User talk:Feynstein

Welcome!

Hello, PhysiqueUL09, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 general sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 09:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

For edit warring at Wuhan Institute of Virology to use prohibited pre-prints in violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, and refusing to back down when it was explained to you that you are in breach, you are now subject to a short block. If you resume when the block expires, you will be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently this is just a standard block, but any future sanctions will be under the General Sanctions outlined above, and will escalate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, considering the time that elapsed between your being informed of the General Sanctions applicable to Covid-19 pages and your latest violating edit, I have made this a General Sanction and logged it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and if I can offer a recommendation - when people revert your sanctions-violating edits and explain the problem to you, accusing them of vandalism is really not a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: The first sentence of MEDRS is : "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice"... This was not medical advice, not at all. There was no mention of any treatment or any advice about COVID symptoms. It simply stated that scientifically, no rock should be left unturned as to the origin of the virus. I think you will agree with me on that. The section is using news stories and Trump quotes, how would that be considered as medical advice? I will appeal that ruling because I find it might carry a purpose to silence me, but I don't want to assume bad intentions. This section was biased towards labelling the accidental lab exposure as conspiracy when the reality is that we don't know. Refusing to back down against removal of referenced content? What is that? I want to be very neutral here and I don't have bad intentions while writing this. Let me finish what I was planning to write XD i've been trying to upload this twice hahaha. By the way, my adding of this paragraph was before the sanctions where introduced to this page. I find that the removal of this paragraph is very much in violation of the warning that came after it's first publication. Thanks but no thanks. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Please help here I have been blocked unjustly.

• The notice explaining the General Sanctions applicable to Covid-19 articles, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and linked above, is very clear. It says "Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used" (original emphasis). You do not have the right to override that on an individual basis according to your own preferences. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just add that this might seem harsh, but we have a lot of Covid-19 articles and many many people editing and updating them every day, with many people wanting to introduce controversial material. Due to the critical importance of the subject, and that we are often getting close to overwhelmed by people arguing, the strict enforcement of these sanctions has become necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: The first sentence of MEDRS is : "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice"... This was not medical advice, not at all. There was no mention of any treatment or any advice about COVID symptoms. It simply stated that scientifically, no rock should be left unturned as to the origin of the virus. I think you will agree with me on that. The section is using news stories and Trump quotes, how would that be considered as medical advice? I will appeal that ruling because I find it might carry a purpose to silence me, but I don't want to assume bad intentions. This section was biased towards labelling the accidental lab exposure as conspiracy when the reality is that we don't know. Refusing to back down against removal of referenced content? What is that? I want to be very neutral here and I don't have bad intentions while writing this. Let me finish what I was planning to write XD i've been trying to upload this twice hahaha. By the way, my adding of this paragraph was before the sanctions where introduced to this page. I find that the removal of this paragraph is very much in violation of the warning that came after it's first publication. Thanks but no thanks. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Please help here I have been blocked unjustly.

• The notice explaining the General Sanctions applicable to Covid-19 articles, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and linked above, is very clear. It says "Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used" (original emphasis). You do not have the right to override that on an individual basis according to your own preferences. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I accept this sanction, but not on the basis of MEDRS. Are you overlooking that? Why don't you explain to me how it violates this specific sanction? And I wasnt made aware of the Coronavirus disease 2019 sanction. What people where warning me against is MEDRS, not the COVID thing, that's how I understood it. I don't mind being blocked of this page anyway because I intended to distance myself from such topics. You just blocked me and publicly shamed me by adding me to the public lists. I said in the talk section that I would be removing my edit if any administrator askmed me to do it. But no instead of reading my last message you went ahead and shamed me... thanks very much. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I wasnt aware of the contested sources needed consencus thing. I ask you to remove my inclusion to the public sanctions page please and I will refrain from further comments on that matter. And any covid related stuff as it seems everyone is politically biased. Then again, I reapeat: "By the way, my adding of this paragraph was before the sanctions where introduced to it". This should make my revert not regarded by the sanction I believe.

• You were given a Covid-19 general sanctions alert at 09:54, 21 May 2020 (above), which linked to the details of the sanctions. You violated those sanctions at 14:05, 21 May 2020, more than four hours later, after people at the talk page had tried explaining to you and warning you. And you don't get to negotiate and set your own conditions such as requiring an admin to tell you - anyone has the right to warn you. But, as you have agreed to follow the sanctions, I will shortly unblock you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I really dont understand what just happened in fact, the more I think of it... I'm very new and I felt as if people where actively trying to silence me, I feel there is a lot of political pressure in this and I'm sorry if I made that mistake. I will be avoiding covid-related pages.

@Boing! said Zebedee: I'm very sorry... will my public appearance on the block page will be removed? I fear this might badly affect my credibility in the X-Ray field :-( .... I'm sorry but I think it was a misunderstanding... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, this might seem harsh, and I'm sorry it happened to you. But we really don't have the resources to engage in back-and-forth argument every single time someone wants to introduce contentious content in this area, and that's really why it happened. Anyway, I've unblocked you now, and I will modify the sanctions log. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have modified the sanctions log . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Ok one last thing please... did it really violated the MEDRS santion? I want to learn from this, but I felt it did not include treatments or advices on health stuff. And you used this sanction to undo my undoing in the commit message and the history page...

WP:MEDRS actually covers all medical content, and the "medical advice" thing is really just part of explaining why we have it. It prohibits the use of non-peer-reviewed sources for any medical information (though there can sometimes be exceptions by prior consensus), and preprints are impliclty included in that - the specific inclusion of preprints in the Covid-19 Sanctions is to make that explicitly clear. I apologise for not making it clear that the violation of the Covid-19 sanctions was the core reason for the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you. It was indeed unclear and I was not aware of the concensus rule. Is it something that is applied all over wikipedia? Like if someone dislikes my edit he can remove it immediately and we have to come to a concensus? It seems to me that someone could argue once and leave to never come back hence the information would never be added? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Consensus is a key policy, and if a change you make is contested then you must seek consensus for its reinstatement. But, the person who reverted you does not have to agree, you just need a consensus of other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: And if no one comes very often on the page, like those I started to contribute in X-Ray, is there a delay where I can make the changes or does it have to stay in the limbo until someone else comes? Do I have to contact editors involved in closely related fields (like medical physics) to come and help me? I'm sorry if I ask too much questions :p I will go and read the concensus page now. Did you also remove the other place where my ban was public, like where I was refered? I think there might be more pages where my name is on but I lost track of it I think. Not the one with the 1-liner, which I saw you changed due to misunderstanding. I want to add comments about misunderstanding everywhere I was referenced, thanks!

In reply to last question - for an article with few if any watchers, an edit and subsequent revert by an editor should be taken to the article's talk page for discussion, but there may not be any other editors keeping an eye on that. Can also ask to discuss on the other editor's Talk page (but this misses the potential for others to see it and chime in). The solution is not perfect. Key is discussing content without attacking other editors (for example, accusing of vandalism). On article View history and talk pages, you may find an editor who has been a frequent and recent contributor. You could leave a message on that person's Talk page as an invitation to participate. David notMD (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep calm

Bonjour,

J'ai cru comprendre que tu étais francophone. UL09 ? Diplomé de l'Université de Louvain/Lyon/Lausanne en 2009 ? ;-)

Il faut absolument rester très zen sur wikipédia sinon, ça finit toujours par mal tourner... Si tu as des doutes sur le sujet : sur le fond je ne sais pas, mais sur la forme, tu es dans ton tort. Tu as introduit une information contestée dans un article. La charge de la preuve est dans ton chef et il faut un consensus en pdd pour le réintroduire. La messe est dite. Il ne fallait faire de revert.
Mais en plus, l'article est sous "discretionary sanctions", ce qui veut dire en pratique plein pouvoirs aux sysops pour y maintenir l'ordre... Le revert, c'est te coller une cible sur le front. Et last but not least : avec une source primaire pour introduire une information controversée, c'est sans espoir quel que soit l'article et le sujet. Attention que je redis : je ne juge pas le fond (que je ne connais pas) mais juste la forme.

