User talk:Oldspammer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archive 1

Archive 1 formed. Oldspammer 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing/Revision Process

This article may help you understand the process that many editors use to make changes to pages. This is article is based on policy. This, hopefully, will help explain why editors such as myself, edit the way that we do. WP:BRD. Thanks Tiggerjay 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not like what has been done to my contributions. Rather than trimming them 'appropriately,' the article text is whole-sale slaughtered without any talk page discussions. That 'this style' is a well established practice, is a sad commentary on WP. This style is destructive and lazy rather than constructive, progressive, or motivational. Owing to the lack of talk page feedback, in the end, occult agendas will be only served. Oldspammer 00:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remain Civil, Please

Please note that some of your comments on talk pages for articles and users appear to be uncivil and boarders on WP:NPA. Please review WP:CIVIL on proper etiquette for Wikipedia. Thanks. Tiggerjay 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be exact and specific about your allegations in this regard? Otherwise, I will not be on the same page, and will not take you seriously. What is worth noting? Oldspammer 00:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Beck Article

After spending some time around Wikipedia, you may find some assistance in the form of example and guidance from other individuals linked on The Granada Forum which is where, Robert Beck gave a speech at. Perhaps that will help you fix your article. :) Tiggerjay 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Oldspammer: 7% for major edits and 83% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 138 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A small edit is harder to find. So in this, documentation via summary is important.
A large edit is probably difficult to summarize in few words. Since a large edit is easy to find in a diff report, the nature of the edit is then a matter of scrutinizing the exact phrasings employed, noticing the good or bad reference citations and formatting used. A large edit may be spread all over the article, and so being, difficult to detail in a summary.
It may be a more important and better persuit for you to develop a bot / tool that searches for contributors who delete things:
  1. Did the deleted stuff have references?
  2. How many references were deleted?
  3. Were any other references that remained in the article broken by the deletion?
  4. Were the deleted references given in support of rational skeptisism or in support of a sole-product advertiser, or in support of a large cap, huge multi-product corporation.
  5. Days before deleting this article text, did the contributor enter any text on the article talk page to identify their concerns prior to deletion thereby giving the chance for the entry contributor to improve the work?
  6. What is the ratio of a given contriutor's deleted quantity of text versus their entry of article text?
  7. Does the contributor spin-off article text into related articles, or move it around within the same article, or is the text deleted 'without preserving' it?
  8. Does the contributor delete some references?
  9. How many references has the contributor deleted versus entered?
  10. Does the contributor forbid many references by others based on disputed value judgements (POV), in favour of virtually identical ones of their own (POV)?
  11. Is the given editor a sock pupet where the user (IP) connection originates where many more WP users with similar editing paterns tend to log into WP from? So that an entire group of many users is actually 2 people from a large company who have been tasked full-time to insure vested interests are maintained by the articles found on WP by using any tricky legal means necessary.

Oldspammer 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rife

Be that as it may, it was referenced only to a questionable internet source. If you can find a reliable source per WP:RS... Adam Cuerden talk 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No,, I mean for the part that claims that Rife predicted it. Adam Cuerden talk 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your correction on Talk:Blood electrification

Oldspammer, please do not edit older talk posts directly, as it can be confusing to other readers. There are two different options which are recommended for you to follow when you want to update bad information on an earlier talk post.

  1. Use the strike tag and then replace with corrected information; and/or
  2. Create a new post showing the corrected information.

Thanks. Tiggerjay 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Royal Rife

Oldspammer, when you address points serially on talk pages, please put your entire response indented and under the post which you are addressing. Your current habit of injecting your commentary directly into previous posts by other editors makes the talk page difficult to follow. Thank you! --71.79.50.71 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage on Robert Beck

