User talk:Keepitrealkeeptitfactual
December 2021
[edit]Go read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is neither of these things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I see serious similarities in that post and the others listed. Including one where someone literally says Wikipedia is shite. I am only echoing what many others (probably way more than listed of you keep removing them) are voicing. The article is biased. Period. There is NO way one can reasonable state that DOCTOR McCullough has ONLY spread misinformation. The article is bias. You know it, as do most of the people who commented. That is not soapboxing. That is calling out biased reporting. Which Wikipedia should not even be doing. You are not a news agency. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I am very sorry for my conduct. I am new here and this is my first offense. I was not aware the gravity of my decisions. I am not very great with computers and am when I got blocked I acted irrationally. I apologize greatly. It is not my intent to spam or vandalize the platform. I was simply passionate about the subject and have since learned the more appropriate way to express those views. With unbiased secondary sources. As my most recent post shows. I am respectfully requesting a second chance. As this is my first offense. Again, sincerest apologies. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits so far smack of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FRINGE. You'll need to convince us your edits in the future would be significantly different from your edits in the past. For example, what subject areas would you avoid in the future? How would you contribute productively? How would you resolve conflicts? Yamla (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (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.
I would address my views objected. Offering simple brief over views of the secondary sources I am posting. I think asking me to avoid subjects seems a little over censoring. Facts change as science comes out. If I keep my posts to literal summaries with no bias backed by scientific journals or secondary sources, I would think that would be the ideal post. As for resolving conflicts, I would remain respectful and not repost anything that was removed. I would only hope that if a post was removed (though with the changes I am making and my recognize of the platforms culture I do not believe that will happen) that I could figure out how better to see why to avoid a repeat. Originally my posts were being taking down with no explanation. For someone new, who did not realize the existence of administrators, their role, or the rules of which I was violating (or that there were rules at all), it was just frustrating and my reaction (which was wrong) was based on the belief that it was purely censorship. Which it was not. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- addres my views objectively Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I would address my posts objectively. Offering simple, brief overviews of the secondary sources I am posting. I think asking me to avoid subjects seems a little over censoring. Facts change as science comes out. If I keep my posts to literal summaries with no bias backed by scientific journals or secondary sources, I would think that would be the ideal post. As for resolving conflicts, I would remain respectful and not repost anything that was removed. I would only hope that if a post was removed (though with the changes I am making and my recognize of the platforms culture I do not believe that will happen) that I could see why to avoid a repeat. Originally my posts were being taking down with no explanation. For someone new, who did not realize the existence of administrators, their role, or the rules of which I was violating (or that there were rules at all), it was just frustrating and my reaction (which was wrong) was based on the belief that it was purely censorship. Which it was not. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This user is no longer interested in an unblock. Yamla (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (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.
Advice
[edit]Hello, I'd highly recommend reading WP:RS, WP:OR, and the other policy/protocol/guideline pages other editors have linked, before you begin to contribute, if you're unblocked. Wikipedia is fundamentally collaborative and for the article you've shown an interest in, it's all going to happen on the talk page, unless you're making uncontroversial improvements. Good luck. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
It does not look like I'm getting unblocked. It is indefinite and when I agreed to their parameters they still have not unblocked me. They even tried to get me to stay away from certain topics. It's censorship at this point. It is CLEAR from the other VALID concerns that are being disregarded. How were my comments deemed inappropriate when someone dismissed another's FACTUALLY based idea with sarcasm about the moon landing. How does that stand and mine does not? Is that not "battleground" and being disrespectful? Wiki has lost its way. Period. How many posts do you think they have taken down that are entirely appropriate and addressing real concerns of bias? Also,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/
The data is changing around hydroxichloriquine. It is showing effectiveness in early treatment against COVID and is becoming more widely used. Most of the "misinformation" Peter's page vaguely alludes to is surrounding this highly safe and effective drug.
