User talk:Oldspammer
Blank.
Hello, Oldspammer,
The links you provided are for ultraviolet blood irradiation. This is an older type of blood treatment that is still used by some altmed people. UBI currently redirects to Blood irradiation therapy. But the discussion on my page is primarily about the use of laser irradiation (as opposed to UV) on human blood. This is what Blood irradiation therapy article is dealing with currently. This is a well-accepted treatment outside the US. Recently there's been some hostile reaction to this subject on the part of US-centric editors. Regards, --Dyuku (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Monetization article talk page discussion
[edit]- Originally posted to Spiker 22 talk page, but promptly vandalism response happened.
Supposedly money and credit are among the commodities whose supply is manipulated to cause booms, busts, foreclosures, and bank runs. Tax rates are set at tolerable levels for the time--read up on the Laffer curve or Google video search for it. Economists and Fed chairmen have said that the great depression was caused by Fed policies.
The trick in economics of the current monetary system is that usury on the fiat money supply (monetization) results in the private operators (international bankers / globalists) of the system owning everything (and everyone) due to the mathematics of how compound interest grows / inflates the principle owing in perpetuity. Conspiracy theorists point to evidence of insider testimonials of one or more "economic hit men" who would go into poorer countries and get them to take out loans that the country had no hope in paying back. Some of these conspiracy videos can be found by Google video searching for "economic hit man" OR "Zeitgeist Addendum" and similar such keywords, after viewing the direct search results, you can later click on some of the closely related videos.
At some point in time, the system collapses because the interest owing cannot be paid. The unfairness (immorality) of the situation is that a lot of the operation can be or is automated by computers, so that the bankers operating the monetary system to enslave us all can do it without much actual work or effort on their part (wealth for nothing). If the system were stable and principled, then the world would be a better, enlightened place, but instead we have wars and false flag terror, dupes, and patsies.
There was a time when import duties and export tariffs supposedly were sufficient sources of revenue for the US government so that other forms of taxes were unnecessary. This was prior to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act that came, not so coincidentally, with the Federal Income Tax Act and IRS formation following shortly. Supposedly, the system designers, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan, etc, knew that such a system would forcibly extract the entire wealth of the nation, then enslave the population to indebtedness. Various US presidents and politicians warned the people that this was possible if a private central bank was established.
In a 1980 interview with a couple of different interviewers an old banker, Norman Dodd, an executive at a bank during the early 1900s crashes told the story of how he witnessed the corruption of the institutions in society take place. One interviewer was Dr. Stanley Monteith, and the other individual was G. Edward Griffin. Dodd explains that the very excuse given as to why the Federal Reserve system was established could be easily seen as a lie for the simple reason that in the early 1930s many banks became insolvent--which should not have happened if the Fed was fulfilling its role to prevent such bank failures.
The reason that inflation is caused by the oversupply of money can be seen in the example of Germany after one of their various wars. They had printed so many German Marks that a wheel barrow full of large denomination notes would not buy a loaf of bread. Without such a huge over supply, prices for necessities like food would not have inflated to be so high.
Are there not economic cycles where the money supply / credit were virtually sucked out of the system by tightening lending policies, interest rate hikes, and the selling of Fed-held Treasury notes--that collapse the stock market due to loss of liquidity, that caused job losses, commodity shortages, etc? Is it possible that cycles could happen more naturally through consumer market forces on certain economic sectors rather than institutionalized speculation and monopolistic practices driving everything?
Speaking of market forces, ... various US presidents since the 1980s enabled the striking down of laws from the time of the great depression to permit derivatives trading that caused the credit crunch of 2008 where over 1 quadrillion dollars was won and lost by traders at various financial institutions world wide--that is more than several times the entire world economy--and this gambling was fueled by credit that was created on the fly by the traders themselves and so the banker bailout happened. Some people claim that rather than 700+ billion, that several trillion dollars effectively went into the hands of bankers. This amount exceeded the entire value of the toxic mortgages that supposedly stimulated the credit crisis. According to mainstream TV news, a viewer would get the impression that the higher risk borrowers who defaulted on their loans were at fault for the crisis. But the little guy has virtually no impact on the economic system. As I may recall, according to Alex Jones' film "The Obama Deception" the whole thing was planned at a Bilderberg Group meeting as could be seen by some of the leaked meeting minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiSQaFvzFSA seems to be a video purporting to explain hidden stories of the formation of the USA and claims that many things we learn in school are lies. Oldspammer (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.