Hello. Regarding your userpage on Robert Beck, it's been 6 months now. If the article is not ready for prime time, then it should be deleted as your userspace is not free webhosting for Robert Beck. If you think the article is ready to meet notability criteria, then we can take it to deletion review. If not, I will propose it for deletion, as userspace is not a place for unencyclopedic articles to hang around indefinitely. MastCell Talk 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"FOR Robert Beck?"
Sorry if you feel that this is a Robert Beck-owned page. It does identify several errors that Beck made in regard to his theories and talks. I put these in there by the way.
I said that it would take me at least a year working by myself on the topic, and as you can see by the edit history so far that no one has lent assistance to the article to provide more WP:RS sources for all of the information that needs it.
Curiously, all of the efforts so far of other editors has been to make sure that the information remains suppressed from view of others by adding no-wiki tags around category links, and insuring that it was clearly marked as a user page, thereby belittling its importance, and distancing WP from its content. Seems to me, by placing some of the no-wiki tags around things, even the alt med people would be less able to find the article to lend help with it, no?
I am relatively new to WP. I have not researched all of the political avenues of arguing for or against deletion actions, nor the subtle nuances of such wiki lawyering as some other people seem to be.
I have tried to recruit other editors to help me, but as you can tell, all have so far refused to do so.
I will try to seek help from the alternative medicine group who are open minded in regard to Beck and who are not just camping out in that group looking for what they consider pseudo science just to suppress unfunded research efforts of others like Beck.
For this effort I will probably need another year seeing as how other alt med articles seem to frequently come under severe attack and need my efforts to assist them, diverting my attention away from improving my Beck article.
BTW, it seems that some people examine from time to time my list of contributions in order to persecute my contribution efforts or have proxies do so for them: "are you talking about me?"
Why is it that establishment people have to be so mean towards others? Oldspammer (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you perceive this to be personalized or mean. It's not. You understand that Wikipedia is a high-visibility site, and thus is often used in a promotional manner. Therefore, there are fairly clear policies on what is, and is not, appropriate. It appears that Robert Beck does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements; in any case, the article you're working on will not satisfy the sourcing requirements for this encyclopedia. You are in no way being "suppressed"; there are any number of webhosting venues available on which you can post your findings about Beck. However, Wikipedia is not one of them. Your userpage on Beck is not an encyclopedia article, yet it continues to show up in search engines and the like. The {{userpage}} tag is therefore necessary to make clear that it is not an encyclopedia-space article. The categories are nowikied because they are for articles, not userspace drafts. These actions are not aimed at you personally; please understand that they are based on site-wide policies and practice. MastCell Talk 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not in a position to forcefully argue against your positions regarding a Robert C. Beck biographical article being unsuitable for WP since other lesser figures are featured and are not under severe attack to be deleted as this one has been from the start.
Indications are that when it involves alternative medicine, the attacks begin immediately, no? Oldspammer (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been involved in 50-100 AfD debates. Some involved alternative medicine. Many did not. In all cases, my opinion was based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. I notice you are explicitly declining to comment on the actual topic at hand (whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia) in favor of continued insinuations about my motivations. Please don't do that. MastCell Talk 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I said that the article was not ready. I said at least 4 months ago that the article would at least take me a year to improve even with help. I have been by myself in this, and have attempted a few hours ago to solicite some assistence from the alternative medicine group on wiki.
Why suddenly, without warning, must the article be in perfect shape for deletion review asap?
The trouble I'm having is that I do not see why it is that Beck cannot have a wiki article with there being so much opposition to minute parts of it. He is an alternative medicine guy. He is not a doctor / scientist, but is famous in his own fairly large community of alternative medicine. It seems that a person who is known as a famous fraud is notable by mainstream scientists writing about the fraud's activities, but a guy like Beck, who is not a fraud who has so called protoscience health claims cannot have a wiki article? Oldspammer (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, the answer to your question lies in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If he is "famous", there will be independent, reliable secondary sources attesting to that fame. As to "suddenly", that's a bit odd given that the article has been around for 6 months. If I looked in on it more often, no doubt you would accuse me of following you and "persecuting" you (as you in fact did above). Instead, you've had 6 months off the radar to work on it. There is no "ASAP" about this. Wikipedia's userpage policy states that userspace "is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." Six months, with "at least" another 6 months needed, is awfully close to indefinite. I know you think I'm persecuting you and you insist on personalizing this, but I actually was trying to do you a favor by putting the page in your userspace, when there was a clear consensus to delete it outright. Now I'm going to ask again whether the page should be deleted, at WP:MfD. If you'd like to continue working on it, I would suggest keeping a copy on your computer and compiling sources there. You can of course continue to work on it despite the absence of an on-wiki copy, but if we're talking about a matter of years before it's ready for prime time, then keeping it on-wiki in your userspace is not a good solution. MastCell Talk 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing for AfD

