals. There are also about 15+ ELINT satellites up in space that are the primary devices that would be used for monitoring this energy. There is also evidence of Directed Energy Weapon deployment in space under the Strategic Defense Initiative, a CIA/DoD program.

So much evidence. So many victims around the United States.. Start here with the NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain Link article: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

Then find other psychotronic weapon / synthetic telepathy / other articles here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#links

Togiff (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, I was trying to take out any information that looked like I was "advertising" because that was not the point of my post. It was not a plug as he stated, merely on-topic discussion and I only meant to educate and provide references.

I think the reason that the page looks so plain is probably because the page had been so heavily censored and edited by AndyTheGrump, . I might not have even had a reason to chime in if the article had been more complete, as it apparently would have been if AndyTheGrump hadn't deleted most of what people tried to add to the article. Togiff (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]