Shuzammy
There are no "mods" on Wikipedia and myself and Andy are not even administrators. I'm already working for big tobacco and can't work for big pharma at the same time <sarcasm>. Can we please discuss the changes you've made on the MMS talk page? For a controversial article, it is best to do so first and especially after two more experienced editors have raised questions with your edits. I'd prefer for you to discuss it, rather than be blocked from editing at all by edit warring. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Friend, I have clearly and simply removed bias and non-neutrality and left much of the preceding antagonistic spin without adding anything that might be construed as overtly protagonist. Malaria Initiative is not poorly sourced as it refers to the work of the two Doctors mentioned. Point and case that someone intends to purposely omit relevant information pertaining to the subject in question (i.e. bonafied research regarding preceding claims of malaria treatment). You allege I have misinterpreted a source about water purification. Patently false. I have added no interpretation to anything anywhere. Merely removed spin. I ask, will you act honorably in regards to this article? I challenge you to read the article as I have edited it and tell me where it is weighted protagonist, then read it the prior way and see what any reasonable human being with a thinking mind can see. This article has been purposely wrangled away from neutrality by a tag-team of biased POV editors. Are you one of them? User:Shuzammy (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Miracle Mineral Supplement
editRaised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shuzammy_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Shuzammy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why precisely have you blocked me and why do you list sock-puppetry? I have not created a new account. Clearly if you READ the article WITH my edits you will find the topic has been wrangled back to neutrality and serves the purpose of providing factual non-biased information on the subject as it should. Yet, if you read the complaining editor's revisions, you will note within the first sentence, and throughout, the entire article is overtly biased. I assume you are a reasonably minded admin? These complaining editors are a tag team and are using this forum to advance their own opinion on the topic. What is WIKI's gig here? Factual, neutral and non-biased information? Please read the actual article. Should it not remain free of gross bias? Why should I or anyone be banned for supporting that Please remove my ban, restore the article and allow it take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.
Decline reason:
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.
Shuzammy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia". Forgive me. Certain editors and admins that have touched this article or the issues that stem from it are clearly biased and have failed in their charge to remain neutral. My edits were NOT IN FACT disruptive to Wikipedia but a correction to an article and an idea (WIKIPEDIA and non-bias neutrality) that has evidently lost its way. Reading this article in both reverted and edited states will prove this out. Please unblock, revert and allow this article to take the neutral non-biased form as intended by Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
"I am right and they are wrong" is not an exemption from the three revert rule. Your first edit to the article's talk page was after you had reverted three different editors in just over an hour. Please understand that discussion is the way to achieve consensus. Tiderolls 07:00, 14 January 2011 (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.
Sock puppet investigation
editPlease take note of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuzammy. Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)