User talk:Timeholder

Welcome


Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My TALK PAGE
if your having Issue revert to email.Timeholder (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm the user who talked to you in . The user above [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colloid_cyst&diff=528147932&oldid=528141623 reverted] your addition simply because it was from a copyrighted website. Maybe you could add some non-copyrighted information or prove that it's not copyrighted? I'm afraid restoring copyright violations is not allowed, even if they contain useful information. πr2 (t • c) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Copy-paste. Sorry about that harsh note above, just note that adding contents from other websites is not allowed. (unless the website is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or in the public domain). πr2 (t • c) 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

stop deleting everything that is put in to the Colloid Cyst stub, someone arrogance is showing. I have seen MORE WIKIPEDIA COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS on STUBS for Computer Games that go unchallenged, yet when additional information is add to the Colloid Cyst Stub everything is instantly removed.Timeholder (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has higher standards for medical articles than for game articles. See Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for some explanation: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." Dreamyshade (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you see copyright violations in other articles please remove them. Don't let them stand. We can't accept copyright violations on wikipedia, that is why you need to paraphrase material (i.e write in your own words) based on reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I understand that IRwolfie, I am going to try to explain what I am trying to do with the Colloid Cyst page, simply I am trying my hardest to improve it. My passion for improving that "stub", that (to be frank) stupid little factoid of an overview. Why am I trying so hard because five years ago while I was taking a mourning shower I experienced a CVA and collapsed in the shower, I am alive today because I was in the shower when the CVA happen. The CVA was caused by a Colloid Cyst which THIS IS THE EXTREME SHORT VERSION but I went to the hospital, I got a cat scan and I was told I had a colloid Cyst Brain Tumor" while they where trying to lower my HBP while tying me on to a gurney to admit me in to the hospital because in the not so many words of the doctor(s) in the lab you need that removed -NOW-. All that happen over on THAT side of the hospital, which I get wheeled over to this other side of the hospital into the ER in to a crash room and parts of my body are hooked up to machines that flash and go beep with I get my own personnel oxygen mask that has a little something extra in it...The Er doc comes in along with my wife in to my room and he is like oh yea well these cysts are common nothing to worry about and I can refer you to a friend of mine while he is taking my mask off and unstrapping me off the gurney and he will probably will treat you as an O/P..no problem here is his number..see yea.

huh? whoa the lab explained this to me and it was...this, then this Er doctor talks to me tells me the lab "blew it out of perspective"..and this..was now that...Huh..(get the picture yet?) so now my wife is completely pissed because I scared the crap out of her because the lab called her and told her I was being admitted because the found a Brain Tumor and we go home with nothing more than the lab said I had a major problem...and that doctor that just said I only had a 'common cyst' in my brain and is was NBD.

So, we go home I actually started getting my gear ready to leave for my LA run out of Newark when my wife looked at me and asked if I called in the referral, which I just looked at her and asked if she was serious, because either 'ER is clueless or the lab is "stupid" I don't know who to talk to because if I make a left it a brain tumor if I make a right it this common wtf cyst in my brain and it no big flipping deal which I guess we will have to deal with what ever when I get back on Friday, which here she says let look it up...which we do. she flips on the net, types it in and on the top of the search return come in the stub on wikipedia for it.

Now, I'm going to stop RIGHT HERE and give you the moment to put yourself in my position, what was it on that stub back in 2007 was it a brain tumor or was it a cyst? could it be both, is a Brain tumor still a brain tumor if it is a cyst is a cyst cancerous, if it is cancerous wouldn't that make it a brain tumor, if it is a BRAIN TUMOR it should tell me more here, RIGHT..the answer to that..IS I DON"T THINK SO! want passion I have a ton of passion for this.

FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED since, I am a BRAIN TUMOR SURVIVOR, I have had experimental (back then) Brain Surgery while I was awake, and in the past FIVE years in our world, on this planet that you and I live on the amount of people that have experienced this SAME EXACT EXPERIENCE, and tried to learn more about their condition because ..they simply just do not know who to ask or where to look, find themself reading that brief overview on that stub about a condition that could very possibly be about to end their life faster than you can turn off a light switch, you want passion I got passion and I also need to overhaul that Collide cyst stub, if you want to help me please do but in the mean time for a moment take these numbers in to consideration. 3 in 1 Million per year that is how many people are found to have a colloid Cyst, normally it is to late because IT IS found more on a morgue table in a lifeless body, I was #145 back then when I found (CCS) Colloid Cyst Survivors on facebook because of that STUB..our numbers are now over 500. which the (Additional Related Information) I added to that stub explaining the Community Google+ page and the Colloid Cyst Survivors page on facebook was all so REMOVED from the Stub, which the group has kindly requested for me to ask for that section to be added back on to the stub.