See you, RadXman (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RadXman: Salut... diplômé de l'Université Laval dans la ville de Québec au Canada en fait. Je me suis reculé de ça, mais c'est principalement parce-que je suis nouveau que je ne savais pas le truc que les infos contestés devraient inclure un consensus... penses tu pouvoir m'aider à faire enlever les infos publiques sur mon kick? Je comprends pas ce qui vient de se passer la... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Zut... 4 régions francophones dans le monde et j'ai oublié le Québec ! Shame on me...

Oui, je peux t'aider. Pour faire enlever ce log, il suffit que tu écrives à Boing! maintenant que tu t'es énervé mais que tu t'excuses et que tu acceptes sa décision. Rien de plus. Ensuite, à l'issue de ton blocage, tu peux aller sur sa pdd et lui expliquer calmement que tu as bien compris que tu étais dans ton tort, qu'à ta décharge tu n'avais pas compris ce règlement, et que tu as de toute manière décidé de ne plus éditer ces articles sur le covid et que tu apprécierais s'il pouvait retirer le log en question. Il pourrait être sympa et le faire. Ce n'est pas garanti mais c'est probable. Par contre, toute contestation vigoureuse n'aboutira pas.

Je comprends que c'est très frustrant et que tu dois ressentir de l'injustice, mais il n'y a nulle autre méthode...

Il faut aussi relativiser. Même Jimbo Wales a eu ses logs ;-)

RadXman (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And that has all been done, with the sanctions log amended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RadXman: Merci beaucoup tout le monde. Et en passant c'est cool que tu aies écrit sur ma page, as tu envie de m'aider à améliorer la page de l'inspection industrielle? J'ai enlevé plusieurs trucs, mais je crois qu'il y a d'autres choses à enlever qui n'ont pas vraiment rapport, comme la longue discussion sur les radioisotopes... Ça devrait être inclus mais pas avec autant de détails chimiques selon moi... Ils sont utilisés comme une source de radiation, rien de plus et les gens dans l'industrie n'ont pas vraiment besoin de savoir les détails sur ça, puisqu'ils existent sûrement ailleurs. Il faudrait faire référence à ces autres pages par contre. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Avec plaisir.

Je suis d'accord avec toi que la partie sur les isotopes est sur-dimensionnée relativement au reste et qu'elle devrait être réduite.

Je pense que c'est parce qu'en RT portable, la grande majorité travaille avec de l'Ir ou du Se plutôt que des X.

Je contribuerai avec plaisir. Comme tu t'en doutes, les rayons-X sont un domaine que je connais. Mais je n'ai pas trop de temps.

S'il y a des questions ponctuelles (ou un conflit pour lequel un consensus est nécessaire), n'hésite pas à me laisser un message.

Je contribue nettement plus sur wp:fr que sur wp:en.

I think that we should go bo to English so that everybody can understand what we write, in particular if it concerns articles.

RadXman (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RadXman: Yes it's true that for portable inspection solutions the natural sources are more convenient. But it seemed to me like all those cabinet machines buzzing about in different factories where being overlooked. And man there's TONS of stuff I can talk about on that subject XD. That's my field. I do not have experience with natural sources other than knowing about them and seeing them in action someplace. That's why I didn't want to remove too much about that subject and I left the chemical property stuff there, because I can't perfectly tell if it's really relevant. Thanks again for your comments! Happy editing :-)

Deleting my comment is fine, moving it is not

You are within your rights to delete comments from your Talk page. You are NOT within your rights to move comments, i.e, MY comment, to another place. Please go to Talk: Industrial radiography and delete the content from there. Another example, because it appears you need examples: Suppose you comment on an article's or editor's Talk page, and then decide you want to amend what you have written. That is fine as long as no one has subsequently commented. Once there is a follow-on comment, you can add a new comment after that, but revising or deleting you comment is no longer permitted. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An overview of generally acceptable practices can be found at WP:TALK. I hope PhysiqueUL09 doesn't mind me butting in. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Please point to me where you said that moving it was not fine:
"With certain exceptions, editors are free to delete content from being visible on their Talk pages (it will still be accessible via View history). Some editors leave everything, others delete everything, and some move older stuff to an archive of their Talk page." Btw I just deleted your comments as per your request. I would like you to be more specific next time you want to help. And please don't use this "because it appears you need examples" kind of rhetoric here, I found hints of paternalism in this sentence, but then again I assume it was in good faith to help me. Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "National_People%27s_Congress_Decision_on_Hong_Kong_national_security_legislation".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

NPA

You have resorted to a textbook personal attack (see item 3 Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views). Pinging MarkH21 on this one. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Oh, sorry, it was unintentional. I changed it now, so that it is not directed towards you. Sorry. May I suggest you look at WP:CAN Before inviting someone that actively writes in your talk page? Thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That it is "unintentional" is equally revealing, as if it were an innate response. Trying to avoid NPA classification by Not directed towards you by using the pronoun while leaving the rest of the post intact is cutting corners.

You ought to read WP:TPG in its entirety, not selectively quote from it. In particular, early on in WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I'm not done yet, saying "That it is "unintentional" is equally revealing, as if it were an innate response" doesn't agree with WP:AGF. Every word you write in here, the revert on your page without discussion, you calling people extremists and terrorists earlier, EVERYTHING seems to be intended to harm. I am done with assuming good faith now, to me, you are doing it all out of bad faith and I hope you meet someone more experienced than me someday to correct your behaviour. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Please, can you help me find a way to rephrase it so that it becomes relevant to the discussion? I am not saying this was your case, I simply wanted to convey the message that the arguments you have proposed during your WP:BLPTALK issue might have come from news that are related to [1]. It's not you that I tried to dismiss here, but your arguments that seem to come from disinformation. Or maybe it is not right to use this kind of language, I would refer to someone that has more experience in WP politics though. I really don't know how to say it properly, but I believe you know what I mean, care to help? I truly believe that here you need to WP:AGF because I learned from my past experiences and I try to apply WP policies accordingly. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I removed the earlier part because it is irrelevant to the discussion here, you are accusing me of NPA, what I did before has nothing to do with it. You are not to judge my unintential action based on what has been said before, I will remove it again and if you revert it again I will ask for help from an administrator. Thank you PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I removed perfectly in accordance with WP:TPO, because using past references to offenses is a personnal attack, see quote here from WP:TPO: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism." I found your inclusion of past references was harmful, so I removed it. It is perfectly compliant with WP:TPO. Thank you PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: And since you seem to accuse me of spamming, I will do exactly that on my page. Removing what you added first was perfectly compliant with WP:RPA, since it's in my talk page. Please refrain from any other aggressive behaviour, you have been warned now a couple of times and I left a note on your talk page, the next step is administration. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I WP:DROPTHESTICK now. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Great Wikipedia articles

Woah, it takes a lot of guts to do that! I just learned about it! Shuping Yang commencement speech controversy PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a nice tool! Geant4 PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PhysiqueUL09! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, I need help, I am getting confused about what is happening :-(, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&curid=62933053&diff=960899944&oldid=960887905 Doug Weller talk 15:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I will stop for now, thanks. I still think that the discussion regarding the origin of the virus has its place in there. I don't think that the origin of the virus meets the WP:MEDRS criteria for reliable sources. Looking at WP:Biomedical information it seems to me that the origin of the virus in the case of the WIV probably belongs in the (Society and culture/Legal Issues/Medical ethics) type of information and is therefore not bound by MEDRS. Also by looking at WP:RS, the Nikolai Petrovsky[2] interview probably belongs in WP:RS/AC or at least WP:RSOPINION. I will wait for your clear explanation as to why you are bumping me from the talk page. From my current interpretation of things, it seems unjustified. You did not reference any specific policy or guideline and sent me on wild goose chase in WP:PG. I believe I found in WP:FORUM "discuss how to improve articles". That's exactly what, in my opinion, I was doing. I genuinely think that the WIV leak theory should be cited somewhere in there as "not to rule out" with the relevant quotes of scientists and because "not to rule out because we don't know" is pretty much basic common sense. I believe this to be a case of WP:STONEWALLING for 1.Ignoring good faith questions, 2.Manipulating an admin into helping 3.Unreasonable sourcing demands and a good quote: "For example, biomedical information in an article about a chemical substance or a form of alternative medicine requires sources that satisfy the high standard of WP:MEDRS. Some editors try to prevent the inclusion of information on non-medical aspects such as history, statistics or legality by insisting that only medical publications, or even only medical reviews, can be used in the article.". In light of all this I would require information on possible appeals to your decision, Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WIV evidence

That was an interesting video, particularly the part about how two related viruses could, if put together in the lab, either in an animal or in a petri dish, interact with each other to produce a third virus that would still be natural and would show no indications of having been influenced by humans.