Please note that soliciting people to back your opinion at an AfD, using inflammatory language, is a pretty major violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc). I understand that this policy on canvassing is not necessarily intuitive, but I seem to recall similar issues with the previous AfD in which you were involved. In any case, please don't canvass any further. MastCell Talk 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I will read the policy pages that you link to for guidance in this matter. Thank you for your input, but please suggest to me how this is done in your circles?
How does the medical wiki group seem to learn of these AFD listings in such a well organized fashion?

Blood electrification article is up for deletion by deletionists I noticed that you were interested in alternative medicine / health. I have copy-pasted this next text from something I sent to someone else's talk page too... If you are interested, please read on...

Deletionist WP editors have elected the Blood electrification and sister Bioelectrification articles to be deleted.

The argument is being used that Blood electrification has not been publicized in the mainstream media or scientific / medical journals sufficiently so is "not notable" a.k.a. WP:notability.

Also they claim that patent documentation is not a reliable source and then never check the documents to see if these patent docs cite scientific journal articles as part of their basis for patent claims. Thereby, none of these deletionist contributors want to enhance the article by providing any WP:RS reference links.

Furthermore, waves of these editors edit the article with different mindsets / agendas as to what they consider acceptable coverage and scope of WP:RS references usable, otherwise even WP:RS sources are deleted as having been seen by individual, opinionated editors as being associated, but not exactly addressing specifically microcurrents, or blood, or specific pathogen types, or magnitude of parameters used, and so on. The article is trimmed down so much that it shrinks to non-existence--as is the initial intent by these editors with any bioelectric alternative medicine articles since their point of view (POV) is that electromedicine is quackery without exception.

Voting is done by following the deletion tag link and contributing to the deletion voting discussions. You can read the article, examine the article history, view earlier versions, view / contribute to the talk page for Blood electrification, then visit the Articles for deletion page (Afd page) for the article linked from the tags placed on the article.

All of the mainstream scentist and medical type people are voting for deletion as is their usual thing with alternative medicine pieces. Your input would be welcome. Oldspammer (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't see where I'm asking them to "back my opinion" and vote one way or another--do you?
If so, please tell me what line up there it is happening?
To me, I just informed them of the pending AFD and that it involved an alternative medicine related topic.
I did characterized the situation accurately: the article had people editing it who deleted even reliable source information using excuses that reflected their own views. This resulted in a shorter article that was thin on the WP:RS sources aspect.
I characterized the voting patterns done to date that reflected the outcome of the prior editing that had left the article very weak state so that deletion was winning out.
I wanted to let some alternative medicine group members know about the article.
Please indicate to me the inflammatory language that I used?
The way that I have seen done by medical wiki group members is to log out of wikipedia, then contribute to a user's talk page as an anonymous user IP address, leave a cryptic title of an article or whatever, then no one is the wiser that anything bad has been done. It could be the user himself logged in from work who leaves the anonymous message entry on their own user-talk page.
Are you saying that I should follow that example and be discrete about it? Oldspammer (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please. Stop. Canvassing. All of the questions you ask above are answered at WP:CANVASS; as to the accusations and assumptions of bad faith, please keep them to yourself. MastCell Talk 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no--not all the questions I asked were answered: like where in the quoted text above do I tell the person which way to vote was not answered. And you did not provide an answer to this either. Those whom I contacted I did not know, and so I do not know which way they would fall on the issue.
I seem to have discovered that the Med group uses tags and bots to compile and update lists, and that these lists are consulted to determine where the Med group should show up to vote against alt-med articles, or propose arguments against such articles. All highly organized, and automated forms of Canvassing if you ask me. A very fine line of distinction otherwise either. The AFD page has a noticeable entry by the group that is purposefully fairly hidden in small print? Hmmm... The kettle--you know... You did not answer my question about the med group being able to show up for many of these AFD discussions in so organized a fashion that I seemed to have been able to determine for myself just now... All very above board? Oldspammer (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The "small print" you refer to is the Deletion-sorting WikiProject, and yes, it is above-board and not associated with any particular point of view. Your credibility would be improved by doing a bit of due diligence before slinging knee-jerk bad-faith accusations. Your notice clearly violated WP:CANVASS; its language ("deletionists" etc) as well as the carefully selected recipient list both violate specific provisions of WP:CANVASS. MastCell Talk 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An intermediate editor may have interjected with a comment between my paragraphs, separating my signature from the body of a previous paragraph making it appear to be unsigned, when it originally was. I was editing a group of paragraphs that I had already signed at the bottom of the group of them with no interjecting text from anyone else--stupid bot!Oldspammer (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MastCell Talk 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notification