If you want to help me, please do if you don't want to help me then when I make a mistake and I mess something up please just send me a note. which if I can..ask if I make a "sand box"..for the content "stuff" I want to add to that sub....if anyone you or someone else if they can look over the stuff I create to put on the stub that it would at least be taken in to consideration for addition to the colloid cyst stub.

seriously, I don't have the time left in this life to have a boot pissing contest with anyone, I am just trying to inprove the one area I know people that are in the same position I was in, facing the same exact circumstances and reacting the same way are still reading that same old STUB...with it brief overview.

thanks for reading.Timeholder (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's definitely a good reason for wanting to contribute. Yes, you're welcome to write a draft in your personal sandbox (User:Timeholder/sandbox), and then post a link on Talk:Colloid cyst asking other editors to look at your draft. A big issue though is that not all types of material are suitable for including in a Wikipedia article - we have to play by a lot of rules here. For example, there's a long list of guidelines for which kinds of websites we can link to from an article: External links. Also make sure to read Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If you have a lot of expertise to share on this subject, you might consider maintaining a personal website or blog on the subject as well (if you don't already), for anything that doesn't quite fit into an article here. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Dreamyshade, the blog Idea is good but..would a link to a blog show up on the "Stub", because again everyone concerned about that stub and it's importance in the above scenario is, it is the 'one stop' landing stub on wiki where people end up FIRST in a search about the condition. I am thinking of making a sandbox -just for- the contributions I find to be placed in it, and again if it going to become a piss in boot contest, I do not have the time left to get involved with someone who wants to legalizeing a stub using the wikipedia "guidelines" about ..facts of the condition and how it is treated and the postop care after removal.

Seriously, our group should be the ones who get to /perch/ on this stub not the essay writer that started it.

Here would be my first suggestion would be here:

Colloid Cyst of the Third Ventricle: Imaging-pathologic Correlation (side note: the Stub is actually labeled and titled incorrectly) stress: of the Third Ventricle

Summary: Colloid cysts are relatively rare intracranial lesions located in the rostral aspect of the third ventricle. They may produce acute hydrocephalus, brain herniation, and lead to death. Although the clinical and imaging features of colloid cysts are well known, their etiology and the factors responsible for their imaging features continue to be a subject of debate. We present the imaging-pathologic correlation of a patient with a colloid cyst as well as data supporting the fact that the presence of cholesterol is probably responsible for the MR imaging features exhibited by some colloid cysts.

(side note the date today is 12/20..if anything really does happen tomorrow..it's been fun getting to know Wiki!)

which if it needs to be rewriting in com/com everyday English because that is Copy/paste from AJNR..I can work on that.Timeholder (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Timeholder (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

NEW SANDBOX titled: Brain Tumor: Colloid Cyst of the Third Ventricle
Timeholder (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

it can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timeholder/sandbox

which I will state, the survivors of this Brain Tumor Condition have been linked to that sandbox and have been encouraged to ADD to it, which in most cases the group of survivors will have more and better information than what you can look up in a general search about the condition. so please do not Wikipedia legal ease the sandbox with the Wikipedia "Guidelines" rather make a note TO ME not the contributor and I will research the reference myself.Timeholder (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody is supposed to perch on Wikipedia articles - the issue here is that the other editors have more experience with the rules, not that they were there first. Each of us has to work with the same rules, and these rules are very stringent for medical articles. If you state a fact, you also have to reference it to a reliable medical journal - think of it as "proving" the facts to other editors, and to the readers. Since you're knowledgeable about the subject, you should be able to find strong references and include them for each sentence you want to add - see this help page about referencing. And again, please read Identifying reliable sources (medicine). (Your blog would be an independent website unrelated to Wikipedia, and not linked from Wikipedia. I know it wouldn't show up first in a Google search, but good blogs tend to creep up in the results to fairly good positions.) Dreamyshade (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tone it down a little Dreamyshader because I all ready attempted to state fact(s) that where reference to a reliable medical journal, which yes I do think of it as "proving the facts" to other editors, FOR THE READERS of Wikipeadia... and yes I reworded your statement just to prove my point. Because of the removal of my EDITS I now have had to make a SANBOX to collect the additional information and references from others like myself. Which if it was a ball I would of described a ball but what I described "Perching" behavior that is happening on the Colloid Stub, then Perching is, is what Perching is. I will call it what it is, PERCHING. Because someone has perched on to the Colloid stub and removed my additional expansion to the stub and it hasn't JUST STARTED, it has been going for over five years which I know this because I had to have a Colloid Cyst Brain Tumor removed from my head five years ago. which if I was to make a blog about the Cyst, I would include just what a stub is and what an excepted article is and the differences between them and I would use the colloid cyst stub as an example as in how a stub can become wikiized and caught up in it's own guildlines by the community of editors to where the information that people NEED about a subject will often not show BECAUSE someone has a self pride complex and will remove the additional added information. Which right now, I am being "Seriously NICE" and I haven't taking the improperly Titled Stub to the next level of having it completely removed from wiki because of it's LACK OF CONTENT and unreferenced source of information that was used to write what appears to be an essay about the condition, which is in fact "A non-cancerous brain Tumor normally found in the 3rd Ventricle". Which again I will ask for your assistance in expanding the Colloid Cyst stub for it has more content. If you do not want to assist I would understand where as if you are one of the ones the are responsible for removing the additional information I added to the stub earlier and other survivors have done before me then that will be handled according to the wikipedia guidelines. Perching and Preaching isn't helping my cause and thank you for your time.Timeholder (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Timeholder (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Blood type diet, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Yintan ²   08:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, under 'Research evidence' the "FOR EXAMPLE" says Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo made this following claim:

'his claim that elderberry can be used as a remedy for the common flu lacks scientific evidence and may be misleading'.

which there is no reference to the source of this quote which is said to be claimed by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo, which I have counted that claim with facts from The Eat right 4 your type Complete blood type Encyclopedia Copyrighted 2002 by Hoop-A-Joop on page 539 under Fruit/Fruit Juice you will find Elderberry (Dark Blue/Purple): which reads in the book...

Elderberry (Dark Blue/Purple):

Group A: Neuteral, Non-Secretor Variant: BENEFICIAL Group B: Neuteral, Non-Secretor Variant: BENEFICIAL Group AB: Neuteral, Non-Secretor Variant: BENEFICIAL Group O: Neuteral

There is no denotes in any of the groups that mention any of the Blood groups if they consume Elderberry's that there is a direct link to preventing the Common Flu other than BENEFICIAL, as to how elderberry are BENEFICIAL isn't put into details but BENEFICIAL means that particular food is good for you and helps you body which just a note a human can consume allot of food that is said to help prevent the Common Flu take an Orange and it peel for example. which is noted in the book which you just may want to buy a copy for a reference seeing your managing this stub because it can be found on page 541.

Orange/ Orange Juice..

Group A: Avoid: Increases Polyamine or indican levels; inhibits proper gastric function or blocks assimilation.

Group B: NEUTRAL Group AB: Avoid: Increases polyamine or indican levels. Group 0: Avoid: Increases polyamine or indican levels; metabolic inhibitor.

Want to know about, lets say chicken soup, I can look that up also but with out a direct reference to the claim that is being said that Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo made the claim, and the claim was 'his claim that elderberry can be used as a remedy for the common flu lacks scientific evidence and may be misleading' is unsupported and not factual.

Like many claims I have read on Cellular Nutrition (<- get that hint real quick) are not factual also, but in this case for this stub it will become factual and less one sided and over opinionated, and you might want to revert my edit back for it doesn't show the unsupported reference, unless you want the open source wikipedia to only show unsupported references, which isn't allowed just to let you know you have to show a reference.

If it doesn't have a reference then it is hearsay and it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, period.

here's another that will be soon deleted just to give you a heads up..

"There is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the associations between disease states and ABO blood types as mentioned on (Dr.)Peter D'Adamo's website.[16] A search of PubMed under the author's name does not yield any peer-reviewed articles with data to support his claims."

There could be a reason for the above error because all the medical references that are noted in the Eat right 4 your type Complete blood type Encyclopedia Copyrighted 2002 by Hoop-A-Joop that was written by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo are not on PubMed and the references used are not written by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo, as noted in the USERS GUIDE page XVII -Scientific References- which reads:

"There are hundreds of scientific study references throughout the encyclopedia, appearing at the END OF EACH SECTION. Most of the articles cited may be accessed through Medscape's MEDLINE service www.medscape.com., you do have the book right?

which if you want me to go into a rant about the lack of scientific evidence, it is overly apparent you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK and your written a 'review' about the title you haven't read and you editing who, me?..get real I have the book right here in front of me and you should by one.

Timeholder (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)