Did you see the story about the Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, saying not just the he thinks the virus escaped from the lab but that it was man-made? That was surprising. Of course nothing from that publication would be allowed into a Wikipedia article, but a mention of this is already in the Richard Dearlove article, referenced by this article which supplies a reference to this peer-reviewed study, the thrust of which I have been so far unable to grasp except that it claims to have identified "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface." I have no idea how robust this finding is. Can you decipher any of it?

I was under the impression that such manipulation has already been ruled out by numerous experts in this area saying that any man-made components of a virus would stand out. However it is clear that many of the scientists arguing against the possibility of any accidental release from the WIV have extensive relationships with the WIV, or with members of that community, and have much to lose if scientific collaboration with the Chinese is curtailed in any way – people like Peter Daszak and anybody connected with EcoHealth Alliance in particular. In addition, if it is shown that this virus did leak from a lab then all scientists in this area are likely to have their activities significantly curtailed. Then we have Jonna Mazet, director of PREDICT, which trained the scientists at the WIV. What’s she supposed to say, that oh well we must have screwed up in our security training?

The bottom line for me relates to the legal doctrine of Consciousness of guilt. Why the refusal to cooperate? Why was China forbidding an investigation into the origins of the virus? Why did they go in and take some kind of action at the WIV (if they did) to clean things up or destroy evidence? It actually could be something as simple as a concern on their part that the WIV would be unfairly blamed, kind of like the innocent person who finds the murder weapon and buries it because he’s afraid he will be blamed, and is discovered in the process. I think there will be more shoes to drop. Whether the U.S. government releases whatever they have is the big unknown. As soon as they do they lose that avenue of spying on China, and would anything be accomplished by it anyway? Whatever evidence it is, China will deny it and claim that it was manufactured.

Here's an interesting collection of information if you have not already seen it. — Swood100 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: Oh wow, that's a lot of information. I am at work right now but I will try to decipher the article you mentionned. I am not an expert in biology, but as a physicist I know where to look for information and have access to pay-walled research papers. I think what happened in the WIV talk page is a clear case of WP:STONEWALLING, you can look at my response to us being bumped out of WIV talks up there. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Friendly warning

When I unblocked you on 21 May, it was after your agreement to avoid Covid-19 subjects. Now, the unblock was not actually conditional on that, so I'm not going to issue any sanctions based on the fact that you changed your mind and have been active in that area. However, I am disappinted to see that you have been very actively pursuing a fringe subject (the allegations of a lab origin for the virus), against the balance of reliable sources. You have been doing this using primary sources, and even preprints which are expressly forbidden for use in Covid-19 articles. You have even been editing warring over it, and accusing other people of vandalism - people who are merely trying to uphold our requirement for reliable sources. And it's not just MEDRS, you have been arguing for non-reliable sources (as per WP:RS) in a persistent manner, verging on the tendentious.

While I was investigating this, I see you made a report at WP:ANI. As a result of that report, you have been warned that you are close to a topic ban from Covid-19 subjects. I also see that you have agreed to drop the stick, which is a positive step. Going forward, please remember that Wikipedia is not supposed to be at the leading edge of research, develpment, speculation, theorising etc. That is by design. Wikipedia does, and should, lag behind current speculation and investigation. We are only interested in the balance of what reliable sources say (and in the case of Covid-19 subjects, that's almost entirely WP:MEDRS, certainly WP:RS, and no primary sources, no preprints). We're also not interested in the opinions or interpretations of individual editors, as we ourselves are not reliable sources. This comment by JoelleJay sums it up very well, and I recommend you take it to heart.

I do note your statement on your user page, "I suffer from this, it will sometimes make me seem very intense". I know what that's like, having seen a family member aflicted with it for decades. I also note your request "Please take the time to advise me, or tell me to slow down if you ever feel I am being too intense". I will also bear that in mind. But, and this might seem cruel (and if it does, it's unintentional), if you suffer from a condition that makes it difficult to moderate your behaviour sometimes, you can't really expect everyone else to try to do it for you.

So, to conclude, you do need to be aware that if you are involved in any further disruption (even unintended disruption), you will very likely end up with a topic ban. I hope this all makes sense, and I thank you for listening and understanding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll add that I've just read the discussion at User talk:Cullen328#I don't understand WP/I need help, and it looks very positive to me. Jim (Cullen328) is one of our most understanding and caring contributors, and he's been explaining the situation far better than my clumsy attempt here on this page. I strongly second his suggestion to keep away from subjects were you feel an emotional attachment. I have very strong opinions on a number of subjects, but I hope nobody can tell from my Wikipedia contribitions as I consciously keep away from editing on those subjects. Anyway, my talk page is always open if I can help (though I'll never be as good as Jim at this kind of discussion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you very much for this. I realized now that I was having a fixation on this. It affected my perception of the discussion I was having with the other users. To be very transparent with you and to show you that I realized it, I want to say that even though I was trying to hide it in order to avoid sanctions I was starting to feel like people were trying to silence me. I know that it is a very dangerous perception to have in WP. I'm sorry... I think it might have been caused by what appeared to me a bad faithed interaction I had on another subject I wrote about. Thank you again and I hope this will clear things up. Since I still want to help the encyclopedia grow on those particular subjects, If I find a candidate MEDRS reference, I will post it on RSN and also ask you or the other admins that offered help for advice on your/their user talk pages before having any discussion on this subject. I think that it is a proper course of action that will still permit me to help and at the same time protect me from my own behavior. Do you think this is appropriate? Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have some content you want to add to a Covid-19 article and you have a source for it, I'd suggest just asking on the article talk page. Alternatively, you could spend a little time working on less emotive subjects for a while, to help you get into the Wikipedia way of things. After all, we're not short of people writing about Covid-19 ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, I've been working on the radiation safety aspects of Industrial radiography lately. It's still a very important subject for me, but I have the right background to make it happen properly. I started my day job back now in that subject. This will probably naturally make me less interested in covid as my normal life is getting back on track. I'm getting tired of all the nonsense that's happening because of this. Thank you for your understanding. Feynstein (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lynching Dispute

Personally, I think that the IP editor was a troll, and was trying to cause argument, and that any way of getting the dispute closed is probably reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Well I found them pretty articulated for a troll, but anyway, I'll be closing the dispute, thanks! Feynstein (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Some trolls are like that. That makes them more effective because they are taken seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for moderating in the 'PodShare' dispute. Although I'm far from new to either writing or coding, I'm still learning some of the code of conduct on Wikipedia. I don't see how, in this instance, discussion could have continued on the Talk page when the other party was not open to a dialogue? Is there an intermediary step between an edit dispute and raising a ticket that I don't know about? Thanks again. Zedembee (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zedembee: My pleasure. The real first step is obviously the talk page, then comes the DRN if a concensus cannot be reached. This is my understanding of things. Other than that, I'm not very familiar with the other noticeboards. But maybe posting it on WP:NPOVN is a good idea in order to clear out the NPOV allegations. Feynstein (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Truly appreciate your guidance. Thanks again and have a good one. Zedembee (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DRN first comment template

Try to keep it clear and concise, and try to bring one issue at a time. The issues should be stated in a single question for clarity. Try to agree on which questions to address and in what order. Please discuss the content and avoid shooting the messenger. Please be aware of the the rules and refer to them if you are unsure. I would prefer it if you used the subsections I will be providing for your discussions. If it gets too much into a back a forth discussion please stop and wait for me to assess the current messages. I am not an expert in the field and I don't pretend to be one, so I will need your help for explanations on more particular concepts I might not be aware of. For now, can everyone involved write a short opening statement including any recent development. Try to keep the relevant discussions here, it will make everyone's life easier until we can find a solution. Feynstein (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

