User talk:NielsMayer

Welcome![edit]

Hello NielsMayer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Netsnipe ► 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Unblock request[edit]

{unblock| I will attempt to abide by the rules posted on my talk page. However, this is not a "run of the mill" issue. The current morgellons page is libellous and I consider it "hate speech." Do the rules still apply to these issues? Are we to stay "on the back of the bus" even though our civil rights are being violated?

Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech." It is a sad fact that margellons, Michael Devine, of Morgellonswatch.com is User:Herd of Swine, constantly reverting the site back towards the defamation and libel they attempt at MorgellonsWatch.com.

Why must wikipedia become a target for their screed, when they have Morgellonswatch to express that viewpoint?

This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."

And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" -- Netsnipe ► 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

.... -- User talk:75.83.171.237 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[1] Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP banned User:Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See usertalk. -- Jreferee t/c 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the previous unblock request:

User:Netsnipe said: "I've also noted your personal attacks towards other editors at Talk:Morgellons." --- please provide me an example. There are no personal attacks on the talk page. You appear to be confused, or perhaps you're partial to the DOP-pushers.

Also, to correct another mistatement -- the subject is known to the general public as "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" according to http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/

Again, why is there a Wiki on "Morgellons" when the CDC has chosen a different name?

My action was correct. The trash that is the "Morgellons" page should turn into a page titled "persecution of patients with unexplained dermopathy" and a new page on "unexplained dermopathy" (crosslinked to morgellons) needs to be created.

I'm not sure how such an opinion can be put forward with a blocked account. But apparently, that is the intent in the first place -- to silence dissent and allow a human rights violation to continue unchecked. NielsMayer 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My reasons for moving the Morgellons page to "Delusions of parasitosis and quack psychiatry" are valid and it is not vandalism. The morgellons article is complete garbage and needs a total rewrite. As it stands now, the entire article is pure misinformation and needs to be removed. The article attempts to incorrectly equate morgellons with DOP when there is significant literature (peer reviewed) stating that Morgellons is distinct from DOP. The referenced articles proposing a psychiatric etiology for morgellons are simply opinions. There have been no formal studies from Koo/Koblenzer/Murase etc showing any actual verifiable success in treating morgellons with psychotropics. However, the "treatment failures" are actual real people with morgellons disease (such as myself) who have been malpracticed on by these quack "psychodermatologists". These treatment failures found out about each other several years after being malpracticed on by Dr. Koo through the internet and because of http://morgellons.org . In my case, Dr. Koo's malpractice resulted in a three year treatment delay for Lyme disease, which was finally diagnosed in 2004. I'm still undergoing antibiotic treatment for chronic lyme today (3 years of antibiotics). Had I been diagnosed correctly back in 2001 instead of believing my doctor and taking the psychotropics he prescribed, perhaps my lyme disease would not be "chronic" and I'd be cured by now. So I have a very personal stake in seeing that psychiatric quacks do not cause countless other patients to become severely disabled because of the perpetuation of misinformation as seen in this wiki. For more info, Please see my comments on the Morgellons discussion page

Decline reason:

The subject is known to the general public as "Morgellons", so renaming the article to "Delusions of Parasitosis and psychiatric quackery" is an expression of personal opinion in violation of our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and is considered "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". I've also noted your personal attacks towards other editors at Talk:Morgellons. Wikipedia is first and foremost an community encyclopedia built upon consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability -- not for vehemently pushing agendas and for attacking people who hold a point of view different from yours. I'm not here to judge the validity of the current "Morgellons" article, I'm here to judge whether you can cooperate with other editors on this website, and from your request for unblocking, you've provided no assurances that you can. If you're willing to abide by our policies and guidelines posted at the top of your talk page, you may file another request for unblocking. -- Netsnipe ► 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.