Thanks for uploading Image:Viva 19.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gary Null appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I added the statement that Gary Null's ideas have been supported (actually suggested initially) by leading scientists. This is not a point of view, this is a fact. I am not saying his viewpoint is right or wrong. Therefore, how can you say it's a non-neutral point of view? It is not a point of view at all, it is a statement of fact.
2) Gary Null does not make "so-called" documentaries, he makes documentaries. There is in fact no such thing as a so-called documentary! All documentaries present a mixture of fact and point of view. Just because you don't agree with it does not disqualify it as a documentary. It's erroneous to call his films "self-made" when all documentary films are to some extent self-made, that confers amateur status on them. It's misleading to say that they are shown on YouTUbe, as if that is their only forum, when in fact they have screened at many film festivals and won awards at some of them.
I do not know Gary Null and have not seen his films, but I was shocked to find this Wikipedia article that was so clearly biased against him and also politically biased and mean spirited.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gary Null. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCellTalk13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a prod to make sure you have noticed the above warning, considering your recent editing. Please engage in discussion on the talk page and establish a WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Verbalchat17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the changes you wish to make. Discussion by edit summary and repeatedly making edits that have been disputed isn't going to work. Please desist in this behaviour. Verbalchat19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please recognize that you are not going to be able to force your edits into the article, as a number of editors feel that they worsen the article and violate our content policies. The best way forward is to continue the active discussion on the talk page, where you seem to have ceased participating. MastCellTalk01:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. RetroS1monetalk23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a period of thirty hours for edit-warring on Gary Null. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't others who have undone my edits being also blocked? My edits are fair, factual, and referenced, theirs are NOT. Text I wanted to include is below:
Gary Null is also a promoter of AIDS denialism—that is, the belief that HIV is harmless and is not the cause of AIDS. His views are supported by scientists such as Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, who claim that there is no scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS. He sells films on his website that explain this highly controversial point of view.[1]
Null has made several self-funded, [citation needed] self-distributed documentary films on public policy issues, personal health, and personal development that are posted on YouTube. Null's videos have been aired by PBS during pledge drives, but concern arose within PBS over the sensational claims they contained, with Ervin Duggan, the president of PBS, expressing concern with the network "open[ing] the door to quacks and charlatans."[2] Null responded by alleging an effort to silence him, [citation needed] saying: "The guardians of the gates of orthodoxy at PBS... you don't know who their friends are."[3]
By the way, to the persons who are blocking me and reverting my posts, what I have to say is: you are violating censorship rules here, and you need to be careful. This is not a political soapbox. If you are going to mention AIDS denialism, you need to at least allow an explanation of what it is. If you are going to say people are "alleging" things, you need to explain where that "alleged" information comes from. And if you have a source that states how Gary Null funds his films, please include it here. Otherwise, at least allow the "citation needed" tag. Assumptions are not enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs)
If this is a request to be unblocked, no admin will see it unless you use the {{unblock|Your reason here}} template. I'd also advise you to read Wikipedia:Appealing a block, as I don't think your reasoning, especially the accusations against the blocking admin, will pass muster. Yours, Verbalchat17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Verbal,
Thanks for the tip. My reasoning, however is reasonable! Other moderators, including you, have yet to justify your own reasoning! This has made me interested in the bullying tactics present in what is supposed to be a forum of the people. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hospodar,
In fact, you've just hit on precisely what Wikipedia is NOT: a forum. Wikipedia in general, the Gary Null article and various talk pages are not an appropriate forum for advancing AIDS denialism, defending an individual, or promoting any cause. Wikipedia is not "a forum of the people" where everyone's opinion can and should be inserted into articles. Rather, we attempt, sometimes with only mixed success, to follow reliable sources and to respect consensus. Here, it appears that consensus is unanimously against your changes and that further edit warring is unlikely to give you the results you seek. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is INDEED a forum, in that it is created by majority OPINION, not fact, as I've discovered in my recent attempts to include factual information that others want censored out of the discussion. You and others have made such blatant attempts at keeping public information out of the discussion that I am frankly astonished. You will note that none of my changes have included a SINGLE opinion, they only are attempts to make the article neutral. I've looked up other arguments on this, and realized that many before me have tried to edit these articles, to no avail. Their arguments have been logical, justified, referenced, and legal, and they were not accepted. I for one don't have the time to continue to fight with people who contradict every rule they insist others follow. You have not made one single attempt to justify your inclusion of material that I have pointed out is simply wrong, over and over. Mister Hospodar (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I cited above specifically states that Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia articles are forged by consensus, but consensus is not a majority vote. In articles such as AIDS denialism, we are obliged to present the position of the scientific community using reliable sources. We do not give undue weight to an extreme fringe. The content of articles such as AIDS denialism is not determined by how many individual editors create accounts at Wikipedia to advance the cause of AIDS denialism, but rather by what the reliable sources state. Furthermore, material on Wikipedia may be "simply wrong" or completely "right"; we don't try to make such value judgements. Wikipedia requires only that included information be verifiable (WP:V) and sourced to reliable sources (WP:RS). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reliable source that states that Gary Null "alleged an attempt to silence him?"