I noticed your comments on the talk page of WIV from last year, which partly inspired me to take up the argument there 1, 2, 3, and also the Misinformation page (here), and there is also this long post on WP:RS/N, but I've since been topic banned from COVID-19 altogether (for WP:NPA). The problem on the WIV page is that there are a bunch of "debunker" type editors on Wikipedia who usually enjoy spending their time swatting away 9/11 truthers and Roswell peddlers, who find that subject of my topic ban to provide the stimulation of a new challenge. I've since created a few new articles, such as gain of function research, Laboratory-acquired infection and List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity, which will educate readers more about biosecurity and public health concerns. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: Yes, and they're "mostly" the exact same people from last year. I had to move away from the topic as I was doing this during our hard lockdown and it was very bad for my mental health to be in that subject too much. Plus when you're a scientist, being dismissed as fringe makes you take a deep look into your own personal biases. I'm used to digging into science litterature and I felt the first papers were bogus when they dismissed the lab leak as conspiracy theory. I'm not a bio expert but I can see when scientists use a certain type of "too assertive" language and drop the descriptive tone. I came across the BBC, AP articles and opinion pieces of more and more scientists article recently and I thought it should at least not be phrased as a conspiracy in here. I was really shocked to see it was still phrased that way. That's why I intervened. I'm pretty confident the paper I gave them is MEDRS but I don't want to get into that fight all over again. Well maybe I will, I don't know. One thing I learned though is you need to be detached af. I couldn't help myself on that comment I just made but I'll revert back to neutral if it leads somewhere and if I feel like doing stuff again. Thanks for your message Feynstein (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Feynstein, I did actually provide that paper as MEDRS, along with two other peer-reviewed studies, which you can find in one of the conversations linked above, and Forich also did a very thorough analysis of all MEDPOP and MEDRS sources, which did not establish a consensus. Before engaging any further, I'd ask you to read the above conversations, though I wouldn't want it to take any toll on your mental health. I would also encourage you to read this article, which describes how active editors are taking advantage of the 1% rule to become the gatekeepers of Wikipedia, so that it is no longer the Encylopedia that "anyone" can edit. One thing that has become really clear to me now after many years of being away from Wikipedia is that WP:BITE is no longer a policy that experienced editors adhere to, or admins enforce. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: Do you have a link to the exact place where you referenced the article I cited? I can't seem to find it easily on my phone, I'd like to see what they said about it. Without blaming anyone directly, the general rhetoric didn't change and feels familiar. Feynstein (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Feynstein, the Segreto Deigin paper was first cited by another editor called Dinglelingy, at the bottom of a conversation just above the first of two breaks, here. He provided three MEDRS sources in all, the second of which was the Sirotkin/s paper, the third being David Relman piece in PNAS, and they were all brushed away (this paper would make for a better third MEDRS source, though the Relman piece is by far the best MEDPOP source, as he is a highly respected scientist and he chaired a NASEM study for the USDOS on Havana syndrome, which remains classified). I provided the paper again lower down in the discussion, but it was brushed away again, while 32920565 and 32945405 were brought in to support their POV, and provided as sources to keep the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: I added a comment after reading the discussions. I've read your discussions and got, as I expected, very angry at the outcome. Especially the arbitrary PubMed criteria, which has no basis in WP policy whatsoever. Hence I consider this whole thing as WP:STONEWALL. People are bad faithed to the bone and the same actors as last spring show up with the same rigid and admin power backed rhetoric. This is shameful. I hope Wikipedia will change when this is over. Feynstein (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The truth is if you look at other certain other editors contributions to Wikipedia, there is no doubt that they have created a lot of value for our readers; especially for those who fall for all sorts of fads in the murky realm of alternative medicine, but this does not permit them to act in the way he does with new or returning editors like us. As you can see from my first post on the topic I am now banned from, certain editors immediately rubbished a select number of sources that obviously didn't meet WP:RS (referencing The Daily Mail is a pretty common noob mistake), while ignoring other reliable sources provided (like Boston Magazine and New York Magazine, which alas were also rubbished, for their authorship), which then brought on a discussion on content and policy, which inevitably turned into a wall of text that very few uninvolved admins could reasonably be expected to read. As it stands now, the two PubMed sources that certain editors has determined to be WP:BESTSOURCES, based on their very own interpretation of them (demonstrated through some choice quotes), were proclaimed through consensus (based on something called WP:CLUE) to settle the matter. I don't think the wall of stones you mention will hold up for very long, as there are numerous reliable sources that are increasingly covering the topic, and they are getting more intricate and detailed in their reporting (most importantly differentiating allegations of bioweapons from gain of function research). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: I'd prefer if you not name editors directly on my talk page. Can you redact them please? The rest is ok. I have no problem with talking about the general attitude, but naming people is somewhere I don't go because we're on the internet after all and other people's mind is opaque to us. I will read the rest though, thanks! Feynstein (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I got pinged above and now this this appalling discussion, and the WP:PROFRINGE activity resumed at the WIV article. I would support further admin action to put a stop to this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I asked to remove said ping but you decided to show up anyway. This discussion is absolutely not of your business and should not interfere with what's being discussed on the other talk page. This is outrageous. Who do you think you are to bully me like that on my talk page when I had respectful discussions? If this[3] is profringe then I'm guilty as charged. Now shoo and go bully someone who can't respond to you. Or someone who actually thinks you have any credibility in science stuff. Feynstein (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but discussions mentioning me and peddling untruths very much are my business. Note that ScrupulousScribe is now blocked for TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: This discussion doesn't mention you anymore, I made sure of it because I'm against bullying, which is what YOU tried to do right now right here. And this is unacceptable. Did you actually look at that wall street journal article I sent you? Are you blind? How can you really consider this an untruth at this point? You know what, don't answer. You're clearly Stonewalling that subject and you're not doing any good by doing that. You know that. You go look at my contributions and you check the references I use, to the page, and see if I'm the kind of person who believes in stupid conspiracy theories. Good Bye. Feynstein (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a serious project. For specifically SCI/MED topics we use serious sources, not journalism. Editors could produce any number of articles from newspapers to "show" that it was an open question how JFK was assassinated; for serious history books on the other hand, the matter is closed. Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I KNOW THAT. I was addressing your accusation of me being profringe HERE, which is appalling considering even the WSJ talks about it. If you'd notice I only talked about one peer reviewed article on the WIV talk page. I looked at the author, I went on her Research Gate and she is legit [4]. Her paper was even cited twice. Stonewalling this paper is bad for our viewers and you're part of it. We're not talking about JFK, we're talking about a the pileup of circumstancial evidence of a lab leak not even a year ago in a totalitarian police state and one peer reviewed paper that is probably one of many more to come. Feynstein (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak is a WP:FRINGE theory covered by Wikipedia's guidance on such kinds of topic. Why are you singling out a primary source when we have several review articles and statements from major medical bodies on the matter? NPOV directs us to use the best sources, not select outliers. Anyway, Wikipedia is covering the topic adequately at the moment so if indeed new sources emerge, and they're of sufficient quality, then Wikipedia can follow. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Your categorization of fringe is faulty. By definition something peer reviewed in a decent journal cannot be fringe. Fringe science is rejected outright by the editor, doesn't even go into the double blind review process. I'm singling out this one because on your side there are only two articles that meet your own définition of MEDRS. Yes, your own because the PubMed part is bollocks and arbitrary. If I use your logic nothing else counts so you can flush out the statements, not MEDRS. You're only left with a handful of articles and one that goes against that is legit as can be. It should be included at least with a statement saying it's not a "mainstream" view in the littérature at the moment. Because there would at least not be cognitive dissonance between what our readers see in the mainstream news like the BBC and what they see in here. There are actual scientists who still think it's too shady that it emerged "poof" like that zoonitically in the middle of a 11 million people city. I'm getting really tired now I'm starting to think in French. I'll get back to you with this tomorrow. But believe you me we're looking like it's the CCP's ministry of truth that's editing this thing. Feynstein (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And NPOV actually tells you to add this source as it's crédible and balances the viewpoints. You guys are simply Stonewalling at this point. I don't know why, but dismissing this source is malhonnête. Feynstein (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What rubbish! There's loads - and a growing pile - of peer-reviewed stuff that is fringe. Even a whole journal devoted to homeopathy. No doubt many people, who believe in homeopathy, have cognitive dissonance when they read our Wikipedia article. We don't do the kind of "balance" you're advocating. It's deeply ironic you're invoking BITE when it's you who has been personalizing the conversation, nearly as much as ScrupulousScribe, who has even been sanctioned for their personal attacks! Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Quote me where I made that discussion about you. I'm not attacking anyone personally, I'm saying the general mood in this particular page is Stonewalling. And, for your information, even if it's nonsense, homeopathy deserves a place here. I don't like Homeopathy as much as the next scientist, but if you're gonna do it, you gotta do it right and quote their literature. Do you think homeopathy should be removed from Wikipedia, is that what's your telling me here? Newsflash, people are still gonna do it and it's still going to help people with its placebo effect. Litterature on this is clear. So people are going to end up here looking for information and we're the ones that have to report it as much as their litterature does. Who are you to gatekeep these things? You're actually cornering yourself right now, we have an actual peer reviewed paper on a controversial topic and you guys are gate keeping it from appearing here. This is pure bad faith as if we're going to make our pages neutral we better make sure to show ALL credible sources in their appropriate context. This is why it's clearly Stonewalling. I don't see any other explanation for it. You guys moving the goalposts arbitrarily as you go. This is shameful and borderline narrative control. We know how the CCP works and we know they're probably doing PRECISELY that as we speak. The BBC journalists being roadblocked is one evidence of such narrative control. If you want to get in on their propaganda I don't care it's your choice, I'm not, and I'm calling the lot of you out. Feynstein (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a WP:GA on homeopathy, which conforms to the relevant WP:PAGs - you should read them sometime. Anyway, since it's clear you want to take the path of assuming bad faith, I am going to disengage and leave you to your conspiracies. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Stonewalling can be done in very good faith, you should read up on it, I quoted it multiple times. I'm trying to show you how your point of view is locked on your own suppositions and how this is affecting our readers. If you're assuming that I do it in bad faith, then it's your own problem and I can't change your mind. However I would ask you to be respectful as this is not a conspiracy. The bio-weapon theory is more akin to a conspiracy theory than the lab leak hypothesis. You're denying a whole bunch of mainstream articles that are saying it's a credible outcome, and many reputable scientists in that field. And when there's even one peer-reviewed paper about it you're brushing it off. Look at yourself in the mirror before acusing someone of assuming bad faith. Feynstein (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And btw, quoting WP:PAG is typical of someone who engages in stonewalling. Until you realize you're helping to shape a narrative you'll steer your mind into a wall, made of stone obviously ;-) Feynstein (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Congrats, I'm pissed off now. I understand why ScrupulousScribe got angry too. The atmosphere around this topis is as bad as when Donald Trump talked about it last year, even with all the mainstream sources talking about it now. I will take a step back to make sure I don't write anything that would be considered as crossing policy guidelines, but I've got my eyes on this topic and I will be bringing this up. You're being VERY disrespectful telling a nuclear physicist he's a conspiracy theorist. I hope you realize that. Feynstein (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: can you clarify your position on PubMed? Are you aware of this paper - [5]? I would be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcturus: It's the paper I proposed as a basis to change the "conspiracy theory" language and apply it only to the bioweapon narrative and add a small place for the lab leak hypothesis. I didn't know it was on pubmed, I found it on Wiley's. Interesting. I'm pretty sure @Alexbrn: is perfectly aware he's playing into his confirmation bias at this point. And that's why we need to call out the WP:STONEWALLING that's happening on this subject. It's really outreageous to have a solid, peer-reviewed paper that's being discredited by some Ph.D. in Litterature over who wrote it instead of its contents. It's shameful for wikipedia, really. I don't think I have time to do this anymore at this point but did any of you guys try to ask WP:RSN what they tought about it? Looking at how people are protecting China Daily at the moment it seems unlikely they're going to accept it. They're probably use sophistry like the guys over at WIV page to come up with a reason to discard it. Feynstein (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: Yes, to me it looks like a source that could be - should be - used in the WIV article. I don't particularly care if it's RS or MEDRS. To try and differentiate between the two as a basis for inclusion in that type of article is coming too close to gaming the system, on which, surprise, surprise, there is a policy. Your description of stonewalling and gatekeeping are quite apt. It's exactly what's happening. Unfortunately, with sanctions in place it's very difficult to make progress. The "gatekeepers" can always revert, and subsequent reverts are then in breach of the sanctions. I really don't know how progress can be made. Every source, no matter how authentic and reputable, will be rejected by them on some cooked-up basis. I'm not sure about what's been put on RSN; I'll check. Incidentally; I do like the term "(software development) gatekeeper"; it's my job title :) Arcturus (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcturus: Yes and that's why there needs to be some people organizing into uncovering those shady practices by some editors. I'm trying to put forth reasonable points to some editors which who I discussed last year and remind them of what they told me at the time, that credible, peer-reviewed papers would be included. And that's why I came back with a good ol' TOLD YOU SO vengeance haha. There is a discussion up in my talk page where an admin specifically told me that if I had such sources it would be okay to include them. Feynstein (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I seem to recall that the MEDRS requirement came out of concensus or something. Maybe on the Covid19 general page. I guess early on it was useful to fend off real consipracies, but right now the lab leak hypothesis has emerged into very mainstream publications. The scientist they call "Batwoman" came out saying the virus came from outside China, which basically torpedoed her reputation. Feynstein (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