[edit]Just saw your comments from three years ago.. Looks like I have some folks running to the censors again.. A pity, really. But thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourHumanRights (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Oldspammer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Oldspammer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. You've been warned before. WP:NOTFORUM. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oldspammer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages." Quotation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Point-illustrating
1. This is the case for the Islam section that I made on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forced_conversion I said that a Quran verse that was used in the article could not be used, yet it remains.
That verse cannot be used to support the premise of Islam not forcing conversions because that verse was long ago made NULL and void and I showed proof that that was indeed the case.
There was no interaction on that talk page to indicate why its removal could not happen, just removal of my talk page contribution there, and soon afterward declaration that this was unwelcome disruptive discussion forum category.
I dispute this interpretation vigorously due to lack of discussion on the discussion page.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jason_Kenney I attempted to initiate a discussion of addition of a linked video that was critical of what Kenney was claiming during his campaign speeches.
Again there was no interaction on that talk page to indicate that the linked video could not be used because its information and source could not be verified when it is a video clip of Kenney himself on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC news) followed up by a critique thereof.
Video linked was from 2019, and that speech was critically analyzed by Rebel Media Ezra Levant a trained lawyer in Alberta, Canada, who became a news analyst with Sun Newspaper, then host on his own cable news TV program, then YouTube news channel proprietor.
The guidelines for banning seem not to be applied very cautiously? No one Owns the Articles let alone discussion about the articles. That my edits were "welcome" or not should not depend on the political whims of other editors and admins on the degree of welcomeness that they perceive from other editors. Oldspammer (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, I didn't read that. Try writing something a bit more concise. We're volunteers here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2020 (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.
Extracted content of unblock reason
[edit]Don't say TL:DNR.
Instead, use Windows 10 Edge web browser that can right click read aloud the text in question, or FireFox with the text to speech plugin, "Read Aloud: A Text to Speech Voice Reader."
Maybe I read really fast and know that good persuasion can often be done using a confluence of a bunch of supporting ideas.
I seem to have missed the warning? Or more specifically "where it was" that it was easy to see, read, remember, respect, and understand WARNINGS were politely provided to me IN RECENT DAYS that I was doing inappropriate activity?--Activity that I shall dispute at length as follows:
Some solutions are a math / logic category of knowing--either the integer sum is correct or it is NOT. There is no viewpoint in questions where opposing things cannot be both true at the same time--one is accurate and the other is incorrect / wrong, etc.
"impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence."
A view cannot be MAJOR if it is demonstrably WRONG / mistaken / tactical deception / a point of LAW in plain language that anyone can know if they merely investigate properly.
Disruptive editing is the topic of dispute here.
"Disruption" is entirely in the eye of the beholder because if the truth / differing facts / points of view are unwelcome, and facts are no defense, what the policies on Wikipedia must have become (without me being mindfully involved in the processes) is a forceful defense of feelings and emotions when presented with "provable facts" that just happen to be "unwelcome" by the offended feelings of the OWNING user(s).
From what I gather / supposedly No One Owns any given article, let alone the talk page discussing suggestions for changes to the article content. For something to be welcome or unwelcome would imply that existing conflicted interest factions actually OWN not only the article, but the talk page discussion because THEY would decide the degree of welcomeness of introducing disputed "facts" that represent / "explain major points of view."