Is there a reason you notified me in particular about Blood electrification being up for AfD? I have had no involvement with that article to my knowledge. —Whig (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blood electrification

Hi! I just took a quick look at the AfD discussion on Blood electrification. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_electrification_(2nd_nomination)

Please don't be too quick to accuse Wikipedia editors of "censorship" or "suppression". Many people try to go by the dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Since the claims made for blood electrification strike them as extraordinary, they want to see, not just "okay" sources for these claims, but extraordinarily trustworthy sources. If such sources can be added to the article, they'll be satisfied. If such sources cannot be found for this or any other subject, then it probably shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if in the future articles on the subject begin to appear in "reliable sources" then a well-sourced article can be added to Wikipedia at that time.

Also note that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research. All cites (generally, but especially for a controversial subject such as this one), should meet the guidelines under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources.

-- Have a good one. :-) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also on the BE AfD - I have moved a number of your comments to the AfD talk page. Don't feel like you have to respond in depth to each !vote in the AfD, particularly if you are going to respond with very long comments about the subject (rather than the basis for keep/delete). It clutters up the page and makes it less likely that other people will contribute. AvruchTalk 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Additionally, I note the MastCell already warned you about WP:CANVASS but I'd like to emphasize that you should pay particular attention to this policy in the future, and avoid prompting individual editors chosen by you to participate in an AfD where you seem to anticipate their point of view. A lot of your comments seem to reflect the idea that there is a conspiracy of some sort (i.e. how does med group hear about this, why are they exempt and 'you should think why big pharma doesn't want you to hear about this). You may also want to refer to WP:AGF - please assume that other editors are contributing in good faith, with the interests of Wikipedia and its policies in mind. AvruchTalk 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I notice

Hello, Oldspammer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. MastCell Talk 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Link here Track it. Oldspammer (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Oldspammer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. The specific section is found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Oldspammer -- Fyslee / talk 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

track added ones. Oldspammer (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historiens--sey quo?

Google Web:
Samuel Bush Prescott Harriman Walker Rockefeller skull nazi

Google Web:
Oil pharmaceuticals Farben cancer

Google Videos:
science politics cancer G. Edward Griffin
1h:15m video identifying illegitimate medical journal studies.

Google Web:
Rockefeller world-government medical-journals mainstream-media

Google Videos:
Hoxsey cancer healing crime
View the entire thing, and closely examine the content at about 51m:30s onwards.

Google Videos:
Bob Beck Protocol part-1
Examine the points outlined from 1h:13m to 1h:26m

Google Videos:
G. Edward Griffin Norman Dodd
Patiently watch the entire thing.

Google Videos:
G. Edward Griffin Jekyll-Island Federal-Reserve

Google Videos:
Federal-Reserve system excellent covering private
Oldspammer (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Without actually viewing any of these sources, their titles lead me to believe that many if not all will be completely unsuitable for inclusion or citation on Wikipedia. May I ask what your intentions are with them? MastCell Talk 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Having a look? Sorry about impatience. What titles--sources? Intentions? Knowledge. Just exploration--just Google--just the internet / web. Info ill-researched? I don't know... These questions merit my further investigation. Logic presupposition one way and then the other might be helpful in sorting this out? Oldspammer (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk page use

Per my message there:

Please do not use talk pages such as chelation therapy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)