User talk:Philomathes2357

999 edits since: 2020-05-15

Make your next one count! It's a special one! jp×g 🗯️ 07:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues at The Real Anthony Fauci

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Real Anthony Fauci, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I second this. Get a consensus first. Use the talk page and don't edit war. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted about this on the talk page. You have both been pinged there. I do not appreciate being called a "weasel", a "vandal", and "unconstructive", when I am obviously none of those things. I think it's quite rude, and I think it demonstrates that some editors have an emotional attachment to the content in question, which is not appropriate. Hopefully the personal attacks and negative insinuations are done and over with. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop personalizing this. Focus on content, not editors' motives. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, thank you for posting those notifications. At Talk:The Real Anthony Fauci, I have warned Philomathes2357 about violatoin of COATRACK and personal attacks. I have even stricken a large one that personalized the discussion. Philomathes2357 should comment on content, not editors' motives. I warned Philomathes2357 that they should be careful if they wish to avoid returning to ANI (there have been huge problems with them in the past) and getting a topic ban or worse.

I don't recall right now, but isn't Philomathes2357 already editing under some type of topic ban or warnings already and needs to be extra careful? They seem to have forgotten they are living in jeopardy already. I think the issues were promotion of fringe political POV and related edit warring and POV pushing, and thus an American politics type of warning/tban. This should include a warning/tban for pushing Fringe theories about COVID-19 and defending Kennedy, a very prominent pusher of dangerous fringe POV. We do not allow ADVOCACY of such fringe POV here. We treat such advocacy like we treat snide remarks about transgender people and racism. IOW, we take it very seriously, as such editors are poison to the project.

If Philomathes2357 is already living under warnings or a tban, then further action/blocks should be taken. Otherwise, such warnings and at least two different tbans should be issued to protect the project and its editors from personal attacks and the time sink created by long discussions.

On 25 January 2023 User:Bishonen "unblocked Philomathes2357 talk contribs (The block is lifted on certain conditions, outlined at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philomathes2357&oldid=1135629704#Unblock_conditions and accepted by the user.) Should a longer block be reinstated? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban expired (see the archive for this talkpage), but I see a consistent behavioral pattern with this editor's conduct. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just looked at the rest of this talk page at the time of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philomathes2357&oldid=1135629704#Unblock_conditions . It's a reminder of past behavior, and I'm getting a huge deja vu now. We have been here before.

I see that Doug Weller also tried to explain things to this user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is the same - the sentence that I edited misrepresents the state of scientific research, and cites an out-of-date non-MEDRS source in order to further a political narrative. I demonstrated that, in detail, and provided multiple up-to-date MEDRS-compliant sources to make my point. Nobody has even bothered to address any of my points, much less rebut them. Instead, all you folks have done is engage in threats and personal attacks. Why is that? Why has public discourse become so poisonous that people get emotional about the current state of hydroxychloroquine research?

How about you all stop with the personal attacks and threats, and systematically rebut the 7 substantive points that I made (upon request) at the talk page? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article The Grayzone

Since WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:RUSUKR have not yet fully migrated to the contentious topics system, these clunky templates are unfortunately still required for notification per WP:OLDDS:

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, 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.

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 the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, 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.

— Newslinger talk 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sending general sanctions alerts to the editor who alerted you

In Special:Diff/1221780388, you posted general sanctions alerts for the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:RUSUKR topic areas on my user talk page shortly after I posted the same alerts on your user talk page in the section above (Special:Diff/1221744309). Please note that any editor who alerts another editor to a general sanctions topic area is already aware of the topic area, per WP:CTOP § cite note-13 and WP:OLDDS § aware.aware. Sending alerts to someone who just alerted you, as you have done here, serves no purpose procedurally and appears retaliatory. Please refrain from sending general sanctions alerts to editors immediately after they alert you of the same topic areas in the future. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

It might be time to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and misrepresentations

