User talk:High5sw

Your edits to Subcontractor

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Subcontractor. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Keith D (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your recent editing history at Vaccine hesitancy ‎ 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. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vaccine hesitancy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. TheTerrificTurtwig (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine hesitancy

Read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and then discuss on the talk page, if you really think a single retracted study merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Vaccine hesitancy) for for edit-warring to add POV-content based on a retracted paper (!).

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 ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 27 October 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).

High5sw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies are critically important to vaccine hesitancy. This section should be included and editors should provide their own sources of information. That fact that a study was retracted by a publisher is irrelevant from the facts found in the study.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:20, 27 October 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.

High5sw, a couple of notes notes based on your recent edit:

Do read WP:MEDRS to see what kind of sources are required for medical information. A retracted article with "methodological issues and ... conclusions ... not supported by strong scientific data" does not come close to meeting that, or even the basic WP:RS, standard.
If you have any questions after you have read the sourcing policy, please consider posting them at WP:TEAHOUSE because continuing to push junk sources in wikipedia articles (or even article talkpages) is disruptive, wastes other editors time, and is liable to get you blocked from editing wikipedia altogether.

Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to add non-policy-compliant content elsewhere after getting blocked from an article for edit-warring over it is deeply misguided.

Any more of this nonsense, [1] and I will call for you to be blocked from editing entirely. Judging from your limited contribution history, this will not be much of a loss to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AndyTheGrump, I'm trying to contribute in a compliant manner. My intention is not to misinform or violate any wiki policies. As you mention I don't edit much and trying to learn the best way. What would you suggest for including this information on wiki?

Mark High5sw (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. Inclusion wouldn't comply with Wikipedia policies. Primary-source scientific papers rarely merit citation in Wikipedia. Per WP:MEDRS, our standards are stricter still. And per WP:RS, a retracted paper self-evidently isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia criteria and cannot be cited for its content. This is elementary Wikipedia policy, and cannot be overridden by contributors' own opinions about whether what the paper says is 'fact' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. High5sw (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found other published articles that are not primary-source and not retracted showing similar information.

Is it possible to add this information to an existing wiki page or create a new page on "Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated (VU) Studies" (or something else you can recommend)?

I would like to see a page showing both sides of the VU studies.

[I searched: vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies -covid -covid-19 and looked through all the top results and trying to eliminate covid articles since I feel that is too politically charged and too new to have adequate studies. I did not find any articles yet showing positive results but hopefully a wiki page could bring in some inputs from others.]

VU study of three different clinics:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268563/

Another VU study: based on homeschooled children showing similar rates of chronic illness in the vaccinated:

https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

Another:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268563/ also at https://www.oatext.com/health-effects-in-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-children-with-covariates-for-breastfeeding-status-and-type-of-birth.php

Thanks in advance for any assistance you provide and thanks for your inputs so far. High5sw (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you clearly either haven't read WP:MEDRS, or lack the competence to understand it I shall not be discussing this with you further. I am under no obligation to engage with you indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more external news sources showing widespread use of the term.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, High5sw! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies

Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines should be able to prove they are healthier than unvaccinated children. Or we can keep the people in the dark and allow chronic diseases in children to continue skyrocketing. Wiki should be a source of TRUTH. 70.95.70.150 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies

Hello, High5sw. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit shouldn't wiki be unbiased about vax safety and effectiveness? 50.47.37.122 (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]