User talk:Knowledge Contributor0

Controversial topic area alert

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 — Newslinger talk 08:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Great Barrington Declaration, 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. — Newslinger talk 08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what was the unreliable sources that I added so that I can correct them? Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge Contributor0, the edit Special:Diff/982932618 added two citations of the Daily Mail (RSP entry), which is a deprecated source on Wikipedia. When adding a deprecated source to an article, a warning notice is displayed before you are able to submit your edit. — Newslinger talk 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you for the clarification Newslinger. Second, I was aware that it is a deprecated source and I reviewed WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail, and I read the following paragraph "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.". The article right now is in a very bad shape; a reader who reads this article won't get any context about the declaration or why the people who signed the declaration did it, and will have to go elsewhere on the Internet due to the lack of information in the article.

In addition to the lack of WP:NPOV, the article in its current status will fit more with the title "Responses to the Great Barrington Declaration" than the current title. Consequently, I felt it is warranted to apply WP:IAR to include more information about the co-signers and the reasons they signed the declaration for. Since many of the co-signers didn't get the chance to appear in main stream media due to the highly politicized nature of the subject, I feel that this is one of the exceptional cases that WP:IAR should apply to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail specially that it includes only interviews with co-signers (window for co-signers to express their opinions) not factual information. What do you think? And will it help if I added an introductory statement like "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to warn the reader about the source? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss this proposed addition on the reliable sources noticeboard. Please keep in mind that claims related to living people are subject to stricter reliability standards, described in WP:BLPRS. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Knowledge Contributor0! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

I have unblocked you following CheckUser findings that you are not the banned user I thought you were. I apologise for this error on my part.

That said, it is completely implausible from your edit history that this is your first interaction with Wikipedia, so please provide some clarity about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. As I mentioned in my appeal ticket, I used to make infrequent edits in Wikipedia many many years ago (didn't bother to create an account back then). So I am very aware of the framework of Wikipedia, even though I must admit that my knowledge is outdated (e.g. I didn't know that the daily mail has been banned). I never claimed to be a newbee. On a personal level unrelated to editing on Wikipedia, I am aware of how verifiability of claims work and how scientific consensus/main stream theories is established through systematic reviews, and this helps on a professional level. So in summary, while I did only 3 edits this year, the ones you saw with this account, I am not new to Wikipedia and I have never been banned or even had a disrespectable conversation with anybody before for any reason.

I didn't feel the need to contribute to Wikipedia over the years because I saw that the editors were doing a great job, so I didn't feel the need to. That was until a few days ago when I saw the article Great Barrington Declaration, and to be honest I was shocked. I felt that the focus of the article was not to talk about the declaration but to attack it. For example, there was a suggestion in the talk page to delete the word "Great" from the title because it is self claimed by the sponsors! This gave me the impression that some of the article editors didn't even bother understanding the title of the article they are editing and were there just to promote an unbalanced view. I know I may have chosen a bad time to start editing again on Wikipedia and may started with the wrong article, and many things I couldn't imagine happened in the last few days e.g.

1 - Me having the need to cite Daily Mail as a source for a scientists' views due to the lack of coverage of their views in main stream media.

2 - To my shock, Google (out of all search engines) removing a petition by top scientists from search results and returning it after people complained without even bothering to explain why it was removed or returned.

3 - Guardian covering top scientists declaration with the title "Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'".

It is like I am living in a different world, where Google did something only the Great Firewall will do and there is no difference between the Guardian and Daily mail (except that they are on different ends of the political spectrum). To be honest, if I was writing an article about creationism it wouldn't have contained as much attack as this. So, I decided to join to help in making sure that the censorship doesn't extend to Wikipedia. I am saying this because I am expecting that most of the topics that I will be engaging in will be highly controversial in the time being and reflect views that represent minority (not in the scientific literature but in main stream media). So, it will happen many times that my suggestions won't be favored by the majority of the editors and I hope this is ok. I would be glad to provide any clarification for my position at any time, and I would like to thank you for giving me the time to clarify my position. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)