You need to stop personalizing this. You have been warned about doing that. Just because you're doing it off-wiki by mentioning me doesn't mean it isn't wrong or isn't noticed here. Several people have notified me, people who participate there. Be careful. What you do elsewhere can affect your wiki-reputation and come back to bite you. I suggest you keep this at Wikipedia and deal with it in the proper venues, without personal attacks or misrepresentations. I have just written a longer reply to you that corrects some of your misrepresentations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back

You're not correct. Most people have never heard of Indio. Please stop changing this and ask on the talk page if you have questions. Headtothestripe (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any questions. People can visit the article about Indio, California if they want to know more about it. You need to change your approach, or you are going to get banned from Wikipedia. You have a serious attitude problem, dude. Do not post on my talk page again. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough, stop being difficult. Headtothestripe (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1992 politics of the United States

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. (I am not seeing an alert in the history of this page, even though this comment alludes to the fact that American politics post 1992 are designated contentious.) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 23:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Deep state in the United States, in spite of previous sanctions

Your recent editing history at Deep state in the United States 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; read about 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed you'd dare to edit war in this topic area, considering you were blocked for how you deal with these topics. Your unblock by Bishonen was conditional, and now you are violating those conditions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I undid two edits, and "HandThatFeeds" undid two edits also. Then you, a third party, stepped in, which I will respect.

When HandThatFeeds mass-removed well-sourced content twice, he also made spurious accusations of bad faith and POV pushing. I have a suspicion that no warnings will be issued to him. Of course, if the rules were applied even-handedly, he would be issued a warning. Yet, I already know that he will not. Why is that? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how BRD works. The one who violates BRD (you) is the one who started the edit war, and is the one who gets warned. That is nearly always the way it works. You had made a whole lot of BOLD additions. They were REVERTED in one edit (with the exception of one addition that got caught up in the edit conflict). You should then have resorted to DISCUSSION, and only discussion. Instead, you restored your bold additions. That's edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article is at the status quo version, and it should remain there until the RfC is finished. Other types of improvements can be made, just not on this topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to re-revert, so there's no issue there. The editor that removed the source content has made it clear that they do not wish to have a discussion. It's also a bit harder to have a discussion when 1) they are constantly editorializing about their personal opinions 2) they are constantly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF with spurious accusations and insinuations. Will a warning be issued to this user?

Still, nobody has brought forth a policy-based or source-based argument to address the actual question asked by the RFC, instead choosing to comment on unrelated matters or expound on their personal opinions about the term "deep state". It is abundantly clear that the editorial positions of some users are based exclusively on those personal opinions. If you think a policy-based or source-based argument that directly responds to the question of the RFC has been made, perhaps you could point it out. I'm craving a policy-based, source-based argument to rebut my concern, and I'm disappointed that one has not been offered.

So far, I'm not seeing any partner for collaborative discussion, but I am hoping that one emerges. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your TP edit mocking editors who did not !vote in an RfC the way you did, with a made up transcript including the false statement that yes voters said: "So shut the f*ck up, or else", may have hit a new low. [1] Civility is required for collaboration and is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.WP:5P4 Please assume good faith and refrain from such broad attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack any specific editor. Yes, "shut the fuck up, or else", is not a direct quote, but I think it's a reasonable synthesis of this, this, and other remarks.

The "or else" refers to the fact that multiple editors have suggested that they want to find a way to ban me. I've also been doxxed during content disputes, so I take these things seriously. "shut the f*ck up, or else" is exactly how I've been made to feel. I "assume" good faith, but when I am directly accused of operating in bad faith, being a liar, being a POV-pusher (based on zero evidence) and cussed at (uncensored), and that behavior is either ignored or tacitly encouraged, my "assumption" starts to become strained. If you don't like the fact that I feel that way, I'm not sure what to say. I'm sorry if seeing the F word was jarring for you.

