Jump to content

User talk:Clam chowdah

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clam chowdah (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 15 June 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Clam chowdah! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please format footnotes correctly

Please see the help page on footnotes so that you can format citations correctly & not run afoul of the English Wikipedia content guideline on external links. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

By my count, you have reinstated your preferred version of President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief nine times since the initial edits (see diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Although you have not violated 3RR, as your reverts have been spread out over a period of several months, this level of edit warring (after four other users have objected to your proposed revision) is unacceptable on Wikipedia, which is a collaborative project based on consensus. Please adhere to WP:BRD and do not continually reinsert this disputed content unless and until consensus is reached. Further reverts will be reported to WP:AN3, which could result in administrative sanctions. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always use the talk page but you never respond to me. And that first paragraph about the inception of PEPFAR is clearly original research that is in unprovable. The fact you believe an admitted war criminal’s self serving recollection of how he thought up the program is over the top absurd. That paragraph must go and the fact you believe it should stand means you have no business being an editor! Clam chowdah (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with respect to the 2008 Democratic primary everyone agrees that caucuses are undemocratic now but I have chosen not to push that issue in that article. So the notion I’m some rogue editor is absurd especially when my changes to that article years ago is still in the article. And with respect to PEPFAR I took your advice and formatted properly and changed my language…but you insist facts widely known in the public health community are original research which is also absurd. Clam chowdah (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the UN— 

They did something more: they brought together heads of state and people living with HIV and all the different partners and actors that had been running and supporting the AIDS response until then. That is the biggest difference about this movement: it has ensured that every sector and every layer of society is engaged and accountable.

Immediately people thought about the barriers, about what is keeping people from staying alive. One of the great breakthroughs was the belief that nothing was impossible and no one was out of reach. That included reaching people in remote villages and people living in the shadows, but it also meant not being afraid of going after pharmaceutical companies and unfair trade practices. Take the price of first-line treatment: US$ 10 000 a year in 2000. When you adjust for inflation, a one-year supply would cost about US$ 14 000 in todayÕs terms. The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices. And donÕt forget this was also the time when world leaders were negotiating protection of intellectual property rights at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Any concession could open the floodgates for exceptions. US$ 100 So when Brazil and Thailand started manufacturing generic antiretroviral medicines they did something very smart: they revealed that the pills were relatively low-cost to make. This took the wind out of industry claims, and it opened the door for UNAIDS to start negotiations with companies to bring down prices No one wanted to be in the room: business leaders didnÕt want to be accused of price fixing and activists thought we were crazy to even convene such a meeting. It was a big first stepÑa step that led to differ- ential pricing based on ability to pay. Then came another breakthrough: manufacturers started making generics in India. In 2001, Cipla dropped antiretroviral medicine prices from US$ 800 to US$ 350. I remember clearly when former [United States] President Clinton announced that, after leaving office, he would make it his mission to work with everyone to bring down prices even moreÑand today, a year of HIV treatment is under US$ 100. Clam chowdah (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you change my edits that quote the UN narrative to fit the western narrative I will be calling you out as a RACIST. So you better read my footnotes before you edit because I’m already beginning to think you are a racist. Clam chowdah (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the UN that does mention PEPFAR and it is very clear UN acted FIRST!!

https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/MDG6Report_en.pdf Clam chowdah (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Just as is the case with your comments on this page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let me test it. Clam chowdah (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice 6/23/22

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slywriter (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)"}}[reply]

Furthermore, "Those 3 racist nut jobs from the notice board" is not acceptable. Civility is a requirement. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They aren’t being civil—they followed the lead of a JFK conspiracy theorist and I was warning another editor to not get involved because they are unhinged. Clam chowdah (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was warning a new editor to avoid this issue altogether because these 3 experienced editors are on the warpath against me, I didn’t want an innocent bystander to get blackballed like these 3 bullies are attempting to do to me. So I believe the new editor is reasonable and offered to work in the Talk section to come to a consensus.Clam chowdah (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

72 hours is, if anything, generous, because I was planning to indefinitely block you. After receiving a 72 hour block for disruptive editing and attacks, your statement in an unblock request is more of the same. I strongly suggest you carefully read over the guide to appealing a block before making a second request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

