Nalbert123

Welcome!

Hello, Nalbert123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Schaffer's mill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schaffer's mill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schaffer's mill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding false information to the encyclopedia

In this edit[1] (which someone else has already reverted) you added the following unsourced and false information to the encyclopedia:

• "...however, some individuals are able to feel the effects and the harm of electromagnetic radiation more than others."

Nobody is able to feel non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. This has been tested in double-blind clinical trials multiple times (see the references in our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. The alleged sufferers cannot tell whether electromagnetic radiation is or isn't present. If you wish to introduce claims that they can detect EMR to the article, you must first find a WP:MEDRS-compliant reference that says that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

You did it again.[2] Do it one more time and you will end up at WP:ANI --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not falsified information. Electromagnetic radiation is a real condition and is actually recognized in Sweden. Just because you are employed by AT&T and Verizon to spread lies that their products are safe and just because you personally don't suffer from this condition and just because you don't see the people who suffer from it does not mean that it is not real. Thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies have proven that pulsed electromagnetic radiation can be harmful and debilitating to people who are sensitive. Grow up and learn the facts. Nalbert123 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit.

"A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

Source: Word Health Organization[3]

Also, I have never worked for AT&T, Verizon, or any other cell phone company. Please stop telling lies about me. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, FYI (since I'm so tired of this old canard) EHS is emphatically not a recognized diagnosis in Sweden: [4]
"Today there is no scientific support for a causal relationship between symptoms and electromagnetic fields. [...] With reference to the current research situation, the National Board of Health and Welfare is of the opinion that there is no evidence that EHS is a disease. [...] EHS is therefore not a medical diagnosis."
The TL;DR of the rest is that disability, grants to support organizations etc are based on symptoms only with no judgement as to their cause. Kolbasz (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Guy Macon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your repeated accusations of vandalism and violations of policy constitute a personal attack. Continued accusations will result in a report being filed at the Administratror's Noticeboard, and is very likely to result in you being blocked from editing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Nalbert123. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personally attacking other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

Nalbert123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I pursued action against a Wikipedia editor who repeatedly reverted my edits, saying that they were incorrect and that it constituted vandalism. He repeatedly kept telling me stop vandalizing Wikipedia, even though I was actually trying to correct a highly biased article. It seems I have been banned for "personal attacks or harassment". While I do not agree that my actions warranted a block, I do realize that my actions may have been seen us unacceptable and I will refrain from such behavior in the future. However, I do not think the other party in question is completely innocent - if I was not respectful, he certainly was not. He swore at me and repeatedly - this could be seen as instigation, and was a clear violation of the "Good Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values", which this user endorsed. I was appalled be how rude this user was to me and it seems hypocritical that someone in his position finds it perfectly acceptable to be rude to a user, but someone in my position cannot counter his argument without being blocked. As for approaching fringe medical topics, I have reviewed some of the Wikipedia help articles and read what constitutes a good citation (i.e. no primary sources), and will in the future find more appropriate resources to back up any evidence I have to add to the encyclopedia. In addition, if I am unsure of whether something would be a good addition, instead of modifying the article and see if my edits are reverted, I will post to the talk page and see what the community at large thinks of it. I will add that my position is of course, to make the article more neutral, which I do not believe is against any part of the Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, given that the article is already highly biased, I will have to be particularly cautious, and refrain from making the article the war-zone it currently is. Instead of edit warring to reinstate disputed claims, I will find more evidence to back my points up and present them to the conflicting users in a respectful manner. Nalbert123 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (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.

• The block is ostensibly for the personal attacks, which go way beyond not being "respectful", and your apparent assumption that an editor who upholds Wikipedia's policy of echoing the current consensus of peer-reviewed scientific sources must be in the pay of big business. That's the kind of conspiracy theory nonsense that has no part to play in Wikipedia, and you will need to change the way you approach fringe medical topics (see WP:FRINGE) if you wish to be successful as a Wikipedia editor. That means not including unsourced or poorly sourced claims in medical articles, using only WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to support factual medical claims, not edit warring to reinstate disputed claims, not casting aspersions on the motives of those who disagree with you, and using the talk page to seek consensus whenever you want to add disputed material or you have changes reverted. I'll leave your unblock request open in case you want to update it to cover any of these things. As it stands, I would decline it, as you appear to think you are blocked "because I represented the minority viewpoint", and that is very much not the case - I suspect you would benefit from reading WP:WEIGHT too. (updated) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oh, I should also address your statement that "I do not believe he had the authority to make such statements as he had no background authority in these matters, being an electrical engineer and not a health expert". Wikipedia article content is not decided on the authority of the contributing editors, but on the sources they use to support their claims and on consensus through discussion when there is any disagreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• instead of being helpful and telling me why the evidence I was providing was insufficient - he just called it "vandalism". This is a bald-faced lie: Just look four sections above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nalbert123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17328 was submitted on Jan 16, 2017 02:12:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing admin: Please note the unblock request at User talk:24.209.149.213. Seems like a WP:LOGOUT attempt to me. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also note that 24.209.149.213 resolves to cpe-24-209-149-213.wi.res.rr.com (Time Warner Cable) while the harassing email mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Nalbert123 came from "<redacted> [at] stu.waukesha.k12.wi.us>", both in Wisconsin, USA. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 7#Emails. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have blocked InterLinked (talk · contribs), who is  Technically indistinguishable from this user, and whose user page previously included links to websites related to this account's edits. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In this edit[5] InterLinked added {{User shared IP address|Nalbert123}} to his talk page, them moved it to his user page.[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

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).

Nalbert123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It seems my unblock request has been denied so I am going to try again, hopefully more convincingly this time. I have also read verbatim the guide to appealing blocks so maybe this time will be better. I will assert that this block is no longer necessary as I understand why the block was put in place and will refrain from attacking other users on Wikipedia and will no longer respond to rudeness with more rudeness. I realize that such behavior goes nowhere and does not contribute to Wikipedia's goals. I will resolve my disagreements with other editors from now on using the talk page. I will, henceforth, comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. I hope we can put this behind us and move forward. Furthermore, I would like the block to be removed so I can delete me user page and leave Wikipedia in good standing. That is why I have marked this account as retired - I intend to stop using this account as soon as the block is lifted.

Decline reason:

As below, we do not delete user talk pages. Since you do not plan to continue editing - there is no reason to unblock you. SQL^{Query me!} 17:47, 17 January 2017 (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.

I have deleted your user page for you, as requested, but we do not delete user talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)