User talk:Ulfarf
it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells
[edit]Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis
And then correct the cancer section of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit]Warning definition of "spam" used in following material is not lexical!
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Chat room because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Online chat with this edit. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Webcam with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Videoconferencing with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Tutelary (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at List of video telecommunication services and product brands with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Keith D (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ulfarf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Forgive me i did not se any of the above messages before i got blocked. I was sure i was adding relevant information as the link i added actually and genuinely fits into the articles and is of informational value there fore i appeal to REAL ADMINS to unblock me. As it is my first day as a user on wiki I had not read any guide lines and i was unaware of them. I Definitely know to ask an admin before i put a link into wiki again even though i still am convinced the links are appropriate. The link is not advertising or promotion I found the articles out of date and as it is my favorite application for the subjects were missing. I want people to know about this application just because I like it and I believe those who try also will prefer it over the old fashion video conference and webcam chat. Since the link in no way promotes an outside organization, individual or idea I can not see how wikis spam guide lines apply. I presume the administrator accusing me of spam may not know the guide lines her self. It is only an application for webcam chat or video conferencing and that is the only thing i link leads to. It seems to me the admin believes that all links are spam without even checking if they are appropriate or not. If she had checked i believe she would not find any signs of the page or link being spam according to spamming. if you actually go to the page you find it does not promote any of the three things necessary for my entry to be spam. Following argumentation clarifies that: "promoting an outside organization" you can't even register as a user so it is definitely not promote an organization. "promoting an individual" nobody or none is mentioned on the page. It does not promote an individual "promoting an idea" It does not promote an idea it only tells people a little bit about how to use the application of the page. I have here by argued that i did not spam according to spamming and that Tutelary has wrongfully accused me of spamming. and i ask the question if blocking my account is vandalism by Tutelary and Keith D and if they are fit to be administrators, when they make false accusations against inexperienced user. After all the front page of this wiki says "anybody can edit" by blocking me the admins are going against the Front Page message of this wiki. Now it is not true what wiki writes on the front page and it seems the two administrators do not respect the main construct of this wikipedia and are harming wikipedia by keeping it out of date and scaring new users away. I wonder how my big social network will think of wiki if i post about my experience. It could sound something like this: Signed up to the wiki wich anybody can edit but I became unable to edit after being a member for an hour and now even the front page of wikipedia is a lie. And by the way the andmins are harming Wikipedia by keeping it out of date so you don't find new information. I also recommend that wiki updates it's warning method so users actually notice it when they receive a warning. I thougt I was receiving some standard message like welcome to wiki so i did no check it at once. So I got unrightfully blocked without a noticeable warning. I have acted in good faith. I swear to god it was not intended as vandalism best regards from a completely inexperienced wiki userUlfarf (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2014 (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.
- First, I am not an administrator, and the blocking was done by Keith D. You continued to link to the aforementioned website, and even at one point replaced certain bits of information on an article to do so. Do you understand why the editing was declared by me as Spam and given a warning as such?
- Note that in your unblock request, you are somewhat encouraged to show that you understand the reason for the block and that it will not happen again. I am willing to assume good faith, as re blocks are very cheap, but I'm sure the blocking administrator will need a thorough explanation on what you did, why it was contravene to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, and how you will avoid editing in such a manner which got you blocked in the first place.
- It should also be noted that I -am not- an administrator. What I've outlined before you is simply my advice from me to you, the administrator who blocked you may have more/less requirements than that for the possibility of an unblock. Tutelary (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see I should not have replaced that bit of information and Yes i will read the guidelines before posting again. I may require a bit more explanation on why it is spam since the link is not a personal homepage nor advertising or promotion and I can't see how to become an affiliate of this website there is no affiliation program. the website does not promote a product. In fact there is nothing related to promotion on that webpage. I genuinely wanted to share my knowledge about favorite webcam chat. So please help me figure out why it is spam?