Since you're concerned with civility, I'm certain that you must have also warned "HandThatFeeds" regarding the above diffs, but I can't find the warning on their talk page. Maybe they deleted it? If you didn't think that those remarks merited a civility warning, but you think mine did, that's a problem. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that editors are removing the article from their watchlists due to your continuing walls of text. lack of WP:AGF, failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and WP:IDHT responses is not a threat or a gross, uncivil, cartoonish claim that anyone has said anything like "shut the fuck up or else." Haven't you agreed to stop this? Seriously, you cannot gain consensus by boring people or mocking them with an absurd phony dialogue that never occurred. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of violating AGF while you simultaneously violate AGF in an objectively more egregious and personal way. I will respond, once, and then I will disengage.

1) If I decide that I don't like the way another editor is approaching a content discussion, is it OK to say things like "that is a blatant lie", "I am accusing you of bad faith", "you are a POV-pusher", and to direct uncensored expletives at them personally? I was under the impression that such behaviors were the definition of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations, but it appears that I stand corrected.

2) To be absolutely clear, I have not "mocked" anybody, that is a misleading accusation which is itself an AGF violation. I have summarized, in dialogue form, my sincere subjective view of how the conversation has played out, in response to another editor who felt that the "yes" arguments have been "circular". I did not reference any editors. The post was about content, not the editors who have posted it.

Considering the fact that I did not attack any editor at any point, and considering the fact that it is impossible to stop doing something that I have not started doing, your statement "stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing." is pretty darn synonymous to "shut the f*ck up, or else". Ironic.

By the way, the other editor agreed with my (obviously non-literal) assessment, and implied that you have an inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Something for you to think about, "Objective" 3000.

3) For the record, the type of behavior exhibited on the talk page is so toxic and repulsive to other editors that it has scared them away from the discussion. Every time I choose to question a piece of content, I receive private emails from other users, saying, essentially, "I agree with you, but I am afraid to say so publicly because of the potential consequences." They don't want to be called names, mocked, bullied, falsely accused of wrongdoing, or doxxed.

I got another email along those lines just a couple of hours ago, from a prominent, well-known editor, who will remain anonymous. They said, and I directly quote, "I think you are added a needed alternative perspective to a lot of US political articles. Over time many of the other editors who were willing to do similar work have been beaten down or chased out by many of the editors with whom you are arguing now". Another thing you should reflect on, before you wag your finger in my face again.

4) With that out of the way, I will readily concede one point - using foul language is not appropriate, and I will edit my remark to remove the expletive. Taking the bait and stooping to that level is always a mistake - no matter how uncivil the behavior of other editors, I strive to remain calm and focus on content. Using the F-word out of frustration is beneath the standard to which I try to hold myself, and could be misinterpreted. It will be removed by the time you read this. While I don't appreciate the way you went about it, I do appreciate you holding me to a high standard.

All the best. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, indeed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thank you for your edits on Scott Ritter.

As of March 2024, Scott Ritter is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war Ironcurtain2 (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment here, but beware of Consortium News: "There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable." (WP:RSP) It might be fine here on the talk page for this information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more important point would be that VIPS is an unreliable group. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if a better source exists for Ritter's VIPS membership, we can use it instead. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a better source, it's probably okay for this purpose. Is there something on the VIPS website? ABOUTSELF applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for your edits and your continued hard work, keep up the good work! Ironcurtain2 (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly identical user pages

This is for @Philomathes2357: and @Ironcurtain2:. When I look at your user pages, I see a lot of interesting stuff...that is also duplicated. What's going on? Are you twins, appreciate each other, or just fellow travelers? Nothing wrong with any of that. It's just interesting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing this user before today. I do see that our user pages are substantively identical. My userpage was written by me, as you can see if you look at the page's edit history. It looks like he copy-pasted my userpage onto his. I'm flattered. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." ― Oscar Wilde You must share some similar beliefs or ideals. That's cool. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I might have to add that to my list of thought-provoking quotes. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]