User talk:Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  — Moe ε 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I believe I have been blocked from editing wikipedia by Ryulong, who claims POV , although the pages i was editing ozone therapy and EBOO are of debate i have taken care to only include information proved credible to be have previously published by peer reviewed medical journals, If you believe any information i have posted is not cited by such i would be happy to review the information that concerns anyone such to label it POV. Bloking and deleting my edits is some what oppressive. I understand some people who profit from human disease and suffering have objection to much of this information being broadcast but i believe wikipedia is about providing knowledge and i believe what i have posted is credible public knowledge the science of which has not been challenged and further i believe that people would want to and should be allowed to know. I look forward to your response detailing the POV allegations. thank you Activst4TRUTHinMEDICINE"

Decline reason: "As noted below, Wikipedia is not for activism, which is what your name indicates you are here for. Post your information on a blog or something, please, but not here. — Sandstein 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

It seems you may be a bit confuses as to what the purpose of wikipedia is. Wikipedia is NOT for Activism. Wikipedia is for parroting the mainstream. Frankly, I largely agree with the point that modern medicine is more interested in "selling" then "healing".... but it doesn't change the facts that activism is not welcome or accepted here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Activst, would you be OK agreeing to not make content edits the article in question? IE, you would be free to make minor edits, but not anything that changes the content or tone (ie, no changes to working to highlight or "dehighlight" conclusions). A similar "restriction" would be in place for other medical related articles. Changes that you feel should be made, like the ones that were removed in these cases, would need to be discussed on the talk pages first. Be warned, it is unlikely that the items on the talk page would make it into the main article. However, it would allow you to make edits to any other articles you are interested in, say videogames or movies. This would be entirely voluntary. Maury 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, i regret the user name i choose is to confrontational but as an appraisal of the ozone and ozone therapy talk pages reveals as this article developed it was going to be difficult to avoid, none of the responses to date outline what is considered POV. i believe i have posted to much content that obviously challenges the previously accepted perceptions of ozone therapy and some people are alarmed and understandably would want to review it in detail, In each section i first fully disclosed the main stream medical establishments view. The FDA's appraisal of ozone toxicity (as referenced) is classic POV they quote no science. the science that has been done and found credible to be publish by internationally recognised medical journals and and is unchallenged shows the FDA policy to be presumptive and flawed. Considering the hostility and predjudice to this topic shown by some people, i conceed it is best administrators review my desired contributions before they are posted. perhaps we could start with the section i labelled ozone therapy for cancer, much misleading information is posted elsewhere on the net regards this topic i hope wikipedia can give people a correct and complete appraisal of the research in this area.Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)