User talk:Roanoke1977

November 2021
 Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add suspected undisclosed paid editing as a third reason for this block. Their editing history strongly suggest gaming the autoconfirmed right. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the independent publishers, but I had not seen that as being not a verified source in the training. I can see how the page could be rewritten as to simply point out that it is a pseudoscience, but without enough correct types of publications I don't think it would still fit the bill. I am brand new to this forum. I'm an actual human being who would like to make this page properly, but as I am locked out I can't make any changes to fix the errors, I can't argue to keep the page, etc. I've only ever tried to make this one page. I used to be one of the few people that make occasional donations to Wikipedia but not anymore as the system doesn't seem to allow for mistakes, do overs, forgiveness or correction of errors for people new to the system. Roanoke1977 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cardology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cardology 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 Articles for deletion/Cardology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the independent publishers, but I had not seen that as being not a verified source in the training. I can see how the page could be rewritten as to simply point out that it is a pseudoscience, but without enough correct types of publications I don't think it would still fit the bill. I am brand new to this forum. I'm an actual human being who would like to make this page properly, but as I am locked out I can't make any changes to fix the errors, I can't argue to keep the page, etc. I've only ever tried to make this one page. I used to be one of the few people that make occasional donations to Wikipedia but not anymore as the system doesn't seem to allow for mistakes, do overs, forgiveness or correction of errors for people new to the system. Roanoke1977 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, everyone you are talking to is an unpaid volunteer, not an employee, so your donation or lack thereof is not a factor anyone is going to take into account. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)