The discussion at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology appears to be getting a little heated, but please resist the desire to remove one editor's "attack" while posting an attack of your own. Generally, it is a very bad idea for a participant in an argument to decide to police their opponents' arguments. If you feel there is sufficient unpleasantry to warrant the removal of comments, please report it at WP:ANI and let an uninvolved third party make the decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I mean you should not remove other people's comments at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: His comment was clearly uncalled for and as per WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" I belive I'm in my right to do precisely so. Feynstein (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Maybe you could act as an admin and take action against this editor. As a scientist what he just did comparing me to flat earther nut jobs is VERY insulting. I hope you resolve this issue, I don't want to get into WP:ANI, I don't have time to do that, I explicitely said I was dropping the stick, again, even with a peer-reviewed paper. This is stupid. Feynstein (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And you guys actually wonder why there's a toxic climate in here ?!?!?! This is STUPID, stupid stupid stupid. I'm done. Cya. Feynstein (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I think the best thing would be for everyone to just go and do something more fun for a while. I, for example, am going to go for a walk in the park as it's an unusually nice day here today. But if you do think you need some admin action, I'll have to ask you to ask someone else (eg at ANI) as I'm keeping away from admin action myself for a little while - my availability is intermittent right now, and I might not be available for any WP:ADMINACCT follow-up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: OH YEAH OF F***ING COURSE YOU"RE BLOCKING ME. F*** THAT I'M F***KING DONE Feynstein (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Excellent suggestion. Ignoring that page is wonderfully invigorating! I enjoyed a nice bike ride today and didn't think about Wuhan once. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You guys really want me to fall into personal attacks don't you, you're purposefully stocking the fire here. I think you're both abusing the fact I'm bipolar at this point especially you Alexbrn. I won't fall into your traps. In 31 hours i'll report this stuff and be done with you lot. Feynstein (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea you were bipolar, so I couldn't possibly have been abusing that fact. Oh, and for what it's worth, I was making a genuine suggestion - I've always found it beneficial to walk away from an argument and enjoy something else for a while. (And I really am going for my walk now...) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Same goes for me. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist, I simply don't adhere to a narrative that's being pushed by a disinformation/propaganda driven totalitarian police state. I've seen the papers at the start of the pandemic they were being too assertive about the origin too early not to draw any suspicion. And now we're what, like a year later and NO ONE has found a zoonotic trace anywhere. Viruses don't simply pop up into existence in the middle of a 11M people city where wildlife is limited. I think it should be clear to anyone at this point that there's a lot of shady stuff going on in China. But eh, I only have a M.Sc. in engineering what do I know about anything scientific compared to a Ph.D. in english. Feynstein (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, returning to this topic is beginning to dispel the warm glow from my bike ride. Look, Feynstein, an issue here is that you keep moving the discussion in the sphere of the personal, rather than concentrating on sources/content. In Wikipedia "disputes", sources are all. If you don't know it already, I strongly suggest sticking to Graham's hierarchy as a way to keep interactions productive and enjoyable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It's bound to happen when everyone is dismissing a peer-reviewed paper as non MEDRS based on stupid subjective views about the authors. This fringe label you're giving it is unwarranted. Of course it's probably a minority view, but it's clearly not fringe. I'm not talking about bioweapons here. It's just so stupid that some people have taken advantage of a clearly plausible hypothesis to push real conspiracy theories. The papers you guys are referring to dismiss it are using VERY assertive language about the origin. When you're actually reading scientific litterature it's something you recognize immediately and insitnctively find very shady. We're in the middle of a Replication crisis exactly in those fields, if you're not aware. I have a very hard time believing anything "too" mainstream in biology. You should be aware of that before giving undue weight to shady papers like that. Especially if there's a shutdown of counterflow narratives by big guys in the field. The "cancel culture" on this particular topic that's too young to warrant it is proof enough for me that something fishy is going on. It's nothing like climate change where it's been studied since the 70's. Covid papers keep changing all the time, even now. The fact that the disease is airborne was only found last summer, making everyone change their mask policies. You guys are too strongly holding a view that's too young and wasn't even confirmed. Btw Boing! said ZebedeeI cooled off now, I'm sorry. It's really not that easy being this way. If my employer wasn't so understanding I probably wouldn't be able to hold any job. They know to leave me alone to cool off and that it takes about 15 minutes to achieve. Sorry again. Feynstein (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To address the two relevant points there seemed to be in that:

