User talk:Michael0156

== Vandalism warning 1 == "Vandalism Warning" was added by User:Brangifer, an experienced Wikipedian actively defending the violations of Wiki ideals/rules of the "Natural News" attack-piece, as well as attacking/reverting an honest & correct editor and his edits.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to NaturalNews, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 23:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noformation states "Your content removal does not appear constructive"... did Nofor read the differences or understand the content? Wiki's "Natural News" webpage is a BLATANT attack piece on a living person, doesn't use credentialled relevant nutrition/drug/vaccine experts to attack Mike Adams and references expert BLOGGERS (Gorski, Novella, Plait and others) who regularly and blindly defend drug companies, whose profits are adversely affected by Natural News articles and advertised products.

Nofor should have engaged in talk before reverting the edit of an article that is an OBVIOUS violation of so many Wikipedia ideals and rules. Nofor has initiated edit warring by his self-admitted-thoughtless revert ("doesn't appear constructive"). 100.4.52.22 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Michael0156[reply]

== Vandalism warning 2 == This second "Vandalism Warning" was added by User:Brangifer. A repeated and illogical and apparently personal attack against an honest editor trying to improve wikipedia with unbiased truth. Brangifer understands completely that my edit of Natural News is in accordance with Wiki ideals and rules, but he persists in taking turns reverting my edit and attacking me openly on my talk page... when he knows he is completely wrong and I am completely right. This is easily seen by looking at my edits and reverts of the Natural News page. Lonks to this

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to NaturalNews has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: NaturalNews was changed by Michael0156 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853876 on 2013-10-22T14:39:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to complain about the ClueBot error in reverting my edit. It was interesting to read ClueBot

s creators defending their creation by having thier bot state "Cluebot makes very few mistakes", while having a link to reporting ClueBot's error, yet the page refused to take my report. Michael Polidori (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning 3

Your recent editing history at NaturalNews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Note the part about BRD. Read it carefully. It is a widely accepted method of preventing edit wars. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2013 (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. Jinkinson talk to me 09:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely because your account seems to exist only to disrupt and whitewash the NaturalNews article. Wikipedia is not the place to push agendas and conflicts of interest. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.v --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work editing according to Wikipedia policy

See WP:ATTACK.

Your edit removed a lot of absurd references that are against many Wikipedia polices. For example, references to blogs are against Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. Editors know they are not allowed to use unreliable references. In fact, the unreliable reference used as criticism against a person is a blatant WP:BLP violation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not enforce its own rules. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His offense was to edit war, rather than discuss. If he had discussed, he might have gotten his way. Hot heads get in trouble in a collaborative environment. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MICHAEL POLIDORI POSTS THE FOLLOWING IN RESPONSE TO BRANGIFER

Of course I did not edit war, unless you consider editing myself as part of the 3 edit rule, and that being a "minor edit".

Brangifer was simply looking for any excuse to recommend I be banned. Why? He and Jinkinson are fully aware that my editting corrected Jinkinson's attack piece against a living person (Mike Adams) that clearly violates many of wiki's standards. They are equally aware that I did not edit war.

Jinkinson knows, from our encounters on youtube, that I am capable of arguing effectively, research thoroughly and am honest. Both he and Brangifer have no desire to try to counter the science-based and evidence-based truths they know I would post on Wikipedia.

Brangifer and Jinkinson know their page on Natural News screams for deletion on multiple grounds. So why is this wiki fraud allowed continued existence? I don't know, but I intend to find out, and try to correct this one page in Wikipedia. I am now more aware of the tools available to me to effect changes or recommended deletions to pages clearly ciolating wiki rules and goals. I am aware of many different bots' roles in blindly reverting honest changes to Wikipedia and the built-in correction mechanisms allowing me to report errors in bots' actions.

I explain some of the OBVIOUS severe problems with Jinkinson's version of "Natural News" below. I detail many of Jinkinson's "Natural News" page wiki violations and why the page should undergo a major revision or deletion.

