User talk:LetsGetItRight

Royal Rife
Deletionists typically Boldly edit by deleting everything that some editors contribute when even a small trouble is detected in the contribution. And they rarely elaborate as to what the issue or problem is with the inserted text that they revert--especially not on the article's talk page.

I am speculating that the given deletionist disagreed with your having used a German language source for "English" Wikipedia? If an accurate English translation of the articles were hosted by the same internet web hosting service / corporation, then, at least this minor objection would be removed about your inserted article text.

Also, your inserted article text was located in the introduction for the article rather than an article section related to the mentioned information. It might be an idea to present the two alternative scientific viewpoints by removing all related text from the introduction, and placing it into its own section or a section dealing with the microscopes and mention of pleomorphic forms of pathogenic causes of disease. Typically the introductions to an article should be pretty brief / short.

On the Rife article discussion / talk page, you did not sign your inserted text using the "~" signature insertion macro, and so appear to be contributing to the on-going discussion of the talk page section where you added your comments about the deletion: " Autofluorescence and Second harmonic generation seen when using 2 or more sources"--which is a topic that I had started. You can create a topic using "==Topic subject heading text==" so you might want to rearrange your comment into its own subject topic section. The prior commentator's name was MastCell, and he / she might be confused by you mentioning that "you deleted my text" right after their comment to my section comments.

If your information disagrees with some of the quackwatch.com contributor's to wikipedia, then it will tend to get deleted quickly.

The deletionist editor who reverted your text is mentioned on the internet: Google search for Bolen moderated Fyslee  It is also interesting that one of the quoted sources in the current Rife article about the impossibility of the physics of the Rife microscopes is that of Peter Bowditch--named as an agent of this Quackwatch circle of people.

If you read the web page and linked articles in the Google search results pertaining to "Be Wary of Quackwatch", you will see that they are connected to what Tim Bolen describes as a conspiracy to fight Alternative-Medicine set up by a few organizations eluded to by Mr. Bolen.

Google search for quackbuster conspirators

Whether true or not, Tim Bolen says that the health freedom movement out numbers the Quackbusters movement by a large amount / many orders of magnitude. How some lower echelons in the government regulatory agencies have been tricked by the outlined conspiracy / plan, I have no idea--but these agencies seem to have gotten legs of their own in carrying out the mandate of the conspiracy. Now, these wikipedia-contributing editors seem to think that the mainstream point of view is that of Quackwatch rather than the general population.

Another way of looking at it would be to insure the WP NPOV goal is by presenting the differing views. You may get into the situation where other editors say that Rife's microscopes "would not have worked," yet the other optical microscopes do work. The reference sources would then have to offer / state these ideas by saying that the various optical microscopes basically demonstrate similar operating mechanisms of each other including Rife's microscopes rather than you or someone else in the WP article text synthesizing original research saying this same set of concepts / ideas / theories is true when no mainstream media source demonstrates / states this.

You could start your editing off soon by editing the older copy of the article that had your added text intact. Then move / arrange the text possibly in the way that I've suggested, making sure not to invent theories not given in your reference sources.

When I looked into it more and more, I discovered the big picture of the nature of the suppression of medical and other discoveries. Eventually you might too.

To be able to grasp the level of involvement, you must research with an open mind, and dig deep within information sources like "Alex Jones", "Alan Watt", and numerous others. By digging deep, I mean not dismissing out of hand anything presented, and watching the entire video rather than stopping when encountering something that offends your own closely held beliefs. It might be time consuming, but highly enlightening to watch a few hours or so of Google videos involving keywords like suppression, conspiracy, amenstop, illuminati, "federal reserve", "Eustace Mullins Ezra Pound", David Icke, zeitgeist, JFK-2, and numerous others.

I found it interesting that a short clip within the Michael Moore film "Sicko" that the American system of medical insurance and healthcare system was dreamed up by none other than US President Richard M. Nixon. Michael Moore plays the actual White House, Oval Office tape recording of the discussion between Nixon and his advisors about formulating legislation, and how it should not involve a non-profit or all-inclusive government-run hospital insurance plan.

I doubt that the American public would support tricky Nicky's healthcare system as compared to that proposed originally by Hillary Clinton (as detailed in the Michael Moore film)?

Oldspammer (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)