• Peer-review does not grant a source MEDRS status. Maybe see WP:MEDFAQ for some informal guidance on this.
• In Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is "used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Your assertion that is "clearly" otherwise therefore seems wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Can I suggest that it's not productive for you to continue with this argument here? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: Just thought I'd let you know that I have personal experience with bipolar disorder, with a close family member who suffered over a long period of time (often quite badly and for prolongued bouts). So, and I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing (cos it's hard to get the tone right in online conversation), I just want you to know that I understand (well, sort of, to the extent a non-sufferer can anyway). And after what you just said, I have unblocked you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Well since it's with this particular editor that it seems to be stuck with the most and that I can't edit the talk page anymore, I'd like to continue the discussion here. I took it too personally because I have a hard time facing this fringe criticism which I perceived as an attack on me as a conspiracy theorist or something, I know it's not optimal but I can't help it because of my condition. I'm in an hypomanic phase in a 10-11 months period approximately. Last time was in march-april 2020. I recognized it now, thankfully, I think I'll be able to counter it going forward. Feynstein (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oh, I just saw your last comment, thank you. I'm sorry again. Feynstein (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it's all good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: We seem to be well and truly up against the buffers with the WIV article. A small, but determined, group of stone-wallers are preventing any further development unless it meets their POV. As mentioned, they can always revert on sight anything they don't like, and any counter-revert is then against policy, especially when articles are under general sanctions. No argument will win with them, however valid it might be. This is abundantly clear from the way the debate has unfolded. I think a new approach is needed. This should involve taking the dispute to relevant noticeboards. In the first instance this would be the RS Noticeboard, and maybe then the NPOV Noticeboard (I currently have an entry there for Great Barrington Declaration, but progress does appear to be slow). Entries on these noticeboards can pull in significant numbers of disinterested editors. What do you think? Arcturus (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcturus: I think we should try it, I don't really have the time or will to file it myself to those noticeboards, but I am more than willing to contribute. I'm pretty sure though that it will end up in a vote and the article will be rejected. It is very much in the grey space between primary and secondary source, as it criticises papers based on a reading of their data. But the fact that the accidental lab release hypothesis is not mentionned even once is kinda weird. (Alexbrn should read this sentence) Because on one end they use non-MEDRS sources to talk about "conspiracy theories" regarding the institute and the origin and the virus, but MEDRS sources are required to unpack this sentence into something that could resemble more of a NPOV regarding the simple accidental leak hypothesis. There's clearly a stonewall that has been created around this topic, for god knows what reason. I got a hint while talking over there that some editors are akin to believing the CCP's own conspiracy theory about imported foods, which batwoman has also pushed. Making in my own view all of her papers concerning the origin unusable. I can't believe they believe a narrative made up by unconfirmed claims from a totalitarian regime. I really can't make my own mind about it. Feynstein (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK, as you insist on forcing my hand, I have taken administrative action. I have advised you on how to resolve your conflict, but if you ignore the way we do things here and carry on escalating, the outcome is inevitable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and in case of WP:ADMINACCT, any other admin is free to modify or reverse my action at their own judgment, without needing to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: And I'm blocked from posting on ANI about your UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS, how convenient Feynstein (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have modified your block so that it only affects Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. You are free to edit anywhere else, and to post at ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Caution

Since May 2020 you have made 22 edits at Wuhan Institute of Virology and 213 edits at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and very little else that I can see. I have not studied your edits or comments but it is apparent that there is some confusion about how articles like this work. Everyone has an opinion on the origins of covid but no one has any evidence beyond what can be inferred from examining the virus (and genetic evidence will never offer a unversally accepted finding). Some opinions would be better based than others, and it is likely that one of the opinions is correct—although it is vanishingly unlikely that there will ever be consensus regarding what really happened. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia means articles must be conservative in what they state. New editors are often impatient to tell the world what might have happened but in a world of fake news that would mean amplifying opinions and confirming suggestions that gullible readers have picked up elsewhere (people usually absorb what aligns with their world view, and filter out what clashes). That is why discussing possibilities must end soon.