I am not stating that I think WIkipedia should be a forum, but that this is how it seems to operate, through bullying and persistency, and not through reliability of source material or what is or is not referenced. You prove this by taking down material that is clearly referenced and from reliable sources that do not suit your political agenda. I have never taken anything down or tried to censor information that was properly sourced, only added material that WAS properly sourced to clarify an existing article. None of your reverts to my edits have been justified, however.
May I suggest that you review WP:TALK. The talk pages are not to be used for general discussion of subjects, and certainly not for promotion of fringe (or any) points of view, but for proposing and discussing specific changes to articles. I've removed your promotional statements from AIDS denialism in accordance with WP:TALK, as I will do with any further such comments. Since you are clearly interested in discussing and promoting AIDS denialist views, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a SOAPBOX, I suggest that you find a more appropriate forum for pursuing your interests. The Interwebs are alive with rethinker/dissident/truthseeker websites where your views will find a more receptive audience. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those views were expressed in order to explain why the claims you are making are patently false: 1. that the movement s a fringe movement, and 2. that there is scientific consensus. In order to discuss this, I have to supply FACTS (not opinions as you do). Of course I knew you would remove my comments, due to your personal obsessions.
Pleas explain why you keep keeping the comment about Gary Null "alleging an attempt to silence him" in the text, and taking the "citation needed" tag out. I have asked for an explanation or reference for that several times now.
Because it's cited. TIME says: "Even his recent problem at PBS, he implies, may have been an attempt to silence him." We say: "Null responded by alleging an effort to silence him." That is a straightforward and accurate representation of a reliable source. There are only two possible conclusions here. Perhaps you have not actually read the cited source before edit-warring to insert a {{citation needed}} tag. That's bad. Or perhaps you have read the source, and are intentionally misrepresenting the situation to push your agenda. That's even worse. MastCellTalk03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, now I understand what the sentence means. The way it's phrased here, it sounds like Null attempted to silence the other person, rather than Null saying he thought someone was trying to silence HIM. If you quote the sentence in question correctly, I will have no problem with it. "Alleging an effort to silence him" is not clear as to its meaning, as "him" could refer to either Null or to the person he is speaking to.
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:AIDS denialism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please reserve the articletalk page for discussion of concrete suggestions for improvement to the associated article. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock/ I was blocked because I've been trying to make this page NPOV, and I've been failing to make any edits whatsoever that will stick because this page is policed by several people who undo any new edits, even if very minor, within minutes. I looked into the archives, and saw that this has been going on for years in this article. I tried to suggest that an earlier version of this page be reinstated, because it actually describes the points of view of the subjects of this page, ("AIDS denialists,") but someone objected on the grounds that the old article was changed because of "consensus." I objected that there was no consensus, only a few bullies had exhausted any dissenters and the dissenters eventually gave up, until now all it is is a smear page. So all I could see to do at that point was to add a "too few opinions" tag, to at least let people know that there is a problem with this page, since no one seems to be allowed to edit it except for the few people who seem to feel they own it and are policing it. AND, because the history of this page and its archives proves beyond a doubt that this is a HIGHLY contested page. But doing so only meets with the tag being taken down, me being told to "stop," and me being blocked. I looked up other pages with related topics and biographies, and they all seem to have the same problems, and are policed by the same editors.
