User talk:CutePeach: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

CutePeach, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Presumably you are aware of WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No other accounts. I corrected typos when I was in college without an account. I saw this conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your brinkmanship on this topic. You should allow for competing for view points from scientists and experts reported in reliable sources. Did you see the article today in the Wall Street Journal? CutePeach (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh from twitter. If you've been roped-in to edit by others that's a WP:MEAT problem. Also be aware of WP:RGW. I generally do not read American newspapers, and Wikipedia prefers proper scientific publications for scientific topics, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, Wikipedia also has an account on Twitter and no one roped them there. Anyway, this one isn’t British, but close: https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0318/1204794-covid-19-origins-china-wuhan-bats-lab-leak-frozen-food/ CutePeach (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, you are getting pretty close to a block per WP:NOTHERE, or at least a partial block on COVID-related articles--and/or a topic ban considering your edits in relation to the discretionary sanctions you were notified of. This kind of talk of censorship and "competing view points" suggests you think about Wikipedia as if it were a social media type of website: it is not. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, any new user who joins this conversation is immediately labeled as an "SPA", accused of being a "sock" and branded a conspiracy theorist. Just look at how Feynstein, RonnieSays and Fa suisse were treated and now they are gone. I saw that RandomCanadian made a comment about me on your talk page and I defended myself as you would expect of any new user facing such an accusation. If you can give me some specific pointers about how to engage more productively, I will surely comply. CutePeach (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind lab leak controversies, lumping Ireland and Britain together as similar sends the needle off the scale!

Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, I don't know those other editors. But RonnieSays starts with this edit, which is hardly an edit a newbie can make, and then they start edit-warring over it immediately, so yeah. I find it odd you'd know about them--y'all haven't interacted, you just got here, and they've been gone for a week. Feynstein also complained they're being singled out--a puzzling complaint, IMO. And Fa suisse comes into the COVID stuff with this edit--no wonder editors start asking questions.

I haven't said anything about socking in your case: I merely pointed out the aspects of your editing behavior that cause me concern, and I am serious about that. There are only two sides for Wikipedia in a field like this if there is another side that has serious scholarship to back it up; if not, it's FRINGE. This is not a debate club. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that is right, I have never interacted with those editors and I selected them because they are recent. I saw this thread on Twitter a few weeks ago and I have been following the conversation here ever since. I respect your integrity as an administrator but I will be disappointed if you take the side of one group of editors who are polarizing a scientific controversy. I agree with you that we should reference serious scholarship. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any scientific controversy. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific controversy: There are reputable scientists and reliable sources on both sides. The WHO will release its full report later this week but some member states may not accept it as China has not released requested blood samples. Here are a few sources on the controversy:

This controversy is similar to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where the Russian government refused to cooperate so the Dutch government launched its own investigation and litigation [1]. There are also similarities with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 controversy where the Malaysian government didn't give its full cooperation and only much later revealed they knew more than they admitted to earlier [2]. Where COVID-19 possible lab origins and the Chinese government alleged coverup are concerned, the worst-case scenario is that the US government will file a formal complaint using Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention, or they will push for some big changes to the BWC in the Ninth Review Conference [3]. CutePeach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single scholarly source in your list I note. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, that post was meant for Drmies. CutePeach (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Global Virome Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Global Virome Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/en/Viral_metagenomics. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello CutePeach! Your additions to Draft:Global Virome Project have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Viral metagenomics into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I will follow your guidence. CutePeach (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Philippine-based music groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Latino. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriella Stern (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabriella Stern and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gabriella Stern, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CutePeach! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gabriella Stern

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Gabriella Stern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://amecorg.com/summit-speaker/gabby-stern/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LionMans Account (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catharina Boehme (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catharina Boehme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Catharina Boehme, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source bias