My roommate was trying to help me out, I didn’t sign up for multiple accounts. And the reason for my incivility is because the first editor that started deleting my edits has been banned for edits to the Lee Harvey Oswald article—check it out. Furthermore, I was trying to help out a new editor by explaining why he should delay any edits and instead collaborate with me on the Talk page because I believed was about to get banned and I didn’t want him to get banned. Btw, those editors refuse to read my links and refuse to respond to me on Talk pages. This is from the first Bush USAID director Andrew Natsios Wikipedia article: "If we had [antiretrovirals] today we could not distribute them. We could not administer the program because we do not have the doctors, we do not have the roads, we do not have the cold chain. This sounds small and some people, if you have traveled to rural Africa you know this, this is not a criticism, just a different world. People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time.” The Bush administration clearly started out focusing on prevention and not treatment which is why the first paragraph is clearly revisionist history from a primary source. Clam chowdah (talk) 02:23, 15 June 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=My roommate was trying to help me out, I didn’t sign up for multiple accounts. And the reason for my incivility is because the first editor that started deleting my edits has been banned for edits to the Lee Harvey Oswald article—check it out. Furthermore, I was trying to help out a new editor by explaining why he should delay any edits and instead collaborate with me on the Talk page because I believed was about to get banned and I didn’t want him to get banned. Btw, those editors refuse to read my links and refuse to respond to me on Talk pages. This is from the first Bush USAID director Andrew Natsios Wikipedia article: "If we had [antiretrovirals] today we could not distribute them. We could not administer the program because we do not have the doctors, we do not have the roads, we do not have the cold chain. This sounds small and some people, if you have traveled to rural Africa you know this, this is not a criticism, just a different world. People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time.” The Bush administration clearly started out focusing on prevention and not treatment which is why the first paragraph is clearly revisionist history from a primary source. [[User:Clam chowdah|Clam chowdah]] ([[User talk:Clam chowdah#top|talk]]) 02:23, 15 June 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=My roommate was trying to help me out, I didn’t sign up for multiple accounts. And the reason for my incivility is because the first editor that started deleting my edits has been banned for edits to the Lee Harvey Oswald article—check it out. Furthermore, I was trying to help out a new editor by explaining why he should delay any edits and instead collaborate with me on the Talk page because I believed was about to get banned and I didn’t want him to get banned. Btw, those editors refuse to read my links and refuse to respond to me on Talk pages. This is from the first Bush USAID director Andrew Natsios Wikipedia article: "If we had [antiretrovirals] today we could not distribute them. We could not administer the program because we do not have the doctors, we do not have the roads, we do not have the cold chain. This sounds small and some people, if you have traveled to rural Africa you know this, this is not a criticism, just a different world. People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time.” The Bush administration clearly started out focusing on prevention and not treatment which is why the first paragraph is clearly revisionist history from a primary source. [[User:Clam chowdah|Clam chowdah]] ([[User talk:Clam chowdah#top|talk]]) 02:23, 15 June 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=My roommate was trying to help me out, I didn’t sign up for multiple accounts. And the reason for my incivility is because the first editor that started deleting my edits has been banned for edits to the Lee Harvey Oswald article—check it out. Furthermore, I was trying to help out a new editor by explaining why he should delay any edits and instead collaborate with me on the Talk page because I believed was about to get banned and I didn’t want him to get banned. Btw, those editors refuse to read my links and refuse to respond to me on Talk pages. This is from the first Bush USAID director Andrew Natsios Wikipedia article: "If we had [antiretrovirals] today we could not distribute them. We could not administer the program because we do not have the doctors, we do not have the roads, we do not have the cold chain. This sounds small and some people, if you have traveled to rural Africa you know this, this is not a criticism, just a different world. People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time.” The Bush administration clearly started out focusing on prevention and not treatment which is why the first paragraph is clearly revisionist history from a primary source. [[User:Clam chowdah|Clam chowdah]] ([[User talk:Clam chowdah#top|talk]]) 02:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clam_chowdah&oldid=1093180607"