User talk:Ideasforlife7
Ideasforlife7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Regarding the Will Vladimir Radoslavov Stoyanov and Will Vladimir Stoyanov wiki pages, which are actually talking about the same author Stoyanov. Dear Wikipedia, appears that Stoyanov's work links have some history with wikipedia, but I'm only submitting a contribution (to this encyclopedia, which means that it should include all info available, thus theories, facts, etc) of info regarding telomeres with links to the facts with referenced tables of info. All info on the http://sites.google.com/site/journal1stoyanov is actually verifiable. yes it is true that there are links, which are not NCBI and scholar based, but hei there are many publications, which are not there. Also I actually got the original scan of the journal publishing Stoyanov's articles (just email him on <redacted> and he will most likely send it to you too if you really want a prove. However if you want to ignore the chance that there is some info, which could be helpful to some people at some point, which should be in the encyclopedia, then just leave it as it is DELETED) and I saw the whole video of the presentation in Cambridge. ps: also why didn't you send an email to Stoyanov, as I did registered directly his email so he can be informed if any changes are made his work profile? ps: it is strange that more than 10 IP addresses are used supporting links of Stoyanov's work (which IP's are also probably from different countries). If you had decided that they are all by the same user, as you have decided that I am this user, then perhaps you should look again : ). Many thanks and all the best in your quest of adding more info to the always growing encyclopedia. PS: if you change your mind, then perhaps you have enough info to get the source your self http://sites.google.com/site/journal1stoyanov and extract the relevant in your opinion info and link it to this encyclopedia, so that others can access it and surely they will decide usefulness accordingly. Enjoy : ) Also just to say that it was very disappointing that you've admitted that you are deleting my page and blocking me, because of Stoyanov's work history, without checking it out. I've ran a google-scholar search for "t-loop deletion factor stoyanov" 18.06.2010 0.33am, just to see and there is in deed only one result which goes to http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2009.0002 but from this web page there are links again to Stoyanov's articles publications, poster publications and videos publications. Wow let me try NCBI as well : )
Decline reason:
Your comments do nothing to address the issues for which you were blocked: abusing multiple accounts. 7 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Ideasforlife7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia, clearly I have nothing to do with multiple accounts (and you are only assuming it they are multiple in one, whereas it is clear even to me from what I saw that they are not only different, but also from different countries. Moreover below I've proven (in difference to you) that wiki-users have made mistakes and over exaggerations about this t-loop deletion factor, etc, whereas the important info here as far as I'm concerned is his oligos work.
Decline reason:
This appears to be the same person as User:JournalOfAntiAging. Not sure what information you have that would tell you what country a Wikipedia account is from; checkusers have that data, but neither I nor you has it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
- I see that you've used quite a few accounts. Why not just stop? You've learned that you aren't going to be able to write about yourself or your organization on Wikipedia, no matter how many accounts you create, so you're just wasting your own time creating more accounts at this point. You've been doing this for almost a year now, and Wikipedia is no different for your efforts. Think of what you could have done with that year. You could have read most of Proust, or Joyce; you could have learned to play a musical instrument competently; you could have written a novel. Don't waste another year of your life on this. Let it go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ideasforlife7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Clearly wiki users are not checking evidences, but do assumptions. However every important info keeps growing and one way or another enters the encyclopedias. You are saying that Stoyanov's work is now on wiki for a year from different countries, thus clearly this is not going to stop, so why don't you just do your work, check Stoyanov's work http://sites.google.com/site/journal1stoyanov and email him (I left you his email on this account email removed. The drama here is that Stoyanov works is on anti aging, so this will keep going and eventually you will be gone, but his work will keep comming : ) and you will leave nothing behind. How sad. Now I understand why you don't check Stoyanov's work. Thanks and good bye and good luck with the other users reporting info regarding Stoyanov's work : )
Decline reason:
You still haven't addressed the reason for your block. This must be addressed before your account can be unblocked, but it seems you are intent on side-stepping the issue. You have one last chance to post a good unblock request, otherwise your ability to edit this page will be removed. TNXMan 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