I rarely formulate my own opinions. I read the opinions of others, repeat them and cite sources that support the facts. Those sources often contain more than one idea that combine very easily through sanity. Sanity is the routine synthesis of the common senses to determine reality as opposed to fantasy. When anyone who is making serious decisions, it is not a good plan to base those decisions upon deception that results from ignoring things.
Unless you believe in magic and supernatural forces so that the universe is non-deterministic, then various "causes" trigger results--a sequence of events--rather than magic and supernatural forces as the actor in events.
How does one know ahead of time that "the truth" is unwelcome and cannot be discussed because the conflicted interests OWNERS would forbid it due to their ideological conflicts over differing, provable, "valid view points?"
Talk pages involve sentences and paragraphs, etc. These express ideas and common sense consequences of those ideas.
Some would consider ideas to have a bias or be an opinion due to recent critical theory, moral relativism, Michel Foucault postmodernism, but these Orwellian 1984 newspeak philosophies were made ridiculous by the relatively recent grievance studies that showed that utter nonsense would be accepted by their peer review process. It demonstrated thoroughly that this recent ideological rejection of the renascence and age of enlightenment was all nonsensical.
In these recent edit cases of suggestions / new relevant facts on talk pages I never saw, let alone rejected, ANY forthcoming feedback because none was given in response to me:
1. on Islamic information, a topic into which I have been investigating on and off since 1995 or so. I did the Islam talk edit to discuss changes that should be made by demonstrating to others by facts and evidence that the article should be changed to reflect English translations of scholarly writings in Islam (their own viewpoints clearly explained independent of taqiyya tawriya kitman and muruna that are the various authorized means of deception in Islam to lower the guard of the infidel by making various notions to be cloudy/ambiguous) by my explicitly quoting and linking authoritative text and with supporting videos that initially gently revealed to me the various relevant view points--not my synthesis, but that of a Dr. David Wood (theology) who is involved with many debates with and between religions and totalitarian ideologies.
Former and current followers clearly explain that Islam is the Quran and Muhammad--that it is 90% totalitarian ideology and 10% religion that is contains startling inconsistencies that groups of these former followers view as hypocrisy that is used against their ideological opponents. Dr. Bill Warner explains in videos that statistically the Quran concerns itself to some significant extent with the treatment of the kafir (the infidel), and as such should be of concern to those who are to be treated in the ways described therein.
Logic, reason, and rhetoric for persuasion should still be applicable for article suggestions and discussions thereof, and should not have the presumption by hurt or offended parties of me having ill intentions or ill-will when none existed.
Reverting of those Islam article suggestions seems to be based upon unmentioned / undisclosed information or the opinion of the offended not on the verifiable facts that I presented that could be disputed by a healthy discussion on the talk page--that never happened--no warnings, etc.
The key idea that distinguishes what is and is not factual is the Islamic doctrine of abrogation. If a passage / verse is superseded, then it no longer has any weight or consequence because "better" passages on the same topics were provided later to completely replace what had gone on beforehand. The goals of these earlier versus was to gain converts to the Muhammadan cult from the existing groups of Christians and Jews in the region. When these early results were very disappointing, other means of conversion were established after Muhammad's pilgrimage to Medina from Mecca. The Islamic calendar is measured starting at year zero after Muhammad's pilgrimage to Medina where he became a warlord of bandit followers--a significant break from the earlier approaches signified by this being declared year zero.
What alternative facts to mine were discussed? None. Were my sources in dispute? Who knows and who knows why not that would not be excepting hurt feelings and a great welling of ill feelings.
2. In the Jason Kenney talk page, I linked to a criticism (of the Biography person in the article) by a trained very astute lawyer, Ezra Levant, now in Toronto, but formerly from Calgary or Edmonton Alberta (within the constituency of the Biographic subject) and who conducts an independent news organization / source who has been operating a YouTube political / news commentator channel for some years having prior been a Sun News cable TV channel host of his own show that analyzes existing news video footage then identifies logical fallacies and hypocrisy from the subject public person showing that often the subject person is wildly embarrassingly mistaken, miseducated, or uninformed in their own facts when forming policies that would otherwise misdirect the spending of valuable time, effort, money in a wasteful manner and themselves causing real life disruption and likely life and death consequences.
