User talk:Just Another Dude 1997

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Just Another Dude 1997!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 20:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scott Atlas. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE, which governs how we discuss fringe theories outside the mainstream of science. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited my sources. It was not some wacko website. It was the New York Times and Yahoo News. Are they fringe? Just Another Dude 1997 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which didn't mention Scott Atlas. If they had said he was correct after all, your edits would have been fine. But they didn't. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it mentions what the Wikipedia article says is his misinformation and says that those things are not misinformation, but because it does not specifically mention Scott Atlas as being correct, it is not acceptable? That is very circular, but not unexpected from Wikipedia and its Big Brother Division. It is a great system to put in place to enforce a "truth" that cannot be challenged. If I were to cite an actual right-leaning source, like Breitbart, I bet that source would be dismissed as not a valid source because it does not pass the standards of the Big Brother Division of Wikipedia and my edits would still be removed. Media that helped perpetuate actual misinformation, such as "two weeks to flatten the curve", can issue a correction that does not mention any of the people who had questions about the "science" being peddled to the masses because it would mean those people were right and the politicians, Biden and Trump included, media, and academics who pushed these things on society were wrong.

Last thought on this issue that I know I will lose because I am probably dealing with someone who thinks they are righteous and justified in stemming the flow of "misinformation" to the world. When people believed that the world was flat or that the Sun rotated around the Earth, should the people who said the world was round or that the Earth rotated around the Sun have been silenced? Having a discussion about something is not a bad thing and there will always be crazies on the left and the right that will take any scrap of information to twist and beat the other side. That is part of human nature. There are a lot of people in the world who are neither extreme left or extreme right, who are somewhere in between, and want to know what is going on in the world. Shutting down a correction of the record because a citation addresses the issue misinformation that was presented but does not mention the person who is accused of misinformation is in and of itself misinformation. Atlas was accused of spreading misinformation about masks slowing the spread of COVID and the citation I listed said that masks did little to nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Atlas was accused of spreading misinformation, while a study found Atlas' assertion was correct. The allowing the allegation of Atlas spreading misinformation to remain is incorrect. I added that Atlas was accused of spreading "alleged misinformation" and that was removed as well. It seems that you are the person committed to spreading misinformation, not me and not Scott Atlas, at least on the issues cited. Thanks and enjoy living in your echo chamber. Just Another Dude 1997 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I hurt your feelings? Looks like you'd be happier at a website that reflects your misinformed world view, eg Conservapedia or even Metapedia. In any case if you are going to spend your time complaining about Wikipedia and not following guidelines such as assume good faith or [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks them someone will do you a favor and help you out. The contentious topic alerts above apply to all pages, by the way, not just articles. Of course you can complain that I'm wrong at WP:RSN, maybe people will agree with you. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Did not hurt my feelings. Just made me think you are a dick. Your response confirmed that. Should I cite your response that began with "Did I hurt your feelings?" rather than addressing the points in my objection to you acting like the chief editor of Pravda as proof? I would prefer that "geniuses" and content "moderators" (i.e., censors of The Big Brother Division of Wikipedia) be honest about their lack of truth.

I know what complaining to the Central Party apparatus you referenced: another encounter with a drone, like you, maybe even a bunch of drones, from the echo chamber of Wikipedia. I will pass. Keep reinforcing to those of us who have questions who are not associated with either left or right that there are people who do not want questions asked. Just Another Dude 1997 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't left or right? And you won't go to one of our noticeboards to ask if you are correct? Just want to complain on your talk page? Interesting. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also curious about what brought you back here after a long gap. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it interesting that I am engaging in a discussion with a Wikipedia manifestation of Joseph Goebbels and COVID truth? I lay out an argument and you respond first with an antagonistic statement, then second, a loaded statement that ignores exactly what I posted (i.e., Atlas was described as spreading misinformation that was later found to not be misinformation) and referred to my "misinformed world view". That is an assumption on your part that your world view is correct and mine is wrong. You know nothing about my world view, so why would I think that any of you fellow drones would treat my appeal any differently than a speaking before the Supreme Kangaroo Court?

As far as why I came back, it was prompted after reading about censorship on Facebook and Twitter. I thought I would perform an experiment to see if it was as bad on other platforms. Thank you for providing that answer so quickly. Just Another Dude 1997 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 20:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]