I also detail ways in which others have identified Wikipedia problems and recommended Wikipedia reform itself, which are surprisingly similar to my own recommendations.

Returning to the small problem at hand - Since it is impossible to edit war with myself, Brangifer should take this opportunity to request that I be unblocked due to his multiple errors (especially the error counting my self-edit as one triggering the three revert rule) as well as his obvious bias, which I have detailed below.

Spike Wilbury has also displayed extreme bias in his commentary on my talk page in several places. His action of indefinitely banning a novice editor, for a truthful edit, for a wiki violation he did not commit brings to light a severe prejudice in Wilbury's actions, that apparently need high-level wikipedia review.

I will soon be initiating unblocking procedures, including (if necessary) an Appeal to the Arbitration Board, if Brangifer/Jinkinson/Wilbury choose to let their errors stand, hoping I won't follow-up.

After briefly reading the choices open to me, the Arbitration Board seems most appealing and appropriate, as it will expose multiple frauds carried out by three parties to this wiki-fiasco, at a level that might spur action against those individuals and anything they have posted and /or edited. It may also be useful to review anyone that Spike Wilbury has banned, considering his banning me is clearly thoughtless, fraudulent and extremely biased.

While my efforts may prove fruitless in the end, the record on Wiki is here for all to see... when a novice editor was banned indefinitely for a violation he did not commit, while honestly attempting to correct an attack page, and get the page to support the ideals Wikipedia proclaims it stands for. My ban for edit warring apparently doesn't include anyone else who also participated in the "war". They knew to take turns, hoping I would violate the three revert rule. When I didn't, Brangifer deliberately and fraudulently claimed I did, including a self-edit as part of the 3-edit warring charge.

As always,

In the interests of Truth and Science,

For the protection of children,

Michael Polidori

Michael Polidori (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which blogs you are referring to, but blogs are no longer totally banned from use. Some are quite notable, and others are written by experts. The blog format is even used for corporations and political candidates. When dealing with fringe subjects, and NaturalNews is definitely about as fringe as it gets, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY apply, and allow the use of certain blogs and other sources because they are the only ones which discuss the subject. The mainstream generally ignores fringe topics. An article like this cannot exist using only itself as a source. NPOV requires that existing mainstream criticisms are also included, and they are mainly found on skeptical websites and blogs run by those who are experts at critically evaluating fringe topics. WP:ATTACK doesn't apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY do not apply to comments about a person. 3RR does not apply to removing BLP violations. If you are not sure there are blogs being used to attack a person then this is a hopeless conversation. If blogs are the only ones that discuss the subject that I expect you or someone else to nominate the article for deletion. You admitted "An article like this cannot exist using only itself as a source". Blogs (and the other poorly sourced text) are not mainstream sources and do not establish notability. It is obviously a non-notable subject and an attack piece against an individual. There never has been a collaborative environment on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you guys are having this conversation here? This user is blocked, move along and argue somewhere else please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how wikipedia has been hijacked by "people" supporting corporate agendas who ignore wiki rules to banish anyone interested in posting truth to these pages on topics that affect various corporations' bottom lines.

Why does Wilbury chase away people trying to have a conversation on my page about the merits of my attempted edits to Natural News (an attack page by Wiki definition). Why do they heed him? Was that a warning that a ban would follow disobedience?

Anyone can see the current version of the Natural News page and compare it to my attempted edit which was to change it something simply truthful. - Comparing the Brangifer attack piece on Natural News to my version of what Natural News should look like - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NaturalNews&diff=578667161&oldid=578270574

Wilbury has demonstrated his own bias on this issue in his statement on my talk page about his blocking me - Wilbury states - "I've blocked you indefinitely because your account seems to exist only to disrupt and whitewash the NaturalNews article...". Anyone reading the Natural News article can see it is simply an attack piece referencing bloggers to criticize Mike Adams and his website (Gorski, Novella, Bowditch, Plait and McMahon are all known corporate elitists protecting moneyed interests with their biased blogs --- BLOGS!! BIASED!!! - Not experts on this issue, but “expert” bloggers).

