Jump to content

User talk:50.201.195.170

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.201.195.170 (talk) at 19:32, 27 July 2021 (Unblock request. Request for response from Liz.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome!

Dear visitor:

I hope you like the place.

:-)

Here are some links to pages we all may find useful to review from time to time:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (50.201.195.170) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No account for me.

As I've said, it's a good thing I'm anonymous. Plan to stay that way!

I can seek help adding the info, and asking others to confirm reliable sources. As in: "Hey, <org> is raising the alarm about a large rise in deaths caused by x that can be prevented with y when treating z. Is <org> RS for adding this to WP? Where should it go in the articles on x, y, and/or z?"...--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


NEW <SECTION: Suppressed.>

Restore/unignore content discussions.

Deletion discussion about JAMA Network Open

Hello, 50.201.195.170,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether JAMA Network Open should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true - maybe it should be, or is supposed to be, but it isn't a group discussion in my experience. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Was looks at the old data at medicaid rather than the update to 2019. Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mule?

What kind of mindset leads to so rude and anti-productive a response to someone (me) providing some helpful spelling corrections (while prevented from making the corrections directly) - ignoring and then deleting them so no one else will be aware of the needed corrections, AND NOT make the spelling corrections? I guess some people like to walk around with a chip on their shoulder. Disturbed. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filter

Hello. I could restore your comments at WP:EFFP/R, even though someone basically closed the discussion, but it's going to be straightforward to just add the response here. You were attempting to remove 32k of text from someone else's user talk page. There's no real reason to do that, and the benefits are entirely minimal. As far as the filter goes, it's not going to be modified to allow such edits, which in its current configuration, are almost always vandalism (present company excepted). -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Civility appreciated; the last responder's responses were not. I was attempting that. I think we agree that my edit summary explained why I did it, but it seems to me the filter (system) could be enhanced to not include the removal of the specific type of content - stale bulk messages - that I removed, when determining if enough text an attempted edit removes from a talk page should trigger it - because it could match the text I identified using to identify and remove *ONLY* stale bulk messages. So I think it's perhaps not correct for folks to insist there was no false positive. But I can't read the filter, let alone improve it. An intermediate sub-filter (regular expression) that ignored/removed such deletions from further consideration by later filters seems appropriate and do-able.
I agree, of course, that the benefit of having the filter vastly outweighs the small benefit of my single edit.
As for the particular edit, I think removing that over 32k of junk so many* others reading the page don't waste time on it is beneficial. I still can't make the edit, but surely someone like you can put it thru, right?
Also, there remains one of my and another user's unanswered questions. So it may make sense to restore. But having some discussion here works too, at least to start.
*I don't know if pageviews are available.
--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the filter is surprisingly sophisticated, but unfortunately there is a limit to what can be done with regex and the available tools. Identify bulk messages? Only bulk messages? Only important ones? Stale messages or messages for inactive users? Multiple separated messages? And to distinguish all that from vandalism? Hmm not really. You mention it might be do-able, and you have the potential diff to hand so you're welcome to try, but I don't think so. Which again brings us to the benefits of such an edit - reducing the page size by ~10% - either for an inactive user or an active one. If you ask any other editors to make the same edit you will probably get the same response - why bother? I know you've explained that, but I think most wouldn't think there's much time being wasted. In reply to your other question @Info-Screen: Special:Diff/946238786. Thanks -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That puts everything to bed. I like your style.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RealClearPolitics

I deleted a stray > that you left there in your last edit. It also looks like that article is in need of some serious work, and since you've already worked on it, I just wanted to say thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that! I tried, but I'm not here to fight endlessly, and I don't see any real discussion happening. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update on your issues with merging templates and process

Hi again. I've spent some time doing a deeper dive into this. I've pinged you a couple of times, but I'm not sure whether as an unregistered account you get those notifications. So, in case you missed them, belated followup discussions ongoing at:

FYI. If you're still interested. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tech