If that Ezra Levant criticism seems perfectly logical / valid, it would serve to inform the WP article reader that the subject Biographical person has made missteps or mistakes or that Biography person has biased opinions that have been exposed by the given news reporter in the cited YouTube program material.
The words SOAP BOX in the WP regulations mean that when authoritative sources have conflicting information or viewpoints, that the "first viewpoint past the post" seems to win, or that a potentially biased media consensus has been already been reached by one group in contest with opposing groups and that any discussion outlining reliable facts that differ from this "lucky first past the post winner" are UNWELCOME and are thereby, by definition, a soap box discussion disruptive to the feelings and emotions of the entrenched winning faction.
This also happens in the discussions involving man made climate change where unnatural geoengineering efforts and numerous natural causes are de-emphasized or inexplicably discarded from any consideration into how accurate the posited long term weather models are that are supposed to predict average temperature, but have been uncomfortably inaccurate at prediction since about 1998 until possibly very recently when there was "a pause in the warming" even though CO-2 increases were accelerated by coal fire electrical generation being built in developing, very highly populated, highly industrialized nations such as China that SHOULD have accelerated warming, but did not do so for undisclosed / ill considered reasons.
In the recent US Presidential debates with Trump and Biden, Trump asks about Biden's son getting paid millions by the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, but Biden responds that that topic was "debunked" when it had not been.
What would happen on Wikipedia? Would conflicted interests defend keeping the viewpoint that was WRONG from Biden because of entrenched conflicted interest editors? Perhaps so if their feelings and emotions were upset that the Trump's actual truth was disruptive to THEIR discussion, implying that THEY owned it and would determine what was and was not welcome based NOT on logic and reason, but politics, feelings and emotions of powerful administrators imposing biases to favor one side over the other.
Whereas months were wasted prosecuting Trump based on false allegations of Russian corruption based upon fabricated evidence for the FISA warrants to spy on their opponent Trump, what happens when Russian corruption is actually discovered and laid bare for all to see in the Presidential debate upon the Biden family? The shoe is on the other foot and hypocrisy is plain to see. Oldspammer (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Extracted unBlock reason edition text
[edit]"my time is too valuable we're volunteers here. Your reasons are Too Long: Did Not Read (TL:DNR)."
I suggested changes be made to a couple of articles on the talk pages there. No one made any apparent counter comment visible easily on the talk page to be "welcoming and helpful"--instead my 1 warning/banning of 10 years ago is cited to me as "You have been reminded 1,000 times minutes ago that you were undertaking harmful activity?" But reviewing things, the banning had the exact same kind of TL:DNR denied ban lifting as this time.
I believe that I'm being punished for WP:RS supported facts with which FAKE talk page "OWNERS" and actual Admin extremely strongly disagreed were present, but I acknowledge one of the wordings were not that gentile, but rather than discuss nicely the issues, BAM.
I disputed the 10 years ago SOAPBOX and disruption since I just linked AGW critical video in a discussion about the topic--banned without warning, but it never made any sense excepting if the welcome or unwelcomeness was a political / emotional / feelings based bias on the part of the given Admin and OWNERS of the talk page--if so, the rules are open to too wide an interpretation of what constitutes disruption. I was not off topic, nor did I do any vandalism. To me that former exchange was entirely civil, excepting what was done to me for political purposes.
I'm wondering this time if the supposed warnings were placed within the revert edits of any random editor. How do I know if a clown is purging everything that I write? Why could not I go around like those guys rudely reverting everything that I did not like as they have just done to me?
Likely there are rules a mile long to know about what is "political correctness permitted" under the guise of "do not presuppose ill intent"--when that is exactly what is being routinely done to those with a conservative leaning?