If you have a specific proposal regarding the article, based on reliable sources, please start a new section at the talk page and briefly state your view about what text should be added or what should be removed. Add your sources with a brief explanation of why they are suitable. Then wait for opinions. If consensus supports the proposal, it will be made. If it doesn't, it won't. In either case, you should drastically cut down your participation regarding that topic because it is under discretionary sanctions and that means excessive arguing will be stopped by an uninvolved administrator such as myself. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Why am I being singled out? I did just what you said and created a section for one sentence I find problematic. Btw why do you point out my current focus? I want to do that right now, do I have to explain myself? There's probably no particular reason anyway. I don't want to push an explanation, I don't know what happened. But there are two peer reviewed papers that aren't considered and the wording around them is derogatory at best. I think there's WP:STONEWALLING around those papers and from what I found out a general misunderstanding of what constitutes virus construction. I'm not the only one raising legit questions. Plus, I like arguing about everything. I don't think I insulted anyone directly, or if I did I retracted it immediately. I'm like that, can't help it. It's called being bipolar 2 in an hypomania phase. I don't like how you phrased your warning but I'm willing to limit my interactions on this page to one reply per conversation with an editor, per day. How's that? Feynstein (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably end up being tired of arguing with them and going back to editing stuff around radiography soon anyway. Like I ended up doing in my last phase last year. It was pretty bad at that time, I actually had to talk to my psychiatrist about arguing all the time. I feel it's less so this year though. I'm already sick of it tbh. Feynstein (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been watching the article since it was mentioned at a noticeboard a month or two ago. On reviewing activity there I see what typically occurs in such a topic. There may well be others for whom my above comments would be appropriate but the number of your comments is double that of almost all other contributors (the two exceptions are a known-good and experienced editor, and someone who has now been topic banned). Excessive commenting can be disruptive as it soaks up the time and energy of experienced editors. If the article were moving forward, there would be no need for me to comment here but it appears there is ongoing disagreement. Accordingly it would be desirable to arrive at a solution, for example, what I said above or what you replied. Regarding Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 6#Problematic sentence: I don't know whether the sentence you highlighted should be removed due to problematic sourcing, but are you sure that it is not obviously true? I see a claim that the text is sourced, so why push for its removal? That is a rhetorical question for your contemplation—by all means reply but I don't want to discuss article content. Regarding the two papers you mention, please bear in mind that similar situations frequently arise at Wikipedia—many contested topics are covered in articles and people argue that a certain paper should be mentioned because it throws light on the issue. What they really mean is that it may throw light on the issue and in due course its findings may be widely accepted. Wikipedia's design means that such papers cannot be used because contributors have no way of judging (except with hindsight from secondary sources) what is substantive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: So are you ok with the solution I proposed with the one answer per discussion per day? I'm holding up answering to one reply I didn't adress. About that sentence what I want to do is unpack it in order to separate minority views/possible outcomes (accidental leak) and actual conspiracy theories (Bio engineered weapon). As I said, I don't think the "good" editor understand how it is possible to direct the evolution of a living thing like a virus, willingly or unwillingly without it being actual bio-engineering or "virus construction" in the nucleotide editing meaning of it. I noticed you do computer science, you probably know what I'm talking about if you're familiar with stochastic evolutionary - type algorithms were you simply let the system evolve and choose the best specimens for the next generation. This type of thing is possible with viruses and it wouldn't leave a visible trace into its DNA because it was guided/accelerated evolution. So my understanding of the situation over at that page is there is a profound misunderstanding of the secondary source-type MEDRS paper that (rightly) dismisses "virus construction" conspiracy theories. This misunderstanding would be that "virus construction" doesn't rule out the possibility of an accidental leak of a natural virus or one that has been passed around like I explained. The two peer reviewed papers I presented, the one MEDRS paper which clearly states "construction" as a basis for conspiracy territory and the BBC interview of Dr. Janey are all proofs of this profound misunderstanding between editors in my opinion. People conflate a minority view with conspiracy theorists. It means that even if I know I'm objectively not a conspiracy theorist in any sense of the term, other editors have been using this kind of rethoric against me. Which then irritates me in a very profound way, which then feed into my hypomania phase which then makes me argue uncontrollably. I just figured out the misunderstanding now and I think I'll trying to be shedding light on it with other editors as it is very strongly impeding progress on the page. Feynstein (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful responses and yes I am fine with your suggestion of one reply per conversation in a section per editor per day. Anything that stops you from being #1 on the frequency chart! I know enough about evolution to agree that artificial selection is a powerful force (I like this old revision of Introduction to evolution). However, you might be missing the point of my above comments. No one (with the possible exception of a small number of Chinese specialists) knows the origin of the virus. Various informed and uninformed opinions have been given but none of them are based on anything other than generic observations made a thousand miles from the possible source. That is why the information is not suitable for Wikipedia. Long-term editors have seen this dozens of times. Imagine you were interested in a topic where you had no expertise and you wanted to learn something about it. You have heard gossip in social media so you visit Wikipedia to see what an encyclopedia has to say. You have already heard [insert absurd idea here] and at Wikipedia you read that a couple of papers have been written and excerpts from those papers could be interpreted as supporting [absurd idea]. That will cement the idea in the heads of many readers. The consensus here is that such a result would be a bad outcome. The encyclopedia does not need to be entirely up to date—when something substantive comes to light and secondary sources support an idea, then it can be reported here. The fact that some claims are omitted, even if they might be vindicated later, is regarded as a feature, not a bug. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I totally agree with you, it's perfectly sensible that the encyclopedia works this way. I also totally agree that no one knows what happened and that even if there are people who know, their minds are opaque to the rest of the world. I tried to use those papers as a RS "wedge" into the global mood of the page. And I sincerely just realized the confusion around this. To be honest, the Covid 19 misinformation page actually got it right! That's what hinted me into it. Now that I know that, I'll be focusing on making that point clear so that the sentence can better reflect what is written at the covid19 misinformation page. I think it's the sensible way to go. Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate it. Sometimes when you're in the heat of an argument you forget the bigger picture and possible explanations as to why editors are replying to you in a certain way. I've actually learned more about editing from this interaction, thanks! Feynstein (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Oh and btw there's two brand new articles that came out today and yesterday from the Washington Post Opinions [6] and The Daily Telegraph's news pages [7]. The latter seems like it's more of investigation journalism rather than a opinion piece but nonetheless, editors have dismissed it on the merit of their authors. Again. I just wanted to tell you the kind of stuff I'm facing with this. All subjective nonsense tbh. Anyway. Feynstein (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: What do you think of what people are doing to me on WP:ANI? I'm getting lynched by an agry mob with dodgy arguments for pointing out someone who said that Stonewalling and baiting editors was fine. I'm starting to find it funny. This is all so stupid. No wonder articles are bad these days. Any time anyone has a legitimate point a group of editors having the same mindset and watching eachother's backs pileup on people until they either quit or get topic banned. The exact same tactic I reported lol. No one is seeing the irony? Feynstein (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is here at ANI. I just glanced at your contributions and it seems the claims of being a single-purpose account are correct. I took quite a bit of time to explain above that Wikipedia cannot record developments in some fields in any reasonable way. The origin of the covid virus will never be universally agreed. It is conceivable that in ten years from now that Western scientists will agree, with varying degrees of confidence, that the virus leaked from a lab. However, in 2021 that theory is just an anti-science talking point from people who want to distract from the problems associated with the bad response to the virus in countries like the US. Sure, there are papers from reputable people saying a lab leak is possible/likely/whatever, but it is simply impossible for them to know. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a bunch of SPAs who want to tell the world that the crazy political talking points have some substance. Sorry, that's not going to happen and you will have to tolerate the fact that if Wikipedia worked like that, a lot of junk information would be added to a variety of articles. That junk information would mislead readers. At any rate, whether you accept this or not, it is clear that you are too committed to the cause and are not in a good position to receive advice or to edit collaboratively. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You just confirmed my suspicions. This IS about Trump. God. There's no bad Covid response to hide up here. I'm freaking stuck in my appartement from 8pm to 5am because there's no freaking thing to say about our Covid response ok? It's called a curfew and ITS THE ABSOLUTE FKING WORST. If this really is about a bunch of angry Dems not wanting anything that Trump said to get here I understand the pushback now. Possible/likely wtv is reason enough for it to be documented. Especially with peer review. I have absolutely NO SKIN in this freaking game because you know what, I don't care about the US. I genuinely don't. And I could even care less about your stupid ex president. I care about science. I care about scientists/editors being bullied by people who think like that. That everything about it is a Trump talking point. God it's nice to know. I feel a freaking thousand pounds lighter. I'll leave you guys alone, there's no arguing with you when you're stuck in your politics. Feynstein (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's always about the US. Feynstein (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You always have to export your grievances everywhere. And now even Pfizer and Moderna are messing with us. We're dead last in the G7 vaccination campaign because the US can't respect their gdamn contractual obligations. That's why I'm still alone inside every night since January 8th. Seriously? And now you guys even want to export your politics in here? Yeah freaking right you are. Good night. See you I don't know when. Feynstein (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And no, I'm not a SPA. You should look at my contributions in French and in the commons. I actually created a page in French lol. Who knew! I really was committed to help. I don't think I'm willing to anymore.

And then there's also the DRN, where I did a bunch of stuff last year. I just... Man you guys really are the worst. I hate us politics.