Your recent edits to Big tech article are bizarre. The article needs more sources, instead, you delete of valuable information claiming COI. What is more disturbing is that you provide absolutely no references of your own, while seem to think that its ok to remove my references. More information about probes into whether Google, Facebook, Amazon and others have unfairly suppressed competition, and harmed consumers in the process should be added and referenced, BUT the idea that Big Tech can operate without violating the law must remain to keep this discussion balanced. The federal government clearly distinguishes between purposeful monopolies and businesses that found themselves in a monopoly position purely as the result of business success. The purpose of the Sherman Act is to stop businesses from deliberately creating either monopoly power in a market or the collusion of several companies to create the market result of monopoly power. Feel free to add a discussion with regards to Clayton Act as well - with REFERENCES. I reserve the right to remove any edits that are made without a reference. Litesand (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. My edits were grossly misrepresented by this comment. I was adding content WITH APPROPRIATE REFERENCES and you were whitewashing.
  1. The idea that 'Big Tech can operate without facilitating child porn must remain to keep this discussion balanced' is as supported as your claim, "The idea that Big Tech can operate without violating the law must remain to keep this discussion balanced."*(2) I don't agree re.balance, but I'd be willing to go along with a short sentence expressing the idea of the "Five Myths" piece as such. But not a polemic in the 'pedia's voice.
  1. "You MUST produce"*(3). I MUST nothing of the sort. See WP:CIVIL.
MSFT is a convicted abusive monopolist. Let me get this straight. As a member of Big Tech, you are arguing that MSFT does not merit mention in the section on of the "Big Tech" article on antitrust!*(4) You should hear yourself. It frightens me that [you think my edits are the bizarre ones.
I see the great potential for CoI issues with an article on Big Tech as self-evident. I didn't say or say I thought anyone here had a COI issue. You misrepresented me with your misstatement.
But now, because of your further comments, edit warring and hostility on my talk page and here, I do wonder if you're aware of and compliant with the policy. Have you made any WP:Paid editing disclosures?
--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningful silence.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Hiding high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities in MacOS High Sierra"

I'm putting this on your talk page because pinging doesn't work for IP users and I wanted to make sure you got the message from my talk page. Here's the message: "See the edit summary I provided on my revert. I'm not hiding anything so much as I'm saying, "Not here". There doesn't need to be a source saying High Sierra is supported, it's pretty much self-evident, especially in places where no support policy exists (macOS, iOS, Android...). Once an OS hasn't been receiving updates for a while and a reasonable person can assume that no updates will be released (ie. updates were made for later OS versions, but not this one, which isn't the case for High Sierra), it should be marked as unsupported." Regards, Herbfur (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we came to a solution we're both happy with.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing glitch

It is inappropriate to change another user's signature like you did at [[1]]. Further vandalism to Wikipedia will be reported and may lead to your editing privileges being suspended. If you have an issue with an editor, rude edit summaries and vandalism are NOT the way to handle the matter Slywriter (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typing error. (Cut vs paste!). Which if you look at the whole edit, is not obvious? AGF! --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where it happened and admittedly did think it was a bizarre form of vandalism. However, your tone in that edit and your previous edit summary didn't exactly lend to AGF. Anyway, glad it's not a new form of vandalism I need to be on the lookout for Slywriter (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. My bad indentation fixed.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing/can't find RFAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=946062902#COVID-19_community_general_sanctions prominently refers (via "clarified") to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Genetically_modified_organisms:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion but where is what it's referring to ? I can't find it. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it, it looks like you were just searching in the wrong place. It also seems like Kevin accidentally linked to the GMO heading (which was also there at the time), but as they quoted from—and mentioned by name—the Acupuncture discussion, I assume it was about that. The discussion is now archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture § Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion 2. Perryprog (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lead! (Still confusing, because that contains comments that were largely made after he referred to it and there's much circularity. So it's not clear it's a supporting reference. But I'm not totally lost. If it became clear, I'd want to fix the link somehow, but it's a bear to unwind... Ah, here, I guess.)--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. In that case you might want this link, which is what it looked like at the point in time Kevin referenced it (if you want to fix it, I'd go with that link.). I found it by going to the edit history of WP:ARCA, under "Filter revisions" I entered a to-date of 2020-03-18, and then found the latest edit before the AN post was made. Perryprog (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerio#cite_note-15

TYS / ANI

Interesting in hindsight. Archived here too.

Profoundly biased (toward no chance of lab escape) article

See: Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology/Archive_3#Profoundly_biased_(toward_no_chance_of_lab_escape)_article

FV

See Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology/Archive_4#FV

References

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:50.201.195.170/Essays/Lab Leak Theory Reasonable

A tag has been placed on User talk:50.201.195.170/Essays/Lab Leak Theory Reasonable requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G4 (parody/vandalism of WP:NOLABLEAK, G10, I would argue an attack page against Novem Linguae, U5, blatant example of WEBHOST because it has very little if anything to do with Wikipedia, instead just arguing in favor of the lab leak theory as if this were an anti-wiki blog.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Liz. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This [2] is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 and edits about COVID-19. 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 Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors.
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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
I blocked you before for promotion of ivermectin as a panacea, and you were blocked before that for personal attacks. Since you've started doing the same things again, you're blocked again, for longer. If you return to disruptive editing concerning Covid after the expiration of your block, you may be subject to discretionary sanctions per the above notice. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying to save this message, asking Liz, Acroterion and Shibbolethink to respond, to Liz's page when I was blocked - for 3 months. All for a single post to Liz's page that I have questions about - and was trying to ask - and was trying to remove pending resolution of my questions.