This time NO ONE owned the pages yet "they" presumed they did. I feel violated by what has happened because the rules can be bent to whatever purposes by the politically inclined actors of WP. Oldspammer (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Talk on Forced conversions talk page
[edit]Unfortunately, I was banned for 48 hours for adding "unwelcome thereby disruptive editing" and SOAP box FORUM promoting of talk page article improvement suggestions. Example, cited various authoritative sources, but I suppose that my username has been the source of much of my frustration that forcefully compels by extremely powerful expectation hypnotism of WP administrators to presume that I would be advertising or promoting products, ergo, ill intent on my part which happened to me instantly two times in a row upon initially signing up on Wikipedia many years ago.
I have waxed theoretically that if Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales would use my user name for a good span of time that he too would run into being banned very quickly, so would then realize the shortcomings of the weak wordings of the pertinent WP policies and be rightly in a position to ban "disruptive" administrators who applied policies with vigor unbecoming civility to edits with which they had political dissenting opinions or biases.
I have read or heard claims that lots of people are under employed. Many can be hired to edit Wikipedia articles for purposes of maintaining orthodoxy and status quo situations on sensitive key "narrative" topics.
I do not recall ever having any tutorial guidance or mentorship, or accommodating or welcoming sentiments being forthcoming from any WP administrator users, but only massive deletions, citations of policies that are open to interpreting of welcoming edits versus disruptive for some of my talk page contributions, and other WP admins rightly claiming that mere mention of views that are not from billionaire tycoon controlled media sources were not reliable so must be censored immediately to maintain the reliability of the system. I have since become aware that media ownership and control is concentrated in a very small population so that nothing can be mentioned that contravenes "their" approval.
I was banned once before, and like this recent time was forbidden to defend myself due to the defense text being too long in its early stage edits (Too Long: Did Not Read--TL:DNR). That seems entirely unfair because no other admin does any follow up so that I remained banned both times for the full extent of the ban duration. Oldspammer (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Seeking Robert O. Becker recording
[edit]Hello there, Oldspammer. Sorry I posted on your page instead of your talk page last time, my mistake. I'll repeat my question, because I'd really love to listen to it. Any chance you've still got access to this audio lecture by Robert O. Becker that you summarized here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bioelectromagnetics#Audio_Lecture_of_Dr._Robert_O._Becker,_MD
thank you very much! Pigkeeper (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks so much for looking for the file. I really appreciate it. I have downloaded and installed eMule. It seems to be working. I tested the ports, it said the test was successful. Let me know how to proceed.
- UPDATE: The default servers all seemed to be dead; however, I added up-to-date servers from http://www.emule-security.org/serverlist/ and everything seems to be working now. I am connected to the eD2K Network. I'm able to search, and I downloaded a test file. Pigkeeper (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again, I want to let you know that I have successfully downloaded the file. Thank you very much! I had a bit of trouble at first. I was doing very basic searches, using a few words from the title. I couldn't find it. Eventually I thought maybe I needed to activate the Kad Network. (I had been thinking that the eD2K Network was enough.) Once I activated the Kad Network, I was able to find and download the file straightaway.
- I agree, it would be interesting to find the provenance of this recording. My guess is that there was a book or a collection of recordings called Energy Medicine, and that this was the Track 8. But I've done a bit of searching and I haven't been able to find anything.
- Robert O. Becker's book, The Body Electric, is very, very good. I am highly impressed. His research program was of very high quality. His graduate student, Andrew A. Marino, also went on to become a praiseworthy researcher who developed a good body of work on bioelectromagnetics.
- Anyway, thanks again for sharing this, and also for introducing me to eMule. Pigkeeper (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- PS. I'm guessing that Becker gave this lecture in late 1992 or early 1993. At around 19m30s in the recording, Becker mentions that a scientist named Kirschvink had very recently found magnetite in human brains, and that this was a big deal in the newspapers. Kirschvink published a paper on this in August 1992. https://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7683.short
- PPS. I removed the original query I put on your user page that should've gone here. I hope that's okay. Again, thank you so much for your help.