User talk:Clam chowdah
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Please format footnotes correctly
[edit]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)
Notice
[edit]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
June 2022
[edit]
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:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- 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)
Thanks, let me test it. Clam chowdah (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
ANI Notice 6/23/22
[edit]
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)"}}
- 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)
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)
June 2022
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
Decline reason:
Per below, one open request at a time, please — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
Clam chowdah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Btw, that quote from his Wikipedia article has also been part of an edit war with an anonymous editor deleting it and calling it slanderous even though it is from an official Congressional transcript. From the WaPo:
Andrew Natsios, the Bush administration's new chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has made a very bad start with regard to one of his agency's primary missions: dealing with the scourge of AIDS in Africa. Natsios has made comments recently on the prevention and treatment of the disease in Africa that are, to say the least, disturbing, if not alarming.
His comments appeared last week in the Boston Globe and in testimony before the House International Relations Committee. On both occasions he argued strenuously against giving antiretroviral drug treatment (the AIDS treatment used in the United States today) to the 25 million Africans infected with HIV. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2001/06/15/dead-wrong-on-aids/e961381c-717a-4d2e-9f6d-58a8b0adc2f6/
Clam chowdah (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not only per above, I don't see what this has to do with your block, much less why you should be unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
Clam chowdah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edit war on the Natsios article looks to be politically motivated and probably does involve his family members and former employees and vindicates me. That said, I don’t believe the editors warring with me are doing it for political reasons I just believe they were influenced by my inexperience in editing and didn’t bother to check out my Talk page posts which I honestly thought people would read and collaborate with me and nobody ever does. So the Natsios stuff vindicates me because there are many people in the Bush administration that want to scrub 2001 from the history books because I believe in 2022 that Natsios quote is racist and it has aged very badly. That said, the fact PEPFAR was revealed in January 2003 actually makes the Bush administration look relatively good because they actually realized their mistakes and ended up doing a lot of good. So I don’t know why Bush whitewashed that period in his memoir because they reversed course relatively quickly and followed the lead of UNAIDS and Kofi Annan and Doctors Without Borders and focused on treatment and not prevention. Clam chowdah (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
clam, i would advise you to not create 3 unblock requests at the same time. stick to one. --lettherebedarklight – 晚安 (おやすみなさい)。 05:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought the Natsios stuff was interesting, that the information I want in has been the subject of an edit war on another article even though the quote is part of the Congressional record and shows up in contemporaneous news accounts and is memorialized by the other major players involved in getting the medication to Africa. Clam chowdah (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Without getting too deeply into the subject, "it was in the Congressional Record" is not a complete pass as far as our editorial policies go. The Record is a primary source, all it can tell us is who said what and in what proceeding. For context and interpretation, we need a secondary source. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
How is copy and pasting quotes from Harvard economists and UN officials “rants”?? The links are right there! Am I on an episode of Black Mirror?!? This is really strange that I can’t include a quote from the initial Bush appointee tasked with dealing with the HIV crisis in Africa while a revisionist account from Bush’s memoir is allowed to stay!?! Clam chowdah (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The quote is the point—read it, it’s crazy and it was said in Congress!! And why is Bush’s memoir referenced in the History section of PEPFAR—his memoir is an unverifiable self serving PRIMARY SOURCE!! Clam chowdah (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
“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.” Clam chowdah (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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. Clam chowdah (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the
{{unblock}}formatting from two of your three open requests. There is no reason to open multiple unblock requests - it does not 'bump' the priority of your request in any way, and does not notify anyone of your replies. SQLQuery Me! 13:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do editors condone racism?? How many POC are editors?
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. They use the sun. These drugs have to be administered during a certain sequence of time during the day and when you say take it at 10:00, people will say what do you mean by 10:00? They do not use those terms in the villages to describe time. They describe the morning and the afternoon and the evening. So that is a problem. Clam chowdah (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Clam chowdah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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. They use the sun. These drugs have to be administered during a certain sequence of time during the day and when you say take it at 10:00, people will say what do you mean by 10:00? They do not use those terms in the villages to describe time. They describe the morning and the afternoon and the evening. So that is a problem. Clam chowdah (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
Why is unverifiable self serving primary source still on Wikipedia???PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic. Clam chowdah (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Bush’s memoir Decision Points should not be referenced under PEPFAR—it is an unverifiable self serving primary source. Clam chowdah (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that reliable sources must be able to support the material. All quotations, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons must include an inline citation to a source that directly supports the material. This also means that Wikipedia is not the place for original work, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published.Clam chowdah (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do editors perpetuate WHITE SAVIOR NARRATIVE that is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy?? Am I not supposed to be outraged at blatant RACISM on Wikipedia?? The fact you are not outraged is what troubles me!! How many POC are actually editors??Clam chowdah (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dude, you're just appealing into the void. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:B5:7C44:F9A8:AA3A (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
A tip to improve Wikipedia—the editors that targeted me wanted to achieve a desired result and so he included a lot of immaterial facts in his opening statement. Do you know anything about the American rules of evidence?? It’s why not all evidence is admissible even if it might be factually correct because some facts will undermine the jury’s ability to be impartial with respect to the material facts—so that editor essentially tainted the jury by introducing immaterial facts…and he knew they would be prejudicial…and you all fell for it. And now a reasonable editor is saying batshit crazy things like a quote from an official Congressional transcript might not be factually correct while an unverifiable memoir passage is proper primary source to reference!?! Do you understand my exasperation??Clam chowdah (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have again removed the
{{unblock}}formatting from four of the five requests you've opened on this page. I would urge you to read the Guide to appealing blocks, as most of your requests do not appear to be actual requests for an unblock, but rants. Continuing to do this could be viewed as disruptive, and may result in you losing the ability to edit this page. SQLQuery Me! 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is an unverifiable self serving primary source still being referenced under PEPFAR History?? Clam chowdah (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Clam chowdah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is the official Wikipedia policy with respect to memoirs: On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember—and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution.Clam chowdah (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Also not an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.