User talk:75000cases

Adding citations

Statements that you add to an article need a reliable citation. Please use one when doing so, especially when editing a medical article. What you write may be true, but it has to be cited. MartinezMD (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515088/ now can it stay? 75000cases (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that article does not say what you wrote. They took BSE and stuck it into a monkey brain. The article specifically says "Their risk for humans is unknown and is the subject of current studies in experimental models, including primates" so even if it were a review, which it isn't, you can't say it's "likely" to have transmission to people, and they aren't even sure if it's infected other primates. They are making conjecture. I'd advise you make proposals for edits on the article's talk page so the sources can be reviewed beforehand. MartinezMD (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm SWinxy. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to A.C.A.B. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. SWinxy (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to RationalWiki. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV labelling

If you want to label a website with POV language like 'far left' you're at least going to need a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And social media sites such as quora are not remotely reliable. See WP:RS for details on what makes for an acceptable source. - MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and Conservapedia is far right why? They condemn racism and socialism and marxistim while the far-left cronys on RW jerk off to Marx and Mao. 75000cases (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that supports quid pro election stealer joe is a far-left commie and supports desctruction of small black owned buinsnesses, hates 'cracker ass honkies', and as a member of the far-right who isn't racist, idiots on the left can GFY. https://conservapedia.com/Racism_and_the_Democratic_Party 75000cases (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) @MrOllie:[reply]

Conservapedia isn't labeled as far right either in that list or in the lead of its article, so I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you keep up this ranting you can expect a WP:NOTHERE block soon. - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am here, but i don't care for the far left. 75000cases (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:75000cases reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: ). Thank you. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]