Ulfarf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have said I will read the guidelines before i make any more edits and I wont "harm" wiki, and i will discuss with other wiki members weather a edit is appropriate. And I will only edit if it is agreed up on being not harmful to wiki and appropriate. All though the link was not spam according to wikis definitions I will not add any links unless it a discussion with wiki members deems it appropriate. I will maybe make a manual page and page on wiki about the subject and use the internal reference like skype and use them instead of the link in articles and only use a direct link in an external links section. I hope that this is enough precaution. And I hope you wont block me indefinitely for my first hour as a member of wiki after all i do like all off us learn from my mistakes. I have read the complaints multiple times now and i know what i did wrong. I wont make the same mistakes again best and believe me i have learned my lesson. But i guess an indefinite block is based on the assumption that i am permanently stupid and unable to learn from my mistakes. And assumptions are the mother of all mistakes. If these precautions witch I will follow from now are not enough to be unblocked I guess you are saying it is just impossible to edit the wiki without harming it. If you unblock me you will not see any unintended nor intended vandalism from me any more. If you don't unblock me you will never know if i actually have learned from spending hours reading your warnings again and again. And also you may be harming wiki by breaking basic construct "anybody can edit" and maybe blocking highly valuable articles that make the wiki more complete. By blocking users you could be harming the wiki by making entire articles that should be a part of wiki go missing. And that can be much greater harm to wiki than a small beginner mistake where the user is inexperienced and the mistakes can quickly be repaired using the logging of the edits. I also suggest that you present new user with a unavoidable "Before you start editing" article witch can help inexperienced users like me to avoid the super ultra fast indefinite edit block that does hit the new user before they even learn about their talk page where the warnings are posted. I hope the last sentence is is a useful contribution for new users like me. And I hope my future contributions will be appreciated. best regards ulfarf
Decline reason:
That was a simple spam pass to promote a web site that you have an easily determined conflict of interest with. As your stated intent is to continue to promote your interests, it does not appear to be in our best interests to unblock you. If you can pledge to avoid any other promotional activities, and outline what topics you would like to contribute to instead, it may be possible to move forward. As it is, you don't appear to be acting transparently. Kuru (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
>>I pledge to avoid any promotion activity on wiki. I want to help new users understand what they can and can not do here on wiki. Of course experienced users know how to behave and you admins are used to all the rules here on wiki. But new users can be punished indefinitely for for there first hour. That is not in the interest of wiki as i breaks down the fundament on witch it is built. Personally i don't care the slightest if that link i posted is on wiki or not. I was only dooing what I am used see on wiki. maybe you should delete skype as it definitely is promotional.>> Pleas answer these questions individual: Is it promotional to make a man page on wiki for an application? I have so many possibilities on how to make a man page no reason why it should be on wiki and I will not make a man page on wiki unless appropriate thus not promotional. But if I make a wiki man page and link to from the application would I be promoting wiki(it is an organization and i am affiliated as i am a registered user all though there is no affiliation program) or can i still link to wiki?
ulfarf
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.
Ulfarf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
>>I pledge to avoid any promotion activity on wiki. I want to help new users understand what they can and can not do here on wiki. Of course experienced users know how to behave and you admins are used to all the rules here on wiki. But new users can be punished indefinitely for for there first hour. That is not in the interest of wiki as i breaks down the fundament on witch it is built. Personally i don't care the slightest if that link i posted is on wiki or not. I was only dooing what I am used see on wiki. maybe you should delete skype as it definitely is promotional.>> Pleas answer these questions individual:
Is it promotional to make a man page on wiki for an application? I have so many possibilities on how to make a man page no reason why it should be on wiki and I will not make a man page on wiki unless appropriate thus not promotional.
But if I make a wiki man page and link to it from the application would I be promoting wiki(it is an organization and i am affiliated as i am a registered user all though there is no affiliation program, wiki also promotes the idea that everyone can edit and all these things are a big no no according to this spamming) or can i still link to wiki?
As of now I have agree to do as the administrators have asked. Behave on wiki with greatest respect. Not to do edits unless appropriate and in collaboration with more experienced users. Stated what i wanna continue doing here on wiki. Made contributions with out making edits. Agreed not to do promotions on wiki. I can not see a reason any more why I should be bloked from doing constructive work here on wiki? Unless the admins are corrupt and I should ask how much you are getting for blocking me?. Pleas read "A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki and I've read this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. The conclusion guidelines of wiki tell people different things. I should not be a hostage of that conflict. By the way as you say re-block is really cheap... How can I be that dangerous that you require an "indefinite block against editing" to contain me, and not allowed the reason of a doubt? Pleas don't kill me permanently only for being a beginner at wiki. By the way I am not a spam bot i am a real person I promise and I promise to make a shame of the "vandalism only" tag witch will turn out to be so untrue! Before I meet you guys I had never even considered the idea of vandalism no less had it occurred to me that I was doing harm. But I know Now how it is here on wiki! It would be reasonable to consider the block my first warning as I didn't have a clue until I got blocked and thereafter noticed the warnings. I think that wiki owes every beginner a chance to proof that they can comply, which I have no gotten. And pleas don't tell me you place a life long sentence based up on 4 edits. I know now. I wont make you regret an unblock... Promise.
I can at least honestly say the information provided by me in the edits was not misleading or misguiding and I promise there is nothing persistant about my 4 first edits, I will prove it as soon as you allow me to. And I can promise you you definitely don't have an persistent spammer in your net.
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia
- the block is no longer necessary because I
I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead.
ps. I am a fully qualified engineer so I am able to produce professional articles but I wont be re-writing the one about the diode;-)
best regards
ulfarf
Decline reason:
Given your "worse than gestapo" comment, I agree: it does not appear to be in our best interests to unblock you. You seem to think there is some difference between yourself as a "customer" and the administrators; there is not -- we are all volunteers. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (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.