Hello! You used a source in the above article that is only a month old, published on arxiv. It is a somewhat ironic question, but do you have a connection to the authors of that paper?--- Possibly (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Possibly, I do not have any connection to the authors of that paper. The term "source bias" has come up a lot in the scientific controversy on COVID-19 origins [4]. If you think that source isn’t credible, you can remove it, but I think it's ok. CutePeach (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. We see authors trying to plug their papers now and then, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for your kind reply. --- Possibly (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly now I understand why you asked me that [5]. :) CutePeach (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia generates credibility and raises positioning in web searches, among other positive effects. --- Possibly (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutePeach. I am very active on Twitter. I had a look at those links. Wow! Or rather, yikes, regarding the emollick thread. Good find, and thank you for surfacing that! A friend of mine said this in the same conversation. Sadly, it is neither released via pre-print server let alone peer review. He succinctly phrased what I failed to express on the GOF talk page recently. Sorry for barging in here. I like your user name (it is friendly!) so I stopped by.--FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase

You might want to reconsider how you explain your view here. You seem to have accidentally claimed that the field of Epidemiology, which did work on microbes in the 16th century, is impossible unless you are using 20th-century technology such as serological tests and DNA sequencing. I suspect that's not quite what you meant.

You might also be interested in reading CSI effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I think an uninvolved editor without a strong POV would be perfectly capable of dispassionately reading the RFC and understanding that the votes and discussions there were not just about the application of the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS policies to disease and pandemic origins in the general, but also to COVID-19 origins in specific - and close it accordingly. If we were 17th century Wikipedians, I'd be here advocating for the inclusion of reliable sources reporting on the demands of the people for the Church of England to investigate the Epidemiology of the Great Plague of London using whatever information and technology they had available to them. If they weren’t doing that, then obviously the bishops, priests and deacons would have nothing substantive to write about, and we’d have to question whether WP:ANGLICANRS and WP:BMI are the applicable policies for us to be covering the event and its aftermath. I would be etching my draft on the flea hypothesis into whatever stone, wood or parchment I could find.

Regarding forensic investigations, scientists have said since the beginning that only forensic evidence can determine the origins of the virus [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. A science editor with your level of experience and expertise should be able to comprehend this point and help resolve the content dispute without much effort. CutePeach (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said "there is no raw serological data from the earliest patients, or verifiable phylogenetic data about the virus itself, and without those datas, one can’t do epidemiology". This is not true. This is not what any reputable sources say. There is more to "doing epidemiology" than identifying previous strains of a virus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, are you saying that the WHO’s investigation should go ahead with pre-1901 science and that Wikipedia’s MEDRS policy should block any reputable sources reporting on the abnormality of China refusing to share raw data and blood samples? Are you seriously unaware of these reputable sources? Here is one of many [12]. CutePeach (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since contact tracing is "pre-1901 science", and epidemiologists around the world are doing it, and the WHO is recommending it, then I believe that we should use some "pre-1901 science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I am sure the closer of the RFC will realise my comment does not imply that serological or phylogenetic analysis should constitute the entirety of an epidemiological investigation. I in turn realise that your comment here isn't implying that contact tracing alone constitutes everything that is epidemiology. Where we would agree - I hope - is if a government were to restrict contact tracing from a WHO convened epidemiological investigation, then it would possibly be considered by RSs to be compromised, and we on Wikipedia wouldn’t apply the MEDRS standard for every aspect of our coverage of the controversy. CutePeach (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read that article a few weeks ago. It is very frustrating how Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge how much information China continues to obfuscate about the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in light of it being repeatedly referenced in the real world, with real facts and data etc. Okay, I will go now, sorry. By the way, I am not an idiot nor uninformed about epidemiology. You never said I was. I worked for the State of Arizona Department of Health Services as a non-infectious disease epidemiologist for three years, doing mostly statistical analysis (I don't have an MPH). You are NOT being unreasonable, in my opinion.--FeralOink (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Alina Chan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Alina Chan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GermanKity, I was just about to add a line to that article with reliable independent sources. I have now submitted the draft for review. CutePeach (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutePeach, Yes, i can see you have added few more references. Now let the other editors review your article. GermanKity (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GermanKity, you moved Alina Chan to draftspace literally seconds before I added some more sources to it, and now it's been stuck there for nearly a month, collecting even more sources. Please can you undo your move? CutePeach (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Why are you insisting on creating a duplicate of existing material, base it on rather poor sources, and then decide to put it at the top to give it undue prominence of placement? If you continue with this kind of problematic editing, you're likely going to get sanctioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You can't run around like a bull in a china shop, not even explaining what you are doing.Template:Z190 Drmies (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making personal attacks? Your edit was reverted because it duplicated existing material, put undue weight on one aspect, and because you completely ignored WP:ONUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Word limits at AE