(edit conflict) Liz, do you think I was personally attacking Shibbolethink or other editors with my post starting the User_talk:Liz#Indeed. section? I've been warned (level 3?!) that I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A50.201.195.170&type=revision&diff=1032523490&oldid=1032496260#July_2021 I have asked twice for help talking about this while avoiding harassing or being a victim of harassment, to no avail. Acroterion warned me twice for the same edit. I'm taking the accusation seriously. But I don't understand how I could note the COI concern re. Shibboleth substantially more appropriately than I did. WP:NPA says, "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic" which I understand is what Shibboleth and Acroterion say I was doing. If you're reading this, Acroterion, I specifically request a minimal refactoring by you of my post which raises my concerns about Shibbolethink's actions in marking my essay as a hoax and WP:G4 AND WP:G10, AND a wp:attack page against Novem Linguae AND WP:U5, AND a blatant example of WP:WEBHOST that makes it, in your view, Acroterion, no longer a personal attack. . I'm editing in good faith and I feel I'm being attacked and threatened because, unusually, my expert opinion doesn't match some other experts' views. And/or because they conflict with those of demonstrably powerful interests. Which they certainly do. It seems to me he's trying to make this statement I made appear to be false: "He has linked to Gain of Function research publications about, IIUC, his own GoF work." It's not. May I defend myself by providing a diff?

(edit conflict) I was not discussing whether you have a COI, Shibbolethink. This multi-pronged straw man attack seems to be made in part in bad faith, e.g. Having an informed expert opinion about the likelihood of the lab leak is helpful and I never suggested otherwise. Please don't put words in my mouth or attack me like that. It's not fair. Please retract such attacks, because it's the right thing to do, as well as if you don't want to be sanctioned for them, should an admin take them up, and lastly because you are urging me to move on with my life. I'd like to get back to editing, and life. Still partly TL;DR yet but I will. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)-Above and below 2 paragraphs written at the same time; neither responds to the other.
50.201.195.170, I have moved your essay to your User page at your request. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was tagged for deletion since this has been such a controversial subject on Wikipedia over the past year. At least at a MFD discussion, you'll be able to present your opinion of why it should be kept.
I think Shibbolethink has offered you a very thoughtful and considered response. If you have evidence of any activity you believe is editorial misconduct, the Wikipedia standard is to present evidence of this in the form of edits, or "diffs", so an admin can see examples of the exact behavior you find problematic. Often, the collaborative response is to try to talk this out rather than rush to sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the two paragraphs above and hit an edit conflict saving, I guess because I had tried to make my OP better too; trying again to save them along with this note. Please give me a moment to review your reply and edit mine before responding. {{[[Template:<correct version of>hangon|<correct version of>hangon]]}}
I was trying to save this message asking Liz, Acroterion and Shibbolethink to respond, to @Liz:'s page (User_talk:Liz#Indeed.) when I was blocked - for 3 months. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I think my personal concern with your conduct is that you appear to go for admin involvement at every juncture, even when it is blatantly obviously a dispute about content. That in and of itself is a blockable offense under WP:ASPERSIONS as a WP:BOOMERANG.
But more to the present, I would question, how was I misinterpreting your COI accusation? What were you trying to say if not what I interpreted it as? I am absolutely willing to hear what your intention was, but I have to be honest, I thought you were quite clear.
Please let me know where I've cited myself in article-space re: GoF as well. Would love to see it, mostly because I am not sure that it would qualify as not WP:OR since I haven't published any formal meta-articles about GOF. But I'd have to see the example. Please provide a diff?
And, finally, please explain how I or others have acted in bad faith? What attacks specifically would you like me to retract? Could you provide me a quote of something I've said that you would like me to retract? I'm not saying I'll do it, but I want to understand your argument to the best extent possible before answering further.
Thanks. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 50.201.195.170,
I was shocked to see that you received a 3 month block but I was unaware that this is your fourth block and third one this year. Blocks escalate in duration so while I wouldn't have imposed this block myself, it is not out-of-line with standard admin practices.
Upon rereading your comments on my talk page, I think there might have been confusion when you wrote "I'm still having a hard time understanding how speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness is not ad hominem merely because that person's writings are a source". I thought you were talking about these accusations being made about you but I believe Acroterion saw you making this claim about Shibbolethink. If I was incorrect and you were stating this about Shibbolethink than this is clearly a personal attack and I should have taken action on it myself. Maybe you could clarify this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to modifying the block, but I am strongly inclined to favor a topic ban on Covid per the discretionary sanctions regime, as this has been a recurring problem with this editor, and it isn't improving. I can't put a positive spin on the unsupported aspersions of COI and the "specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness" in the context of the first paragraph, which is all concerning Shibbolthink. I also note that I blocked this editor in February for edits like this [3] at the refdesk promoting questionable Covid treatments, with responses like this [4] - note the section heading. As I noted after the block, "This a regular block for repeated promotion of medical treatments after being warned, as well as political soapboxing and conspiracy theory promotion. While this editor's actionns could fall under the community sanctions relating to Covid, and the American Politics arbitration sanctions, I've set this as a regular block for general soapboxing and violation of Wikipedia policy on medical advice." This has been going on for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer a question above somewhere, IP, when I said "I'm really just going to move on with my life, and I suggest you do the same" I meant with relation to your essay. I was very happy to just let the essay lie and not push forward with any deletion discussions, and in turn I didn't actually care that much about the COI accusation, because I've had it happen before, and it is, as then, baseless. Unrelatedly, when I saw your post at ANI, and connected that you was the same IP as our other encounters, I realized other users at that post probably also weren't making the connection. So I posted and made my assessment about your conduct as a whole. ANI is an appropriate venue for this, especially when the user in question is the one making the post about said conduct and said topic area. If/when you come back from your block, or get unblocked, I would be happy to have you come edit constructively in these articles. However, I would be cautious involving myself in this area if I were you, as it seems difficult for you to keep a cool head in editing these articles/discussions. As I said before, good luck, and I hope you find what you're looking for here on Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