This stuff is awful. Suppression of free thought. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't for broadcasting original thought; it's for reflecting what is notable and influential in reliable sources, and right now reliable sources say he's a crackpot. If you understand that, I'm not sure why it should bother you or offend your convictions. If you think he's a modern-day Galileo, the world moves quickly these days, and he'll have his vindication eventually. I don't think you're using your time well here if you're not seeing why his page says what it says at the moment. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
My concern is that it is one sided. Again, I see countless responses and messages that are not appropriate yet are not targeted. The content I see, and am screenshotting, that immediately gets taken down is ANYTHING that says something positive that this man has done. He is a HIGHLY cited author. Really? Nothing can be found besides misinformation? It's a hit piece. Through and through. One sided hit piece. Based on matters of opinion. And vague resources that point to vague occurrences of misinformation. Like the one I just debunked about hydroxichloriquine. The next thing the page will be saying is that ivermectin is only used to deworm animals and was only effective in Africa because everyone there has worms. I have no desire to spend any more time here. Like minded people banding together to snuff out any other thought that threatens a national. Highly political narrative. It's biased. And blatantly so. I like how you didn't even address the medical journal I just sent.... Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, explain to me how he will get "vindicated" with selective censorship and information flow control? How in the world will the narrative change when people can't even post unbiased positive medical journals about the man? Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- IDK. I'd just find something else to do with your time, preferably something that makes you happier and something that uses less editor time on here, these bureaucratic issues are a timesink for people who would prefer to improve the encyclopedia...2600:1012:B04D:C89A:8C64:F857:4742:EF7C (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Data" is plural BTW. 2600:1012:B04D:C89A:8C64:F857:4742:EF7C (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware encyclopedias run hit pieces and play political games. Picking sides and shutting down those who can prove their libel, bias, and misinformation. It's always baffling to me when sources like Wikipedia gather such a passionate following. Posing as an objective source of accurate information created by the many, for the many. When in reality, Wikipedia is run by a select few. Proud individuals who have admin authority and free reign to Dictate narratives and pettily impose their political beliefs and point of views on the masses. With absolutely no recourse for those who actually care about creating what Wikipedia apparently only appears to be. Seriously. All this crap and stress over what? Some articles that are peer reviewed, hit every standard set by wiki, but just don't feed into the narrative? It's insane. And it's wrong. And it is happening literally everywhere right now. Side note. You want people to save time? Stop. Picking. Sides. Let people post accurate, vetted information and enforce the standards equally and impartially. It's twice the effort to run a narrative than it is to run the platform how it claims it is run. My situation is a shining example.
Best of luck and good health to you.
I am done with this platform.
Which I suppose is a moot point considering I have been expelled PERMANENTLY for my egregious affront to the standards and strongly held foundations of this integrity driven encyclopedia. I truly crossed the line I suppose. To earn such a punishment as a forever ban. What a joke. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- WP:INDEF may be useful: "Indefinite does not mean "infinite" or "permanent". An indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances. In particularly serious cases in which no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community." I also suggest WP:APPEAL, WP:STANDARDOFFER, WP:FREESPEECH. —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
So basically you are confirming what I said? Wikipedia has no real, legal, or moral obligation to publish non biased material. And those who are proponents of factual reporting have no recourse whatsoever. I do not understand how they have not been sued for libel. It is probably because it is "run by volunteers and reflects collective thought," when the reality is, it is run by a group of opinionated keyboard crusaders. It is a grimy platform, and the most dangerous kind. One that claims to be objective when in reality it spreads falsehoods based on emotion, subjective opinion, and personal bias with a HUGE platform to spread its misinformation. Have you read the comments on mccouoloughs page? It is disgusting the slander the administration is okay with when it is belittling anyone sharing facts about this doctors career. Yet they are immediately removing or blocking anyone who posts even secondary sources. It is willful suppression and it is garbage. They have basically discredited this highly cited doctor, who has countless positive contributions to COVID and the medical community, with vague, non factual accusations of covid misinformation. Seriously, go to Google scholar and Google his name paired with COVID 19. You will see over TWENTY medical journals/articles he has published or co-authored that have been cited THOUSANDS of times, just regarding COVID 19 alone. A ton of real, helpful information that has made a positive impact on the fight against COVID 19. Yet the wiki administration has 90 percent of his profile talking about how he backs hydroxichloriquine... which is currently being used in early treatment for COVID in this country and others and, like the source I posted in my earlier post, is starting to show evidence of CONSISTENT effectiveness in early treatment as a multi-drug approach, often in people who are vaccinated as well. It was literally approved for emergency use by the FDA before the vaccine push came around. Not to mention a United States President was successfully treated with it. It is STILL going through clinical trials. If it's effectiveness was a decision of the past, none of these things would be happening. At minimum it proves Mccoullough was only backing a drug that has data supporting its effectiveness and begging further study. This proves it is not simple "misinformation." Anything not vaccine is disregarded as such and it's awful. This doc is not even against the vaccine. He has received all three vaccinations. He never stated hydroxichloriquine or any other multi drug approach was a replacement for the vaccine. How about those who cannot get the vaccine? There are tens of millions of people who cannot take the risk to their health and have REAL exemptions. What happens to them? Vaccine or bust huh? Guess they will just live in isolation because anyone who dares put forth alternative treatments to the vaccine that could save lives is brushed to the side by biased platforms like Wik, labeled, and canceled.
The Administration's method of suppression is clear to see. They basically decline any request for an edit and ask for secondary sources, then allow some slanderous comment like the moon landing one (to belittle the request or post thoroughly), then block the user before they can respond with sources.
Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)