@CutePeach: FYI, Arbitration Enforcement has a very strict limit on word counts (500). You may want to trim or combine aspects of your comments to adhere to that. Here's the tool I use [13].--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shibbolethink. I use Evernote on my laptop which is my work station, and I add links in from my mobile, which is my personal device that I use for posting on Wikipedia. I was aware of the 500 word limit from watching other cases and I tried to keep it in the limit, but I think the links took me over the limit. I’ll try watch out for this in the future. CutePeach (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. dudhhr_Contribs 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Dudhhr why did you delete my draft so quickly? I was just about to start translating it from our Chinese article in ZH:WP [14]. There are many good sources also in English [15]. CutePeach (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for CSD as it appeared to be a Test page. You can ask an admin to undelete it. dudhhr_Contribs 16:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing

I've removed the soapboxing by you and Hyperion35. I strongly advise you to stop using talk pages to voice your opinions about China, etc. That page is about discussing changes to a guideline supplement. Even on a covid article talk page, you need to restrain your self by discussing article text in the context of what reliable sources say, rather than spending every day soapboxing about the subject and accusing your fellow editors of censorship. You found a bunch of good sources on the deletion story, so you do know how it works, but you need to bite your tongue on all the other stuff. There are DS hanging over those pages, and at some point an admin will tire of your abuse of talk pages. -- Colin°^Talk 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin thanks for the note. I didn’t mean to sound litigious in my reply to you on the RFC page, but I did intend to be firm as there are some editors here advocating for administrators to ban editors who dare counter their POV on content and policy. I also didn’t mean to imply Bakkster Man is one of these editors, and I only linked to his post in the RFC discussion to show that he and other editors misunderstand WP:MEDRS’s application to COVID-19 origins. Bloom’s findings, as reported by RS, constitute evidence of a cover up, and he does not give it to add weight to the lab leak hypothesis directly, which is also misunderstood and subject of two long conversations on the page. If you read my vote in the RFC, you will know that my view isn’t very much different to yours or WhatamIdoing on changing the MEDRS and BMI policies, but I do think editors need to understand their application better. I have created a WP:POVDELETION shortcut for the benefit of editors who delete stuff in the name of NPOV, and I think we will need a similar shortcut for editors who delete stuff in the name of MEDRS. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we agree (or don't) on a particular content question. The main problem is behavioral. A functional response to "please stop talking about your opinions about China" is not "Bloom's findings constitute evidence of China's misbehavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from China and weapons of mass destruction into Chinese biological weapons program. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for all of your work towards achieving neutrality in the COVID-related pages.KristinaLu (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KristinaLu! Where are you from? I wouldn't argue so much about the WHO as a source as we already discussed it here [16]. Jtbobwaysf says that sometimes things need to go to an RFC. This may be one of those things, and the right venue would be WP:RS/N. CutePeach (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Some of the comments/accusations you've made on the IITOOC19 talk page are POINTY and don't AGF. Particularly this: "Some editors here seem to be misremembering the paucity of data here, possibly in a bid to downplay Bloom’s findings."

Please keep discussions to content not conduct on article talk. Thank you. Pound the sources, pound the policies, don't pound the table. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 07:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci BLP Violation and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This response is in reference to this query: [17]

Please see User talk:Thepigdog#Reliable sources in the context of medical subjects where I describe our standards for reliable sources for medical claims and claims against living people. In short it is not okay to accuse a living person of a coverup regarding a global pandemic with weak sources. This is exactly the sort of thing that will get an editor a topic ban from the subjects of BLP and COVID under the current discretionary sanctions.

In particular I need you to be aware that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are the standards these claims are being held to. Note that WP:MEDRS says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles", this is crucial here.