I have engaged both Novella and Gorski on their blogs and they are not interested in mainstream truths about the issues they blog about. They also have minions that assist them in thrashing anyone who dares to contradict the bloggers manipulated corporately beneficial “articles” on various subjects.

Their behaviors are similar to Brangifer (BullRangifer) and Jinkinson, who tag-teamed me (a novice editor) undoing my edits, so they wouldn’t be charged with edit warring or disruptive editing also. Still, I did not violate Wiki policy on disruptive editing within a 24 hour period, but that didn’t matter. Jinkinson, Brangifer and Wilbury apparently have a common agenda... and banning me was part of it.

My valid corrections to this attack article on Natural News, a violation of Wikipedia policy .can be viewed. My edit is objective, not supporting or panning the website. Wilbury demonstrates his bias by calling my valid correction a disruption of the webpage and a "whitewash". No. It is simply transparent truths attempting to erase the “blackwash” of Natural News that Wilbury knowingly defends, while baselessly attacking me personally. He alludes to my agendas/conflicts and describes the truth I posted as disruption.

Side by side comparison of Brangifer's revision of my Natural News article edit

Wilbury goes on to say "... Wikipedia is not the place to push agendas and conflicts of interest." What agenda? What conflicts of interest? Is Wilbury saying I am Mike Adams, based on Jinkinson's allusion to that possibility? This bewildering statement by Wilbury is more evidence of prejudice and his apparent own agenda and attempt to disrupt a truthful edit/editor and continue to allow the Natural News website to be black-washed here on Wikipedia using references to corporate-biased-linked bloggers (like Gorski and Novella) rather than valid objective articles

Wilbury finishes with - "If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice" - While I don't understand exactly what this means, considering the depths of the conflicts apparent in Wilbury's likely-knowing or possibly-blind criticism of my attempted edit, I doubt if an appeal would fare any better than my attempt to honestly edit a horrible attack piece, which has no place in the ideal Wikipedia aspires to, according to Wiki information and rules.

Also, according to Wiki rules, to be charged with disruptive editing I would have to edit war three times in a 24 hour period. I did not. More evidence that Wilbury has the agenda, and it doesn't involve truth. Did Wilbury not see I had not warred according to Wiki rules? Then he is a bad Wikipedian who is not paying attention. But it’s more than that as Wilbury attacks me and defends the attack page on Natural News. I believe Wilbury knows exactly that what he is doing is contrary to the ideals Wikipedia is founded on, that what he did to me was wrong and that he simply doesn’t care.

Jinkinson, Brangifer and Wilbury should stand out in the open, as I do. Don’t hide behind anonymous nics. Be accountable to your family friends and peers for the obvious violations of Wiki policy you are involved in daily. All editors should be required to transparently display their identities. What better way for this peer-reviewed experiment to succeed?

WIKI IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT TRUTH, THEN LET’S BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHO WE ARE, AS WIKIPEDIANS, AND SEE WHO HAS THE APPARENT AGENDAS AND CONFLICTS THAT WILBURY BASELESSLY AND FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF.

Jinkinson has stalked me on the internet, publishing my real name in comments as if he uncovered something special. At one point he believed I was Mike Adams.

Signed - Michael Polidori -- michael0156 -- stop_gmo -- StopGmo -- Searching for those nics on the internet will lead you along the same paths Jinkinson followed. I don’t have any conflicts regarding anything I have posted on the internet. My only agenda is truth. Jinkinson Brangifer and Wilbury cannot say the same, based on their cooperation in baiting me then banning me.

Michael Polidori (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even with QuackGuru's comment regarding the Natural News webpage is an attack article, Wilbury willfully ignores the substance of the comment, stopping commenting on my talk page concerning this issue.

Sounds like censorship to me.