Unfortunately the discussion I started about reinstating the old page has been removed, and now I can't find the link to the old page anymore (that may have been removed too). So what is going on here? I feel like I've stumbled into a wall that consists NOT of normal Wikipedia editors, but of a special interest group with extremely Machiavellian tactics to keep NPOV out of here. They keep telling me to "stop," when actually if you look you will see that the edits I'm trying to make are VERY MINOR and are only about correcting language for the most part. But I think they've determined that I"m "the enemy," so they are trying to ban me from editing. Interestingly, when I mention on the discussion page that it's the same few people controlling this page for years, a new username comes up out of nowhere and reverts my edits, and a new username out of nowhere comes in and blocks me. It's all very creepy and I don't think it's how WIkipedia is supposed to work. The main editors of these pages also police other pages having to do with the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, alternative medicine, and anyone or anything related to the topic of HIV or AIDS. Of course they can't be banned from 3RR, because there are a group of them and they take turns. I don't really care in a way if I'm blocked for a couple of days because I don't have any vested interests here, but what I object to is the unfair tactics and the extremely pathetic and unprofessional way the information is presented on this page and other pages. No one stumbling across this page trying to get information could make heads or tails out of what the "AIDS denialists" are actually trying to say, because their science and questions have been almost totally removed. I had to search for hours to find out anything concrete. This is NOT a proper way to run an encyclopedia. So at THE LEAST, the "too few opinions" tag should be allowed, and I should not be blocked from trying to put it there!!! At best, these people and their bosses should be investigated!! }} Mister Hospodar (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guv this isn't going to work. Look at it this way: assume you are correct: an evil cabal is at work reverting all your Truth out of wiki. Even if that is true you *still* aren't allowed to break 3RR - there is just no point. Functionally, it is no difference to you spouting nonsense and having that reverted. Hammering your points home with edit warring just isn't going to work, no matter how correct you are. You need WP:DRWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock/ What I am requesting here, GUV, is something much larger than being personally unblocked. I am requesting a neutral third party (preferably several neutral parties ) to come in an investigate how these pages are being policed, or AT THE LEAST, to allow the tag that suggests that there is controversy here. Your point about 3RR is well taken, but it does not prevent a group of people who are paid to police these pages to take turns reverting everyone else's edits. If you can help with this it would be appreciated. It's really a much larger issue than my personally being blocked. The quality of the article is indeed very bad no matter what one's political beliefs are, and this has been pointed out MANY TIMES on the discussion board, for YEARS, with NO CONSENSUS, but no one seems to be able to do anything about it. Is there a way to report this without the decision going back to the same people who are responsible for the problem in the first place? If not, this thing called WIkipedia is pretty useless as a vehicle for neutral, factual information.}} Mister Hospodar (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (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).
By the way, Mr. Connolley, I do not credit you as a neutral party in this case, as you are obviously connected in friendship or in a chatty way at least, with VERBAL, who is one of the parties I am complaining about. So you yourself are obviously not neutral and are not going to help me here. I will obviously need to go outside of your little clique to find any neutrality or fairness.
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'm curious as to why you (Mister Hospodar) conclude that everyone who disagrees with you (that is, everyone you've encountered on Wikipedia thus far) must be part of a nefarious conspiracy, and why they must be "paid" by their "bosses" to "police" these articles. Leaving aside the various behavioral policies violated by such repetitive accusations, do you think alternate explanations are possible, if not likely? For example, is it possible that people edit these articles out of a desire to create a serious, respectable reference work - one that treats discredited claims honestly as discredited claims, rather creating a false impression of ongoing scientific debate? Could these nefarious editors possibly be motivated to contribute their free time to ensure that potentially important medical information here accurately reflects the knowledge of scholars and experts in the field? MastCellTalk18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sending it to here as well, even if you apparently didn't log in to message me. If you want to change the title, use the Move option; don't copy, paste and write up a redirect to a new title. That makes it impossible to make a move until the copied article has been deleted. See Wikipedia:How_to_move_a_page - Skysmith (talk)
Hello, I would ask that you review the discussions regarding HIV dissent and AIDS denialism regarding the HIV dissent article. It is clear that there is a very biased POV of the current editors of HIV and AIDS denialism. I am attempting to create an article that would contain information that is not widely accepted, particularly by the editors of the aforementioned articles. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created a new article to include alternative viewpoints on HIV. Less than 2 hours later it was tagged for deletion. Unlike others, I do not give up as easily as most. Your contributions to Alternative HIV Viewpoints would be most welcome, as maintaining an article alone is tiresome. Neuromancer (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over your various comments, particularly your continuing attacks on other editors by accusing them of being part of some conspiracy against you or the ideas you support, I have concluded that your presence on Wikipedia is hindering rather than helping the project. Please feel free to appeal this block in the usual way. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (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).