I see you were notified of the discretionary sanctions in those areas last March. Now that I have given you the link to the conversation I had at User talk:Thepigdog and links to the standards for MEDRS and BLP I am going to assume you have read it. Please be careful to hold to the standards laid out by the community for BLP and medical topics. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, thanks for your reply. I was aware of the discretionary sanctions in the areas of COVID-19 but thanks for the reminder. I am also familiar with BLP guidelines, but only on a basic level. As I mentioned in my query, Fauci has faced criticism from fellow academics on Gain of Function Research of Concern, and I do not see why this can’t be covered neutrally in non BLP pages like COVID-19 investigations. We already say that Peter Daszak was seen by some as a conflict of interest, which is WP:DUE there and cites good WP:RSs. The topics of GoFRoC and COVID-19 origins have political and societal aspects, which are covered not by WP:MEDRSs, but regular RSs. Please note, I do not especially agree with Thepigdog’s choice of sources, or the particular edits they may have been suggesting. CutePeach (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, the argument cn be made using only Fauci's emails and a published paper. Quoting the popular press is not required. Also the GOP hearings are a matter of public record. Thepigdog (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of Wikipedia:No original research particularly Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. Also see WP:PRIMARY which says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Again this secondary source will need to meet the standards I have described above.

As an encyclopedia we should not be making an argument for anything. We should be only stating what relevant reliable secondary sources are saying, and again the standard for this is much higher for medical articles and articles on living people. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and, HighinBC, these excellent principles have in practice sometimes been used in a manner favorable to particular POVs. As I am sure you're aware every word in "relevant reliable secondary" is subjective, as are the BLP guidelines, while the full rigor of MEDRS is applied selectively. Based on my 15 yrs experience here, one can if skilled enough in our style and jargon, argue in such a way as to use WP policy to support almost any position. WP is very much a NPOV zone, more than any other publication has ever been. NPOV does not mean, interpret the rules to support the conventional POV. We shouldn't use our rules to do the equivalent of what the classic EB did, to support the British Empire, or Diderot's Encyclopédie, to subvert the Roman Catholic Church Neither as Fox, to support the extreme conservatives, nor as the WPost does, to support the liberal establishment--I'd add a major left-wing publication, but there unfortunately aren't any in the US. But for my own views in more detail, i'd be glad to discuss them with you or anyone privately. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I of course agree in regards to interpretation. This however seems to a clear enough case. I am not saying the claims made cannot be sourced to our standards but the youtube links surely do not come close. I don't have a stake in this content dispute but I do want to be sure those involved are aware of the relevant policies. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

email

I need to be able to email you--pls turn on your email. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG there is something wrong with my account. My email preferences are blank and I don’t know how to turn it on. Here is a screenshot of what I see: https://i.imgur.com/dKewhge.jpg. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have to go to user preferces, enter an. email associated with your account, and only the activate your email. it may not work from the phone site--you ma have to go to the desktop site first, and if you dont see an option to do so write the wp address without the .m. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I just confirmed my email from the desktop version so it should be open now. I never received a confirmation email when I first requested my account. Thanks! CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Accept reason:

I've loosened the rangeblock; you should be able to edit now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blocked by Drmies

Block will expire in a month

See details Reason Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in. Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