In the article critical of Wikipedia, posted by QuackGuru, the author and a reference state -

Donna Bogatin, ZDNet, says - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Wikipedia's own notion of 'verifiability', not truth, I pointed out last September in 'Is Wikipedia ‘knowledge’ merely third party hearsay?' - And this "Shouldn't directly sourced and attributed facts be the objective of an 'encyclopedia', not third-party, twice-removed 'interpretations' of the facts?"

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger said - "The community does not enforce its own rules effectively or consistently. Consequently, administrators and ordinary participants alike are able essentially to act abusively with impunity, which begets a never-ending cycle of abuse."

Michael Arrington of TechCrunch fame publicly admitted fears of intimidation by Wikipedians has dissuaded him from attempting to correct errors in Wikipedia. "While wikipedia appears to be open to all, I've seen numerous examples of changes getting immediately deleted for what appears to be political reasons rather than the pursuit of pure knowledge."

In another article by Donna Bogatin Larry Sanger (Wikipedia co-founder) is quoted again criticizing Wikipedia: “The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem in the first place... Widespread anonymity leads to a distinguishable problem, namely, the attractiveness of the project to people who merely want to cause trouble, or who want to undermine the project, or who want to change it into something that it is avowedly not--in other words, the troll problem."

Are all or even most of Wikipedia entries fraudulent or horribly biased? My guess would be "No", but based on my experiences and readings so far, a guess that gives the majority of ordinary honest editors the benefit of the doubt, not higher up Wikipedians. I do know of three attack pieces that withstand hundreds of attempts to truthfully edit them (Mike Adams of Natural News, Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr Andrew Wakefield). What group of powerful CEOs and board members have all three offended or whose profits have been threatened by the simple science-based truths of those three men? CEOs and board members running the drug industry.

Brangifer, Jinkinson and Wilbury are part of the immense problem with Wikipedia... editors with agendas (other than simple truths or facts) have infiltrated and hijacked Wikipedia on articles of "special" interest. They have the trolls and editors and administrators to sculpt any issue to conform to any "truth", and anonymity facilitates their deceptions and lies.

People like them, in my opinion, are being paid to crush truth about “special interest” profit-oriented issues and ban anyone who dares try to post the truth on Wikipedia. Why else would anyone ignore Wiki rules and protect the attack pieces that lie about Adams, Mercola and Wakefield?... or how about an article on Aspartame that is slanted and biased toward the aspartame industry view, discounting the facts associating aspartame with serious side effects in some people?

More critiques of the content of Wikipedia and the types of behaviors exhibited by Jinkinson, Brangifer and Wilbury in their "war" to ban me indefinitely for a Wiki-crime I didn't commit-

Harvard article criticizes Wikipedia

Mark Moran "The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia"

Cade Metz "The Register" on a Wiki secret mailing list and petty/fraudulent blocking of an editor

Corporate influence is rife on Wikipedia and it appears to me that Jinkinson, Brangifer and Wilbury are promoting that influence and stopping honest editing. Jinkinson created the Natural News Mike Adams attack page and Brangifer/BullRangifer and Wilbury acted to revert, silence and ban a novice editor acting in the interests of Wikipedia ideals.

Anyone doing this should be stopped. The upper echelons of Wikipedians must take steps to correct this.

Eliminating anonymity, making Wikipedia more like an on-the-fly-edited peer reviewed journal, I believe is the only option. Take away the cloaks hiding the pointed daggers of conflicted individuals and let their familiar peers (family friends and co-workers) see their handi-work and let us all properly investigate to find the real conflicts of interest and agendas that truly exist on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s apparent reliance on corporate money, thru the observed unopposed actions of people like Jinkinson, Brangifer and Wilbury, is a logical conclusion anyone who can read and think will come to if they look at the way some pages are bent with massive editing attempts continually thwarted by a few... and their bots.

Michael Polidori (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2014 (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).

