User talk:Water Ionizer Research

Welcome!

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) PubMed.gov, is a collection of peer reviewed articles that have appeared in widely respected scientific journals. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Information Suppression

User: Gillyweed writes: "Being on PubMed provides no credence to the research"

Scientific Quality Standards for PubMed Journals accepted into the National Center for Biotechnology Information database.

Gillyweed's edits and comments are understood as information suppression and will be deleted as spam.

The external Snake Oil link must be removed as it contains no references to actual studies about ionized/electrolyzed water. However, some untrue claims have also been made by water ionizer marketers as well. As a result, the subject of ionized water and water ionizers must feature research findings as published in peer reviewed academic journals. Water Ionizer Research (talk)

November 2008

There is strong evidence that this account is being used primarily for disruptive editing.

A. Whitewashing articles: removal of criticism that is properly sourced and relevant, addition of inappropriate links to promotional websites, persistent addition of original research.

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]

B. Assumptions of bad faith in comments and edit summaries: accusing other editors of spamming when they are not, calling others' talk page comments "vandalism", calling content disagreements "vandalism", accusing others of "information suppression" for enforcing Wikipedia content policies such as no original research, false accusations of conflict of interest editing against others.

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

C. Refusal to discuss content disagreements.

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

D. Attempting to out other editors, even if your assumptions were incorrect.

1. [18]

E. Prior warnings have been given for apparent policy and guideline violations, specifically: conflict of interest, inappropriate external links, assuming bad faith, neutral point of view, or editing other's talk page comments, yet the disruptive behavior has continued.

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. [25]

As a result, editing by this account has been disabled indefinitely. Admins, please do not unblock this account without prior discussion, per blocking policy. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The politics involved with ionized/electrolyzed water is rampant. Information that I've added to the water ionizer page has been gleaned from research abstracts, published in peer-reviewed academic/science journals to further the scientific understanding of ionized/electrolyzed water. Please consider the following statement made by user:WLU "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology." This is a contradictory statement considering the weight of research evidence, referenced on this page. The links critical of ionized water provided offer zero references to peer reviewed research, contradicting the scientific research appearing on the water ionizer page. ALL of the published journal research links have been added by me. In contrast the link added to, Steven Lower, a political figure who has lost many health related law suits, contains no references to peer-reviewed research. Consider the incorrect statement made by WLU "though effective in bacterial solutions, it was found less useful when sanitizing utensils, surfaces and food products" This statement is contradicted by the research [[26]] In fact, a recent edit deleted additional research indicating "Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes on plastic kitchen cutting boards by electrolyzed oxidizing water." [[27]] "Trimmed down" by WLU or relevant research ommitted? [[28]] My goal is to best serve the Wikipedia readership, free of political spin. Moreover, there are large amounts of published research waiting to be included to help illuminate the subject of ionized water and water ionizers. Should users such as WLU and Gillyweed be blocked for omitting and obfuscating academic and scientific research? Water Ionizer Research (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked because your sources were inferior. You're blocked because you edited disruptively, breaking numerous policies and guidelines outlined above. Your unblock request did not address this, therefore it's declined. Additionally, it's too long. See WP:GAB for details on how to write a good request for unblock. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:44, 3 November 2008 (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.