- By the way I hope the user name internalaffaires is not taken it is also fun chasing "cops" being to hard on genuine soft hearted people. What happened to the costumer is always right. And is genuinely the purpose of wikipediea to damage websites "Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines." Maybe this is a warning to every website? Keep away from wiki! HIGH RISK OF RANDOM SITES BEING PENLIZED BY SEARCH ENGINES I hope for the decency of wiki is able forgive beginner mistakes and not behave worse than Darth Wader or gestapo. Of course new ip new username new email promoting random sites can be used as a cyber weapon demoting competors sites!!! now that's a weapon that should not be allowed, and far to easily a subject of abuse. I would definitely expect higher ethical standard of such a big organization. If you are an admin I know you are intelligent a enough under stand that kind of abuse. Now the great question is will apple have it's website demoted if steven jobs joins wiki and writes a link to apples hompage 4 times? Maybe conspiracy theorist will start telling stories about wiki being corrupt and blacklisting homepages for a pay who knows or even global wiki dominance? We demote every Homepage so there is only wiki left... Now Back to the real world I ask the Big Question: Can users of wiki still link to wiki due to a very strict spamming policy. Is linking from a search engine to wiki also SPAM! And will wiki ask google to remove all it's links to wiki except the links with the search words "encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia" to avoid wiki getting promoted as promoting wiki is a big "no no" according to it's own policy? Is the collection of links to wiki on "search engines" really spam according to wiki? The answer is YES! Now I'll be watching in excitement what happens? will wiki self annihilate only time will tell.
If you see a point in my writings pleas leave a comment...
Ulfarf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I genuinely promise an unblock is in everybody's interest that way nobody gets hurt. I wont promote any thing on wiki. I left my initial subject completely regarding wiki I will not enter it into wiki. And I will prove to you that I am a decent person like all of us and I can make appropriate fully qualified Articles/edits here on wiki. I believe we can all agree that is in wikis interests. And I won't act here on wiki unless it is in wikis interest in that way I am almost a sworn wiki allay, Now guess that is allot more than wiki gets from most users... And is unavoidably in wikis interest. And pleas don't be paranoid. It genuinely was a beginner mistake. It is also hurting to be shut out of the community. Guess you also be hurt if your account got indefinitely blocked without a noticeable warning, and not knowing you were doing any thing wrong. And I believe we can agree that that you would feel unjustly treated. And guess we also agree unjust behavior by wiki and unjust treatment of any member by any member is not in wikis interests. And is it really in Wikipedia's interest to permanently break a users account? Guess we also agree a user rating of potentially harmful webpage is not in the interest of Wikipedia. I know you definitely don't want get treated like I'm being treated right now. And not being given a single chance also feels very unjust. I know you can understand. Pleas do not pass a random judgment based upon "It seems" fantasies. Let me show you for real I act in Wikipedias interest! I bet you the honors if you put it out for a vote here on wiki: should some members of wiki be treated unjustly, You would get a big no. In fact maintaining the block only serves harmful(if you considered your own account permanently broken as an example. I bet you agree. I've had to increase my heart medication cause I've bee so choked by the treatment here, Maybe my doctor might say I should keep away from wiki for health reasons.) purposes and is only blocking qualified material. The purpose of the block is only to prevent harm to wiki and only necessary until such measurements are taken to prevent harm to wiki. Such measurements are taken. As I am the sole supplier of material through I guarantee this channel to be non harmfull to wiki. Thus according to wikis guide lines the block is no longer necessary. I tell you the block will continue to have it's effect although lifted. A second chance is so cheap for wiki and proves that wiki is a place for genuine users(who sometimes unintentionally do some thing wrong) who treat each other like nice people and not just hunting ground for self-proclaimed inquisitors who believe they can predict how a user will behave judging from a single mistake. You will hopfully consider my work as contributing as you consider your own work here on Wikipedia. Plus wiki wins a lot by treating people with proper respect as do we all. I made a new user mistake I herby apologies to entire wiki and any affected user. if you question my references I can tell you I've served as a government official for such uncorrupt interest as science and education, and I got a pretty high security clearance, so guess people trust me. my work was about virtual reality I could maybe contribute on that area? Ulfarf (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I have read above and as the blocking admin, feel that you at least deserve a chance to prove yourself. I would urge you to stay away from adding external links or references to the web site that led to the block. If you contribute useful information to articles then all will be fine but over-step the mark and you will be blocked without further warning. Keith D (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note to reviewing admin: this user's sole contributions, other than the walls of text on this page, have been to add links to a domain apparently owned by this user. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- As the person who reported him to WP:AIV, I opt to give him some rope so that he could hang himself. Tutelary (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
May 2016
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cannabis (drug), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Facebook is not a reliable source. – S. Rich (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tetrahydrocannabinol. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I only use verifiable data in my entries. I do not edit war(sombody reverted while I was editing). I make edits i'm quite sure are right and have been established as facts through multiple sources. Ulfarf (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)