Michael0156 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Brangifer complained that I violated the Three Revert rule. I didn't break this rule. If anyone looks at the three edits brangifer references they will see one is a minor edit of my own edit. This is certainly not a revert, but it appears that Brangifer and Jinkinson were looking for a way to ban me and this is all they could come up with. The administrator who blocked me, Spike Wilbury, should have reviewed what Brangifer had submitted. It doesn't appear that he did. Also the administrator personally attacked me and my motivations claiming my account appeared to exist only to "whitewash" the Natural News article. That would indicate the adminstrator read both the Natural News article (an OBVIOUS attack piece referencing bloggers) and my edit, which simply turned the attack piece into a simple truthful article. In his reasoning for blocking me Spike Wilbury also posted "... Wikipedia is not the place to push agendas and conflicts of interest.". This implies that I have agendas and conflicts of interest in editing Natural News, but Spike Wilbury doesn't explain what this means. As a novice editor I realize I have a lot to learn. After innocently editing Natural News to comply with Wikipedia rules and ideals my edits were reverted, first by Cluebot, then by Jinkinson and Brangifer. Jinkinson and I have a history, on Youtube, discussing the same or similar issues. I didn't know Jinkinson was involved in this article until he reverted my edit. Once Brangifer joined in reverting me I knew that trying to truthfully edit the Natural News page would be fruitless, as well as any attempt to reason with Jinkinson or Brangifer on the talk page. I understand that multiple edit reverts, even if not in violation of Wikipedia's Three revert rule, is counter productive and I will no longer engage in that behavior. I will try to get editors and contributors to honestly engage me in discussions on the Talk pages of any articles that I want to edit. If we can't come to agreement on how an article should be presented, I now realize there are procedures to involve other wikipedians to resolve these disputes and/or to get pages to conform to wikipedia rules and ideals. I will first attempt to get the articles I have an interest in changed through extensive conversations on the Talk page. I feel unblocking me, based on the fact that I did not violate the three revert rule as Brangifer has claimed, is a simple matter. That I am a novice editor and still unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia's rules I hope also warrants my unblocking. I have reviewed attempts or recommendations to block other individuals and have found that indefinite blocking is usually a last resort measure. Some of the offenses for which people have requested blocks and they have not been successful, are so many degrees above the alleged infraction I have been accused of committing that I am shocked that I was banned at all... much more shocked to see that repeated egregious offenders on Wikipedia don't receive INDEFINITE BLOCKS, as I have received. I hope this appeal reaches an adminstrator who will honestly review the evidence submitted to block me and evaluate the reasoning used by Brangifer and Spike Wilbury. I hope this administrator will also review the Natural News page and objectively evaluate it (no easy task, to run down all of the references, which are mostly blogs, personal opinions or letters to editors). As Always, For the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael0156 Michael Polidori

Decline reason:

I'd be prepared to consider an unblock with a topic ban, but I'm not prepared to consider a straightforward unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2015 (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.

User:PhilKnight :So Phil, you haven't addressed any of the issues in my appeal. Why not? Wouldn't addressing issues in my appeal be at least courteous? And maybe make some type of effort to explain what in my behavior warrants a novice editor to be blocked for more than a year? A block which you, Phil, apparently agree should continue in some form. But you offer no reasoning of why the block should continue (as you are doing) or why I should receive a "topic ban", which I believe you should also explain.

Your response seems to want to get me into a negotiation, rather than you make a reasoned decision. Are negotiations part of this appeal process?

I am repeating some of the issues I raised in my appeal and adding some new information. If you don't have the time or the motivation to address this appeal, I feel you shouldn't have made an offer of negotiating that ignores the basic issues and lacks reasoned justification.

I have admitted that I was ignorant of the vast majority of Wiki rules on editing. I now know there are other ways to proceed once individuals refuse to reason, use unreliable references or reference BLOGS (all OBVIOUS and outright violations of Wikipedia ideals and rules). That I have admitted my ignorance and learned other Wiki-ways to respond to people like Brangifer, Jinkinson, Nofor (and others), who refuse to acknowledge they are violating wiki-rules, should be more than enough to unblock me, taking into account my already 16 months long indefinite block.