drastic times, drastic measures: CU block

@ToBeFree: [18] CutePeach (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to be blocked. Could it be that you are looking at the commons without being logged in and seeing your IP is blocked? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that link. @Drmies: do you recognize this block? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, HighInBC, like you I don't see a block. Things have been checked by Jpgordon and NinjaRobotPirate, and maybe they have something to offer and, as usual, I will gladly defer to them if they think this or that block is no longer necessary or whatever. I checked months ago but found nothing concerning about this particular account. I do know that there's a couple of range blocks in the Philippines, and I placed some of them ("drastic times" sounds like me, but there are quite a number of heavy disruptors there). But I don't think I've had anything to do with this user specifically recently. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: This is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=117924593 on 110.54.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page). The user can't appeal while they're affected. They can only complain afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC I was definitely logged in when I saved that block message on Saturday. I just got blocked again a few hours ago with the same message and it keeps on happening evening times. I use Globe Telecom but sometimes I have to switch to my Smart Communications SIM, and sometimes I get blocked on that too. Maybe using two SIMs triggers a block, but you should know Dual SIM phones are very common in the Philippines, unlike the US. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the situation correctly, there are two possible solutions: IP block exemption on your account, or making that block anon-only. There seems to be an agreement above that you are not the intended target. {{checkuser needed}} for implementation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser already done. There are actually two rangeblocks affecting this account; the wider one is anon-only, but this narrower one ("drastic times") is all users. I'm going to loosen the block to anon-only and see what happens. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, CutePeach, HighInBC, Drmies and Jpgordon.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ToBeFree and Jpgordon CutePeach (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, CutePeach. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:List of Filipino Singers has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Filipino Singers. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Filipino Singers has been accepted

List of Filipino Singers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of actions or POV

Hi CutePeach, please do not continue to accuse me of malfeasance, incompetence, or POV in article talk space [19] [20] [21][22]. That page is for discussions of content, not conduct. If you have concerns about such things, the appropriate place to raise them would be (in order) A) my talk page, B) the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN, WP:DRN), or C) the appropriate admin intervention mechanism (WP:ANI, WP:ARBE). But, more than anything, I would tell you that you should have evidence for such accusations. Accusing editors of malfeasance repeatedly without evidence could run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

On a more personal note, I very much already told you that my citing the Denver Gazette piece was a mistake, that I did not intend to cite a syndicated column from the Washington Examiner (an opinion piece from a non-RS on this topic according to RSP), and I don't want to use it to support my argument any further. Same with the Forbes contributor columns. In my haste to find every article on this topic (and cast as wide a net as possible), I included several that should not be used in this discussion, as they are not reliable. I am no longer using these to support my point. Continuing to cite these in a way of accusing me of POVSOURCING or of malfeasance several comments after I retracted them is A) beating a dead horse, B) not assuming good faith, and C) not very kind.

Most of all, I really would appreciate it if we could just work together on these articles. I'm not doing the things you've repeatedly said I'm doing. I am not interested in silencing POVs I disagree with, or pushing a POV in article space. I'm not only using the sources I agree with or citing papers without reading them. I have worked to make your inclusions in articles more NPOV and integrate them with both the overall agreeing and disagreeing sources on these controversial topics, just as I hope you would do for me.

I really would like to work together, and I'm very much not a fan of being accused of things I haven't done, let alone repeatedly. As an aside, if you accuse someone of doing something without evidence, and then they respond "I didn't do that," I would not recommend continuing to accuse them of that same thing, again, without any evidence. It isn't very kind and it definitely isn't assuming good faith.

I would appreciate it if you have a problem with my behavior, if you could address it with me directly on my talk page, with specific quotations of something I've said, or diffs of something I edited. That is the proper way to address these things on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: They seem to have disregarded your warning (which there's no point I attempt repeating) and have now posted a long rambling diatribe at ToBeFree's talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, thank you for the note. I will work on this draft and ping you again when it is complete. CutePeach (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alina Chan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alina Chan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MurielMary thank you for reviewing my draft. Please can you tell me if you read the MIT Technology Review reference, because actually it is almost entirely about the subject, and even has her name in the title. I will also make further improvements to the draft. Tagging Chalst. CutePeach (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation at the moment and have to base my comments on my recollection, but first, on a formal reading of policy, MurielMary's judgement that the article lacks the sourcing to meet GNG is quite wrong: the article's reflist contains ample WP:BASIC-quality sources, and second, not having the article pass in to mainspace at the moment may be a blessing. I advise you not to appeal her closure of the AfC quite yet, but get some feedback from editiors who have experience with contentious AFDs on changes you can make before it goes into mainspace, because I am fairly sure that it will be subject to our deletion process not long after, because Chan's work has been flypaper for conspiracy theorists and at present, the article arguably does a poor job of representing her critics.