(revised) @Liz:. "I'm still having a hard time understanding how speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness is not ad hominem merely because that person's writings are a source" was most certainly not a claim about Shibbolethink. But Acroterion refuses to unblock me anyway. I don't feel I can discuss Acroterion's other actions or claims made against or about me while blocked for something I didn't do. I don't see Acroterion's charge as a reasonable interpretation of that quote, in context. Aside from the immediate context, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22competence+and+derangedness%22&ns1=1&ns3=1 , Liz, should clarify. First diff shows that another user (corrected) used "competence and derangedness" first, and to describe Nicholas Wade. The other results show me using the phrase only when expressing upset at its use to attack Wade. It was part of what I saw and described as an ad hominem attack on Wade. The other results show me never using the phrase to refer to Shibbolethink or anyone else. It is hard to assume good faith of editors or admins who blatantly misinterpret in like this, over and over again. Like the overwhelming evidence for ivermectin mis-portrayed over and over again as something else, it's too much of a coincidence. What I said was: Also, I'm still having a hard time understanding how speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness is not ad hominem merely because that person's writings are a source. I think I've been told that 4 times, by 2 users, approximately. Clarification invited. Doesn't speak to the action not the person apply?. It is not ambiguous in the least. It's clear I'm upset because I feel speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of "competence and derangedness" is ad hominem. It's clear I'm not accusing anyone of lack of "competence and derangedness". Also note that the "Wade" that's being called deranged is a science writer, editor, and author who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times."
The claimed basis for the present block is unfounded. I request an acknowledgment that it was in error first, and unblocking.
As for misconduct diffs, I guess I could provide more, but you're already familiar with the speedy that you reverted, of my essay, thus I don't understand why I would need to provide another diff to it, in addition to the one I already provided in my OP. Furthermore, my whole essay has been suppressed. Did you notice? (And diffs to content that is suppressed feels like an unfair ask, LOL! Right?). You want more diffs?
And Liz, the response does come across, in isolation, as very thoughtful and considered. But it is disparaging - as I see it, all but the short first and last paragraphs are dedicated to at least strongly implying I made a whole bunch of claims I never made -- and then defends against them - making it seem as if I made the unfounded claims (I didn't) and that debunking them was appropriate (it wasn't). I see what is known as a straw man barrage. You're familiar? I've already tried to explain this in different words; can you see this? Is this point getting across or would it need further clarification before being clear? Did you notice that he acknowledges he did work in high security biosafety viruses, has linked from wikipedia.org to some of his published research in the area and works hard to defend the legitimacy of such work. Did you notice that that what I *actually* claimed was accurate? Much of that work is widely criticized in reliable sources off en.wikipedia, but conclusively labeled as just conspiracies on it, because of what is at least a MPC of admins and editors. It's a SERIOUS NPOV violation. An MPC covers up important foundational facts and information - I’m right, but article still wrong/misleading: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=prev&oldid=1001979651
"Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed" is a falsehood without any qualifier. I support and act in accord with WP's NPOV and COI policies. I agree with the stated positions on NPOV and COI. I do not support them being misapplied. I never said there was a WP:FCOI. I don't know. But if the bulk of his work, for years, was on or with people doing such research, it doesn’t require more than common sense to see that the anti-NPOV bent of his edits on the topic are symptomatic of a WP:COI (no F), as defined at WP:COI, and I feel like I’m being blocked in part for having said as much, even though WP:COI doesn't say that one mustn't discuss a user's COI where I discussed it. I'm not saying they're intentionally anti-NPOV.
I asked you if you think I was personally attacking Shibbolethink or other editors with my post starting this section, and appreciate your direct reply. Hugely helpful.
Liz, If anyone should be blocked apropos my statement, Also, I'm still having a hard time understanding how speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness is not ad hominem merely because that person's writings are a source. shouldn't it be the person who was speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness by using that phrase? And that person wasn't me. It appears there are too many negatives for some to have comprehended the sentence. What I wrote, put more simply: It is an ad hominem attack to speak about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness. And that that's so whether that person's writings are a source or not. Agree? See? --50.201.195.170 (talk), July 2021 (UTC)
@Liz: Please respond. As a refresher/TL;DR: I am blocked because of my comment on your page - [5] because, as you put it Acroterion thought he saw me "making this claim about Shibbolethink." As you correctly understood, Acroterion didn't see that, because it wasn't. I reiterate: when I wrote "I'm still having a hard time understanding how speaking about a specific person's alleged lack of competence and derangedness is not ad hominem merely because that person's writings are a source", I was not making this claim about Shibbolethink. It's not ambiguous. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I never applied the phrase "competence and derangedness" to Shibbolethink or anyone. I only copied it to complain about its use (and mixed up who had used it) by someone else.