If you are still requesting unblock, please don't remove the responses to your previous unblock requests. If, after a year of creating accounts on Wikipedia, you are still citing Stoyanov's own google page as evidence that he is a notable scholar, then you have clearly not spent any time actually reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please don't put your personal email on Wikipedia- emailing you would not yield any useful information, in any case. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to go by a lot of different names, but I searched for all the variations on Google Scholar, and couldn't find any of your publications. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ideasforlife7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
search in google scholar for "t-loop deletion factor stoyanov" and you will have only one result related, named ICHFI Lifespan - Rejuvenation Research, 2009 - liebertonline.com Meeting Program, from where you have the same links to Stoyanov's video, presentation, and articles published in this peer reviewed journal of rejuvenation research. Thus all of you wiki users focus and stop being pathetic, as we do feel pity for you working in wikipedia, but look at your rules, where it says that even if there is one publication in a peer reviewed journal, then the info SHOULD BE ON PUBLISHED ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST DO AS YOU ARE PAID TO DO NOBODY IS ASKING FOR ANY OPINION, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD'VE NOT BEEN WRKING FOR WIKIPEDIA, BUT DO SOME REAL RESEARCH, JOB, ETC AND ALSO STOP BLAMING ME FOR MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS, etc, as it is clearly not the case and you have shown nothing to support this but the fact that I'm submitting info related to these multiple users. How sad are YOU. SHAME ON YOU. AND WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO CONTACT ME TO YOUR MANAGER AS CLEARLY I AM GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THESE TIME WASTERS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? WHO IS YOUR MANAGER AND HOW CAN I CONTACT HIM ASAP?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Just a few minor things:
- Your block doesn't discuss your own behavior at all. Your block reason is abuse of multiple accounts. The rest doesn't matter - at all.
- All Wikipedians, including administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers and so on are unpaid volunteers which are community elected; The only paid workers are the people in the employ of the Wikimedia foundation and they take care of things such as handling the servers. Handling requests, such as your unblock request, is done by the administrators. You can think of them as "the managers" if you like.
- Your reaction and past unblock requests (which you blanked again even after being told otherwise) show you are not interested in cooperating whatsoever. I would point out that persistant abuse of the unblock request template will end in revocation of talk page access.
Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|I SAID I WANT CONTACTS OF SOMEONE WHO CAN SACK YOU OUT????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? AND I dont care if you are paid or not (no surprise there, as you sack alot) BUT NOT FOR LONG NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO ON GIVE ME A CONTACT OR ARE YOU AFRAID????????????????????????????????????? HEI YOU CHILD GO ON I'AM STILL WAITING for YOU to unblock me, so that I can fix this MEGABOLECKS of yours. AND YOU ARE NOT TELLING ME, NOR ANYONE ELSE ANYMORE that it doesn't matter if Stoyanov has been treated with disrespect from you for more than 10 people. YOU SHOULD BE TAKEN TO COURT, so I Will fix YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO ON GIVE ME A CONTACT OR do I have to contact this info for the the news to prove what a waste WIKIPEDIA has been for the last year with members like YOU??????????????????????????????????? PS: ALL OF THIS IS COPIED FOR COURT USES THUS I SUGGEST YOU ALSO GIVE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT CONTACT (if you have such). I remember my professor told me years ago, "why are you using the bin?" But I had fate in free information, and I still have. BUT YOU PEOPLE ARE such a waste. BUT NOT FOR LONG you've abused enough users by the look of it. ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GOT THIS CHILD???????????????????????}
Please, if you're still requesting unblock, don't remove the previous requests. Now that you are taking Wikipedia to court, it is not possible under the Wikimedia Foundation's rules regarding lawsuits to unblock you- at least, not until your lawsuit is concluded. Yes, the Foundation has an attorney; I'm sure that your attorney will not have any difficulty in identifying and contacting him. Since your request has been fairly reviewed by several people, and you haven't addressed the reason for your block in most of your unblock requests, I'm now disabling your access to this talk page; please, to pursue your lawsuit, do so through Wikimedia's lawyer, and not here on your talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)