I wouldn't accept a topic ban without a logical and truthful set of reasons for such a ban. This continuation of banning me in some form, in order for me to accept it, would also have to address the multitude of violations committed by Jinkinson and Brangifer. I covered their violations in my appeal, but NOTHING in my appeal has been responded to.

As an example of the type of Wikipedians reverting me, Jinkinson has stated the following (in Wikipedia) - "Michael0156, who is notorious on YouTube as an anti-vaccine troll..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NaturalNews/Archive_1 That is wrong on so many wiki-levels. Jinkinson has also trashed me on Wikipediocracy, more behaviors Wikipedians can be taken to task for. There is also a reference to Brangifer speculating about wikipedians identities - http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3187

Brangifer's accused me of violating the three revert rule. I CLEARLY did not. Apparently Spike Wilbury converted the 3RR charge to general "Disruptive Editing", for which he banned me indefinitely... but that is not a surprise, considering Spike's personal attack against me here on this talk page, accusing me of having conflicts and agendas, without offering any evidecne when he blocked me.

Rather than offer to negotiate a resolution of this matter by me accepting some type of permanent block on a page that is an OBVIOUS violation of MANY Wikipedia rules and ideals, I feel an administrator should address the issues in my appeal so that I understand the bassi for the decision.

I believe a thorough and honest review of the Natural News webpage would restore my good faith edit... Reading the natural News Talk page it is also obvious there is no consensus of editors, with many editors expressing the same objections that I have. There is a bevy of Wiki editors determined to have this Natural News Attack page against a living person stand no matter how reasonable the objections.

THAT is the real crime perpetrated here. As Wikipedians we should all be devoted to fixing it. Don't you agree Phil? Michael Polidori (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhilKnight, the article is littered with way to many blogs such as ScienceBlogs. There is a bunch of trivia info that does not belong in the article. This article is the worst written article on my watchlist by far. I can't clean it up because the other editors will think I have flipped if I try to remove the "negative content". I don't have answer to cleaning up the page. Everyone knows there are problems with the article (including WP:BLP violations) but "consensus" will not allow the article to move forward. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2015 (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).

Michael0156 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been indefinitely blocked for over two years for a violation of Wiki rules that I did not commit, for the first article I tried to edit.

An indefinite block of a novice editor's first article he has attempted to edit seems a bit overboard. Especially when I didn't violate the 3 Revert Rule, as charged in the original complaint. The first administrator to block me changed the 3RR violation to "Disruptive Editing", and personally attacked me in his explanation of indefinitely blocking me. I did not disruptively edit the Natural News article. I truthfully and correctly edited the Natural News article IAW Wikipedia Rules.

The Natural News article is a perfect example of a terrible Wikipedia article violating many of Wiki's rules and ideals. It should have been deleted long ago.

My block should never have happened. It should have been lifted long ago. Michael Polidori 100.4.73.249 (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please log in to your account to request an unblock, as we have no way of identifying IP address 100.4.73.249. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2015 (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).

Michael0156 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been indefinitely blocked for over two years for a violation of Wiki rules that I did not commit, for the first article I tried to edit. An indefinite block of a novice editor's first article he has attempted to edit seems a bit overboard. Especially when I didn't violate the 3 Revert Rule, as charged in the original complaint. The first administrator to block me changed the 3RR violation to "Disruptive Editing", and personally attacked me in his explanation of indefinitely blocking me. I did not disruptively edit the Natural News article. I truthfully and correctly edited the Natural News article IAW Wikipedia Rules. The Natural News article is a perfect example of a terrible Wikipedia article violating many of Wiki's rules and ideals. It should have been deleted long ago. My block should never have happened. It should have been lifted long ago. Michael Polidori (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unless you agree to a topic ban, there's not reason to unblock you if you're only here to whitewash an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 28 December 2015 (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.

Michael Polidori (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attention admins. There are primary sources and blogs being misused in the article. It is difficult to remove unreliable sources on Wikipedia sometimes. Michael0156 recognised the article is poorly sourced. We need more neutral editors to keep anti-fringe editors in check. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]