I could help once I am back from vacation, but that will be two weeks from now. I'm pinging DGG, who is probably too busy to do much, but at least any advice or people he puts you in touch with are likely to be a great help. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the article this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would pass AfD, as various sources have mentions. If sources have more in depth coverage on the person, I suggest adding those, this would make it unambiguous. I trust DGG's judgement will be good with his extensive experience evaluating BLP notability. —Paleo Neonate – 12:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 —Paleo Neonate – 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARE notification

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say

Since I'm familiar with WP and its processes I also teach about it (this is humor but related). Often it helps and guides. Sometimes it doesn't, usually for WP:IDHT reasons or because the main goal was to unreasonably push a particular point of view that wasn't mainstream yet (WP:RGW, etc). I didn't actually read your full post at the admin's page and already said that I would stop replying there. I saw ACTIVISM, well, my activism here is Wikipedia and reality. Since someone already filed an AE report, I may also participate tomorrow. In case it doesn't result in a topic ban, I would suggest editing in other areas by your own initiative to show a general interest in the encyclopeda. You have already started a bit and have writing skills. If a topic ban results, I suggest to do the same and to attempt an appeal after six months of productive editing in less involved areas. I also request to please stop pinging me for every reply, unless there's a good reason, like a thread I'm not likely to already be watching. Finally, what is more plausible RGW activism, a new editor who's obvious goal is to push an idea since the beginning, or someone who edited hundreds of pages for years? Those are aspects that are easy to assess. My account was created pre-pandemic, was not a sleeping account and has never been blocked, this hopefully means something. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 15:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another point and you are the one who can determine this. If you happen to have a conflict of interest (this may include having published on the topic elsewhere, being familiar with some relevant people, part of a group, etc) it's difficult to objectively edit, which is why we have policies like WP:COI. I personally avoid editing articles about software I wrote or maintain, musicians I know, companies I've worked with, or about network protocols work I've been involved in (i.e. RFCs). I would tend to either write material that seems promotional, create articles on non-notable people or to unduely criticize some trends or insecure protocols, perhaps be tempted to push links or citations to my own literature, etc. —Paleo Neonate – 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a 574 words statement for AE and at the last minute decided to not post it there at current time. I'll keep it for the next time (and might file a report myself if necessary), as I find that it may be a bit hasty. Moreover, the focus of the current report is on a particular event, while mine is a more general TE and soapboxing case. For now all I ask is to carefully read what others post and try to understand what they perceive, then to also consider my previous advice on this page. —Paleo Neonate – 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, I would tell you to post your statement there as well, because it is common for AE cases to expand beyond the initial complaint with added comments. It's all about the user's conduct, not only about CutePeach's conduct in the specific instance Bakkster Man described.

Truly, my understanding of that noticeboard is that it's a venue for succinct and sanctions-relevant posting of comments encapsulating a user's problematic behavior. Admins then discuss, and a closing admin determines appropriate sanctions (or none). Nothing about that restricts the discussion to the initial events of the posting.

I don't think it would be inappropriate for you to comment about CutePeach's alleged TE, as I have. At the same time, if we feel that the responding uninvolved admins are not amenable to our posting longer descriptions of problematic behavior, we can withdraw our comments and post them in a follow-up AE about the user's TE. Does that sound fair/justifiable to you? You are free to do as you wish, of course. Just a suggestion. Pinging ToBeFree as well, to weigh in in terms of procedural concerns.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participation request

Hi CutePeach, please take a moment to provide a statement at WP:AE#CutePeach, and please wait for the result of the proceeding before continuing to edit the article in question, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, this is in essence a de facto page ban, which I'm not sure is supported by policy. CutePeach, if you choose to make a statement, keep it short and direct because there's a group of editors plotting to go after you again, and whatever you say will surely be collected by them for later use. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, I have a very busy day and will not be able to write a statement till after 20:00 GMT +8 at least. Please keep it open. Thank you.

