Jump to content

User talk:96.255.69.229: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
January 2022: block appeal
Line 52: Line 52:


:[[User:Ponyo|Ponyo]], do you know who [[Matt Le Tissier]] is? Check out what he says here [https://t.me/the_woodlander/363 here]. [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:Ponyo|Ponyo]], do you know who [[Matt Le Tissier]] is? Check out what he says here [https://t.me/the_woodlander/363 here]. [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

==Block appeal==
{{unblock|reason=[[User:Ponyo|Administrator Ponyo]] blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially [[myocarditis]], is ''133 times'' more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 15:51, 19 February 2022

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 96.255.69.229, has made edits that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


November 2021 (WP:NOTHERE)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Information icon Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to John Fleck (footballer). An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for WP:NOTHERE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've revoked talkpage access for continuing to pursue conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a last note from me considering the now-deleted misleading claims: much of the health personel in various countries are at their third dose. The current mRNA vaccines are also understood to require renewal about every six months, since the antibodies they promote unfortunately do not remain active a long time. This evidence is contradictory to claims like that it would have effects lasting years or more. As for the disease itself, COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when clots and blood vessel damage occurs in very severe forms it is thought to be caused by the body's "cytokine storm", related to important inflammation. The vaccines do not contain live viral doses that disrupt the system as massive quantities of virus-infected-cells do, only the necessary molecules to trigger a modest immune response and promote the development of antibodies that can recognize and bind to some molecules of the virus' shell (that are necessary for it to bind to body cells and reproduce effectively), thus disrupting them. I advise to read more serious literature, instead of making conclusions from raw data or unreliable sources and falling prey to ridiculous conspiracy theories... —PaleoNeonate13:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not equal

Hello, I have noticed your block and since I did not see much text on your page I'll post this in case it can help for the future. An issue was that the sources you claimed were "brave" have a poor reputation in relation to fact checking (they do not meet WP:RS). The WP:RSP guide may be useful, but it's also possible to request the community to evaluate sources for specific material at WP:RSN. Heart disease is always a major cause of death (and heat stroke common in athletes), it's easy to erroneously link related deaths to any other recent event. This is why we cannot rely on amateur reports using raw data, it must go through the proper authorities and they must have a long enough history of data to be able to work. Wikipedia expects high quality sources for biomedical claims, WP:MEDRS. If a major health body issues an official statement, it would be much more interesting for Wikipedia than sensationalist tabloids. As Ymblanter said at ANI, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a similar tabloid (WP:NOT); it is not because some material is supported by any source that it deserves inclusion (WP:ONUS). —PaleoNeonate21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Assuming that your sources did meet MEDRS (per the above) and that you were right that it deserves a mention, edit warring is still unacceptable and all editors should avoid it (WP:BRD is a good guide to the WP:CONSENSUS policy). —PaleoNeonate21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Wgullyn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Fabienne Schlumpf—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wgullyn (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alphonso Davies, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for continued use of this IP to edit war to add conspiracy-based WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH material to BLPs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, do you know who Matt Le Tissier is? Check out what he says here here. 96.255.69.229 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

96.255.69.229 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Administrator Ponyo blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially myocarditis, is 133 times more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 96.255.69.229 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Ponyo|Administrator Ponyo]] blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially [[myocarditis]], is ''133 times'' more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Ponyo|Administrator Ponyo]] blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially [[myocarditis]], is ''133 times'' more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Ponyo|Administrator Ponyo]] blocked me for "conspiracy theories" for adding well-sourced, non-synthesized text to articles on athletes who have had adverse cardiac reactions to the COVID-19 injections. A just-released, peer-reviewed study shows that cardiac issues, especially [[myocarditis]], is ''133 times'' more prevalent in people who have received the COVID-19 shot. The "conspiracy theory" rationale for my block is not supported by the science. Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [[Special:Contributions/96.255.69.229|96.255.69.229]] ([[User talk:96.255.69.229#top|talk]]) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}