A warning should have been sufficient; I have been well warned. I will never again call attention to the tactics used by editors here. But my frustrations were caused by what seemed to be harassment of other editors here who seem to be operating in good faith, and who are repeatedly called names and having their edits reverted for what seem to be biased reasons. If you look at my history, I am not a vandal or a threat to anybody here, and all of my edits have been intelligent, sourced, and in good faith. I request to be unblocked, and I do promise that in future I will not talk about other editors here in any way, I will stick to the edits themselves. I am learning about Wikipedia every day, and didn't realize that such remarks would be considered offensive (they would be accepted, for instance, in an internet forum). Now I know.
Decline reason:
Saying that you won't call attention to the conduct of others doesn't indicate an accepting that you've done anything wrong (or whether they were correct). I will question your claim that you aren't a threat based on this and this comment where you seem to be quite insulting and threatening. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2009 (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.
Wow, I did not mean to be contentious, I was merely stating that I would stop doing what it was that seemed to create the block, and that was commenting on the "tactics" (should I have said behavior or patterns)? of other users here. The word "tactics" was not used in a contentious way, I was merely trying to say that I won't do it again. (I'm referring to Tim Vickers' refusal to accept my apology, which was a sincere one despite his insistence that I'm beyond hope). An indefinite block really does seem extreme here, especially since I haven't done anything except express honest frustration, and possibly violate civility rules out of ignorance of them.
I'm going to give you a shot to rewrite the unblock request so that the implication is no longer there. Generally, I'd deny it and tell you why, but I'll be nice right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've had a number of hours to change the wording, and your refusal to acknowledge your complete incivility and respect for the views of others is enough for me to agree with Tim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock request/ I've been out of the country for several weeks and not accessing email. I apologize for my previous wording. I reword my unblock request now: I was blocked because of uncivil behavior, which I now recognize. My mistake was made in ignorance about what can be discussed here, and about what constitutes uncivil behavior. I was treating user talk pages as if they were private email. I promise that in future I will not be contentious with other editors, and will stick to the edits themselves. Mister Hospodar (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
Thank you Mister Hospodar for your editing work on the Gary Null article, et. al. last August 2009 in the face of several heavy-handed editors.
I looked at Gary Null's biography today after several months hiatus. I was shocked to see it was about 20% of its former length and replete with negative comments and slights. A couple years ago I expanded it and included his books, now deleted! Itsmejudith was the only editor that was seemingly neutral but strict.
After I read the history of your exchanges in 2009 I thought you should get Shakespearean and change your name to Hotspur. LOL Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hospodar, I am also a blocked editor. I read this page and I just want to let you know that you are right about the environment on Wikipedia. There are, most definitely, cliques of editors who try to control articles, not allowing any one else to contribute, and the administrators seem to back them up. I'm not saying whether I agree with your edits or not (I don't know what they were), but there are definitely problems on Wikipedia. Those cliques of editors are generally Wiki-addicts who spend all day editing. They get to know the rules well, and they use the rules against other editors -- but don't follow the rules themselves. Some of them are atheists and some are right-wing Christians trying to push their points of view. The article I am blocked from is one that I wrote 90% myself, but it was on a controversial topic, and the Christians and atheists descended on it and took it over, getting me blocked in the process. The message of any article is dependent on the number and biases of the editors who control it, and that means that many articles contain misinformation. The truth is, Wikipedia isn't worth the aggravation. It's too bad that so many people make it their first stop when they need information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.14.172 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an IPsock of Caleb Murdock. -- Brangifer (talk)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gary Null appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gary Null. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