@Mr Ernie: thank you, I will do my best to keep it as short as possible, and maybe I'll put it in my sandbox first for review. Bakkster Man’s complaint pertains to WP:ONUS and WP:ARBPS/4A, but neither of them are applicable here, as deleting content where it is WP:DUE is in fact a WP:POVDELETION, and WP:ARBPS/4A describes "scientific theories" while the lab leak hypothesis - as the name suggests - is just a hypothesis. I may have also made some mistakes, which I will have to confess to and atone for. CutePeach (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, due to what seems to have been edit warring, if it had really been necessary, a completely policy-supported partial block could have been placed. I'd like to let CutePeach answer the accusations, with the time and detail they need, before taking any action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, no worries and no stress, as much as that's possible when one is the subject of an AN discussion. Please take your time. People are asking for long-time sanctions; there is no need to rush the decision, especially if you currently limit your participation to the AE page anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war. Have you approached the other editor who "seems to have been edit warring" with the same concerns? And just so it's very clear - the ones asking for long-time sanctions have content disagreements with CutePeach. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much on that page Ernie, and I would like you to remember of AGF... —Paleo Neonate – 15:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree as a courtesy, I won’t edit the article, but I reserve the right to continue the discussion in the talk page, as there is one matter which requires further clarification.

In this comment in the WP:ARE [23] you say that the evidence presented by Bakkster Man seems to show a case edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. However, as I told Bakkster Man; deleting WP:DUE content is at odds with the WP:POVDELETION, and his response only was that I "do not understand WP:DUE thoroughly enough", then opening the WP:ARE case. Since they premise their case on WP:ONUS, and since I have yet to provide my statement, I ask you not to make assessments of the case from within the docket section until you have heard evidence from all parties. Mr Ernie’s Atsme’s and Dervorguilla’s statements support my position.

It should be noted that in this 15,000 word discussion between myself and Bakkster Man and others [24], a number of edit proposals were put forward, none of which were accepted. In another discussion [25], which got forked into this [26], you see another 10k+ word exchange, where Colin calls Bakkster Man’s objection to covering preprints based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP a red-herring [27], and I am now expected to put forward edit proposals, which I can only presume will be rejected - which is why I have let it slip up till now, but will get on tomorrow. This is why I made this complaint on your talk page, which you did not respond to. Your silence could be interpreted by some as sympathy. Or perhaps you were not aware of these two previous conversations as context to my complaint? Please comment. Tagging: DGG. CutePeach (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPS

A note about it, it's an important precedent in relation to WP's coverage of pseudoscientific topics, but does not replace current relevant policy, some are: WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI, WP:PARITY, WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. So although the new WP:ARBPS/4A redirect is harmless, it is less useful than those. Also, when I placed the tag above it was not necessarily in relation to COVID but simply because you mentioned an interest in some articles like about the aquatic ape, at ToBeFree's talk page. —Paleo Neonate – 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 426: / Line 426: @@
 I have written a 574 words statement for AE and at the last minute decided to not post it there at current time.  I'll keep it for the next time (and might file a report myself if necessary), as I find that it may be a bit hasty.  Moreover, the focus of the current report is on a particular event, while mine is a more general TE and soapboxing case.  For now all I ask is to carefully read what others post and try to understand what they perceive, then to also consider my previous advice on this page.  —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
+:{{u|PaleoNeonate}}, I would tell you to post your statement there as well, because it is common for AE cases to expand beyond the initial complaint with added comments. It's all about the user's conduct, not ''only'' about {{u|CutePeach}}'s conduct in the specific instance {{u|Bakkster Man}} described.
+:
+:Truly, my understanding of that noticeboard is that it's a venue for succinct and sanctions-relevant posting of comments encapsulating a user's problematic behavior. Admins then discuss, and a closing admin determines appropriate sanctions (or none). Nothing about that restricts the discussion to the initial events of the posting.
+:
+:I don't think it would be inappropriate for you to comment about CutePeach's alleged TE, as I have. At the same time, if we feel that the responding uninvolved admins are not amenable to our posting longer descriptions of problematic behavior, '''we can withdraw our comments and post them in a follow-up AE about the user's TE'''. Does that sound fair/justifiable to you? You are free to do as you wish, of course. Just a suggestion. Pinging {{u|ToBeFree}} as well, to weigh in in terms of procedural concerns.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 == Participation request ==