Hi IP, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I don't recall ever using the phrase "competence and derangedness" in any context with regards to Nicholas Wade. Your link is to a search of that phrase, which shows other users who said that phrase, in a discussion in which I have not participated. The rest of your edit here shows much of the same SOAPBOXing which was implicated in your prior block. Do you understand how using non-RSes to justify "righting the great wrongs" is not the type of behavior that is beneficial to the project? Wikipedia is not about what is "true," it is about what is "verifiable." Because you and I clearly disagree on what is "true" with regards to these very controversial topics (COVID origins, ivermectin), but we should be able to agree on what is verifiable in reliable sources, NPOV, and due inclusion.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the attribution, with which was mistaken, sorry. But it doesn't change my main point - I never used the phrase to refer to you. You are continuing with the same straw manning you were using earlier. What part of I have no interest in adding content to Wikipedia that isn't verifiable do you not understand? Are you willing to acknowledge that I never said you had a WP:FCOI? Again, I support and act in accord with WP:V. Again, I know you can be reasonable. I agree - editors should be able to discuss and agree on what is verifiable in reliable sources, NPOV, etc. I think we both should be able to continue to edit on the topics in question. I don't think we should, for example, be covering up the professional misconduct documented in the sources listed at https://jamaletter.com and 175 doctors stuck their necks out to draw attention to it. I don't think we should be ignoring the bulk of the the most reliable sources among the over 100 peer-reviewed publications cited at https://c19ivermectin.com, Of course most of them aren't RS. But among the over 100 do meet our standards. Listen to our cofounder. He is right on his main point. It's contrary to policy to suppress all mention of the findings of those that are, but that's the situation. What's verifiable in reliable sources, NPOV, and due warrants inclusion. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I feel some readers have been mislead by your statement responding to mine about your on-wiki disclosure of your research publications. I stated that you have linked from wikipedia to your own research publications. Among them, IIUC, is documentation of your own work with dangerous pathogens like those used in Gain of Function research. You have stated that you didn't link, from ARTICLE SPACE to your own work, except in one case, but because of the from ARTICLE SPACE qualifier, you didn't refute what I stated. Do you accept that? It reads like a non-denial denial to me. Will you please state directly: is it your contention that other than that one case (which you didn't identify, but that's fine) you have never linked from anywhere on wikipedia (any space) to your own work? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.201.195.170&oldid=1035803562"