Anyone even superficially aware of current affairs knows that the lab leak theory is part of US politics—that politics has been exported worldwide. If you were not aware of that, you should not be editing related topics. The pushback you are receiving concerns standard procedure used to protect the encyclopedia from off-wiki campaigns. It's likely that you have nothing to do with those campaigns but that is not relevant to the facts I have outlined above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I know it's political, but I really couldn't give a damn about politics. There are multiple RS sources for this, two in peer reviewed journals and one "candidate" MEDRS that's wrongly labeled as a comparative study in English while in French it's labeled as "Synthèse" which basically means a review. Your "standard procedure" is hurtful to editors like me, who don't come from these campaigns. It makes me fair game for shady tactics. It's not ok. And that's why I saying this is broken. I don't even know who could be doing such a campaign lol. I wanted to talk about this subject from April-2020 when I stumbled on that BioRxiv paper by accident while doing research for my own paper. I mean, the evidence is scientifically clear in my head. We can't dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. This just invalidates with a sleigh of hand multiple legit papers on the subject. And their authors are being slandered gratuitously by editors here. It makes me sick, it makes me angry. Because I know what is research. I know you don't just do it for the hell of pushing an agenda. I also know about the reproducibility crisis in those particular fields and how mainstream biomed papers have less credibility than they should now. Would a freaking outside WP SPA be telling you this? Feynstein (talk)

I don't know anything about you and please don't say more because a lot of trolls watch activity on Wikipedia and revealing anything to them is not helpful. You have not engaged with the issues I have raised. First, no one has a clue about the origin of the virus (except that if it was a lab leak, there might be a handful of people who know but who will never say anything, and even if they did, we on the outside would never know how to evaluate their claims). A lot of totally uninformed people repeat political lines and that gives media reports, some of which are embellished to make it appear that the report has a clue (it doesn't). A very small number of scientists have a clue and some of them think there is evidence supporting a lab leak hypothesis, while others don't. As I have tried to explain, Wikipedia will report what is known when something really is "known" in the sense that a significant majority of scientific investigations reach firm conclusions. Meanwhile, the community will resist publishing what might be true according to some reports. It's nothing personal but is the reality of trying to write what is known when anyone can edit. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can you come to WP:ANI to TBAN me from Covid? I just want the thread to stop at this point it's really making me sick. They started talking about site-wide banning me and stuff. It's just too much. They're sadistic. Feynstein (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak theory draft documents

@Feynstein: A couple of editors are currently working on draft articles documenting the laboratory leak theory. ScrupulousScribe has this one - Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and Forich has this - Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory. However, Forich's article is in his user space, so I'm not sure about the protocol of other editors contributing to it. I've mentioned the possibility of my adding some material to SS's draft on his talk page (he's blocked at the moment). You may also be interested in editing these documents. This could be a way to make progress on the issue. An option would be to combine material from both these drafts to create a new article - not a draft. At the moment I see no prospect of anything meaningful about the lab leak hypothesis being added to the WIV article. Stonewallng will continue indefinitely on that one. We may just have to add it to the list of bad Wikipedia articles. In case you missed it, this is the sort of thing we're up against: [8]. Compare this with the current version of the article, where the whole issue is now described as a "story". Arcturus (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcturus: I'm not completely sure I want to directly be involved in the creation of such page. I know it might sound contradictory to what you've seen of my arguing with editors but I don't really have time to be involved in this. I already lost a ton of work time doing what I just did XD. I might be willing to do a few passes for wording in order to make it compliant with WP's standards. You must be careful when doing such an article not to come to a conclusion yourselves based on multiple papers or editorialize anything, only quote and report information, it's very important. Also, all viewpoints should be represented, even those of the CCP, if they have released stuff about it. Do it separatly from the scientific stuff tough, there should be space between politics and science. If you want me to review stuff after you guys merged your pages (in a sandbox) just come back here to write to me. In the meantime i'll be slowly wedging it in since it is misrepresented in the article. You guys should check my latest answers in the talk page. Feynstein (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

*Side note: Holy cow, those articles are already fairly well done! Nevermind my toughts on how to do it XD. Feynstein (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: Okay, that's not a problem, and I completely understand where you're coming from. Anyway, I've got a load of material at the moment, so I'll start by putting it into the Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory later this evening (UK time). Feel free to edit it if you want to. I'll stick another note on SS's Talk page. Arcturus (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How to Improve

@Feynstein: Hello! You blocked the "Bipolar Fuzzy Set" section in the "Fuzzy Set" article. I hope to resolve this issue. Would you be kindly consider the fact that "Bipolar Fuzzy Set" is one among 2-3 set theories recognized by the founder of fuzzy sets--Professor Lotfi A Zadeh (1921-2017, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Fuzzy_logic). Would you please advise if I can improve my editing and learn to be a better editor? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W727 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@W727: Looking at your other editions it was clear that it was original research, and I suspect your own research. You can't do that here. If you want to talk about those sets you shouldn't reference your stuff. And if it's math you should look at how to format maths on wikipedia. Feynstein (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: "If you want to talk about those sets you shouldn't reference your stuff." I am a student. I will just talk about them without referencing. Thanks for the instruction.

@W727: No, that's not what I meant... this is primary sourcing and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. That person you're referencing Wan-Ren Zhang is not even a professor at Georgia university anymore. If you want to include this work, please create a new section in the talk page and look for other editors to help for a concensus. You should maybe go at the teahouse and request help for this. Feynstein (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: I am new here and please forgive me for my question. In what case this will be considered no longer original research and can be included? To my knowledge "bipolar fuzzy set" is one among only a few set theories recognized by the founder of fuzzy set. I saw some unrecognized set theories are there with self reference. Confused. Could you explain? Thanks in advance.

Move along, nothing to see here

Just the trainwreck of me having an hypomanic episode because of how stupid the situation is. Just leave me all alone for a while I won't bother anyone anymore. Feynstein (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary sanction imposed

Hi, Feynstein. Per your request, I have closed that ANI discussion and have recorded your voluntary sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate. Best, El_C 21:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks, I'll try to put that behind me. Feynstein (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Anytime, Feynstein. Hope things get easier from this point on. El_C 21:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Feynstein is violating his topic ban, 1 2 can I request enforcement? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: it's been 3 months, I forgot about it. Just wanted to talk to RandomCanadian about something we spoke of back in February. Won't be commenting again, don't worry ;-)... won't be coming back here for a while too, do what you want. Feynstein (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you please strikethrough your comments at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, or give me permission to do so on your behalf? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue is diff. I wouldn't worry too much about getting that struck as it is simply a misguided rant but I will advise Feynstein that comments like that are not appropriate, particularly in a topic under discretionary sanctions. If similar is repeated Feynstein will be indefinitely topic banned from Covid articles and discussions. I do not know what the current status of the lab leak hypothesis is but it is certain that all public commentary about it is 100% speculation, except for scientists who work in that area and who (apparently, I think) have said that the Covid outbreak is what would be expected without needing a lab-leak explanation. I'm not commenting about the merits of the argument (indeed, I have no idea), but that is the situation and is why MEDRS is being required. The media must attract readers and they do that with click-bait and sensational presentations. Their frequency and stridency is not a measure of reliability. I can't see an alert since 21 May 2020 so sorry, but I'm going to have to add that in a new section because they need to be renewed annually. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: it's not clear that there is a consensus that the lab leak hypothesis falls under MEDRS; see this RfC [9]. Geogene (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer which you might have to remind me about next time. My comments concern the general principles. There is no RfC endorsing comments like "saying WP turned woke and is not reliable anymore" with thoughts about other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I said I forgot about the voluntary stuff. But even if what I wrote is in violation of it, no one gets to cross what I wrote. It's not how wp is supposed to work. And all of you guys know it's true. The politically charged subjects turned into battlegrounds where there is currently only one ideology ruling, the woke. And for the lab leak hypethesis, even if it became UBER mainstream recently it's still considered a conspiracy theory here. There's something obviously wrong with wikipedia at this point. What you know is also true is that you don't even read the politically charged subjects because you know they're bent on one side. When you use wp you probably only use it as a reference for technical stuff. Or to get a general idea of a subject and get references. That's what I do. It gets me into a reference train of scientific papers. And when I saw the Times Article about how Trump's media coverage tanked the lab leak hypethesis on the basis of "orange man bad" I had to tell random canadian. I already told him back in February that it looked like it's exactly what he did. And I finally had someone make that argument for me. And also a proof that it was widespread. So please just leave me alone now I told him what I had to tell him. Feynstein (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether the rules would support another user striking your comments, but I repeat my request for you to do so voluntarily. It would be a sign that you are taking your voluntary topic ban seriously and that you fix mistakes when you find them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I won't. It was a message adressed to someone and about the meta surrounding covid. I probably should have written on his talk page but I wanted other editors to read it too. The shaming is over. I'm right and the more time passes, the more I know it. I want people to see how toxic WP became. That will be all. Feynstein (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)