Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 28 November 2021

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Important notices

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.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts?

Have you edited Misplaced Pages using other accounts? Presumably you are aware of WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No other accounts. I corrected typos when I was in college without an account. I saw this conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your brinkmanship on this topic. You should allow for competing for view points from scientists and experts reported in reliable sources. Did you see the article today in the Wall Street Journal? CutePeach (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh from twitter. If you've been roped-in to edit by others that's a WP:MEAT problem. Also be aware of WP:RGW. I generally do not read American newspapers, and Misplaced Pages prefers proper scientific publications for scientific topics, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Misplaced Pages also has an account on Twitter and no one roped them there. Anyway, this one isn’t British, but close: https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0318/1204794-covid-19-origins-china-wuhan-bats-lab-leak-frozen-food/ CutePeach (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, you are getting pretty close to a block per WP:NOTHERE, or at least a partial block on COVID-related articles--and/or a topic ban considering your edits in relation to the discretionary sanctions you were notified of. This kind of talk of censorship and "competing view points" suggests you think about Misplaced Pages as if it were a social media type of website: it is not. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, any new user who joins this conversation is immediately labeled as an "SPA", accused of being a "sock" and branded a conspiracy theorist. Just look at how Feynstein, RonnieSays and Fa suisse were treated and now they are gone. I saw that RandomCanadian made a comment about me on your talk page and I defended myself as you would expect of any new user facing such an accusation. If you can give me some specific pointers about how to engage more productively, I will surely comply. CutePeach (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind lab leak controversies, lumping Ireland and Britain together as similar sends the needle off the scale! Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, I don't know those other editors. But RonnieSays starts with this edit, which is hardly an edit a newbie can make, and then they start edit-warring over it immediately, so yeah. I find it odd you'd know about them--y'all haven't interacted, you just got here, and they've been gone for a week. Feynstein also complained they're being singled out--a puzzling complaint, IMO. And Fa suisse comes into the COVID stuff with this edit--no wonder editors start asking questions.

I haven't said anything about socking in your case: I merely pointed out the aspects of your editing behavior that cause me concern, and I am serious about that. There are only two sides for Misplaced Pages in a field like this if there is another side that has serious scholarship to back it up; if not, it's FRINGE. This is not a debate club. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, that is right, I have never interacted with those editors and I selected them because they are recent. I saw this thread on Twitter a few weeks ago and I have been following the conversation here ever since. I respect your integrity as an administrator but I will be disappointed if you take the side of one group of editors who are polarizing a scientific controversy. I agree with you that we should reference serious scholarship. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any scientific controversy. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Scientific controversy: There are reputable scientists and reliable sources on both sides. The WHO will release its full report later this week but some member states may not accept it as China has not released requested blood samples. Here are a few sources on the controversy:

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55765875
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-who-needs-to-start-over-in-investigating-the-origins-of-the-coronavirus/2021/03/05/6f3d5a0e-7de9-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-china-hunt-covid-origins-11616004512
• https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0318/1204794-covid-19-origins-china-wuhan-bats-lab-leak-frozen-food/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/health/covid-virus-origins.html
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-idUSKBN2AD0FX
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/15/world-health-organisations-appeasement-china-has-made-another/
• https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/03/04/relevant-les-failles-de-la-mission-de-l-oms-a-wuhan-des-scientifiques-appellent-a-une-veritable-enquete-independante-sur-les-origines-du-covid-19_6071962_3244.html
• https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/

This controversy is similar to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where the Russian government refused to cooperate so the Dutch government launched its own investigation and litigation . There are also similarities with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 controversy where the Malaysian government didn't give its full cooperation and only much later revealed they knew more than they admitted to earlier . Where COVID-19 possible lab origins and the Chinese government alleged coverup are concerned, the worst-case scenario is that the US government will file a formal complaint using Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention, or they will push for some big changes to the BWC in the Ninth Review Conference . CutePeach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a single scholarly source in your list I note. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, that post was meant for Drmies. CutePeach (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Global Virome Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Global Virome Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/en/Viral_metagenomics. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and copyright

Hello CutePeach! Your additions to Draft:Global Virome Project have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Misplaced Pages.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Misplaced Pages. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Misplaced Pages articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Misplaced Pages project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Misplaced Pages:Translation#How to translate. See also Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from Viral metagenomics into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I will follow your guidence. CutePeach (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Philippine-based music groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Latino. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriella Stern (April 24)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabriella Stern and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gabriella Stern, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hello, CutePeach! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gabriella Stern

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Gabriella Stern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://amecorg.com/summit-speaker/gabby-stern/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. LionMans Account (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (April 26)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catharina Boehme (April 26)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catharina Boehme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Catharina Boehme, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Source bias

Hello! You used a source in the above article that is only a month old, published on arxiv. It is a somewhat ironic question, but do you have a connection to the authors of that paper?--- Possibly (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Possibly, I do not have any connection to the authors of that paper. The term "source bias" has come up a lot in the scientific controversy on COVID-19 origins . If you think that source isn’t credible, you can remove it, but I think it's ok. CutePeach (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We see authors trying to plug their papers now and then, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for your kind reply. --- Possibly (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly now I understand why you asked me that . :) CutePeach (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Misplaced Pages generates credibility and raises positioning in web searches, among other positive effects. --- Possibly (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi CutePeach. I am very active on Twitter. I had a look at those links. Wow! Or rather, yikes, regarding the emollick thread. Good find, and thank you for surfacing that! A friend of mine said this in the same conversation. Sadly, it is neither released via pre-print server let alone peer review. He succinctly phrased what I failed to express on the GOF talk page recently. Sorry for barging in here. I like your user name (it is friendly!) so I stopped by.--FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Rephrase

You might want to reconsider how you explain your view here. You seem to have accidentally claimed that the field of Epidemiology, which did work on microbes in the 16th century, is impossible unless you are using 20th-century technology such as serological tests and DNA sequencing. I suspect that's not quite what you meant.

You might also be interested in reading CSI effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I think an uninvolved editor without a strong POV would be perfectly capable of dispassionately reading the RFC and understanding that the votes and discussions there were not just about the application of the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS policies to disease and pandemic origins in the general, but also to COVID-19 origins in specific - and close it accordingly. If we were 17th century Wikipedians, I'd be here advocating for the inclusion of reliable sources reporting on the demands of the people for the Church of England to investigate the Epidemiology of the Great Plague of London using whatever information and technology they had available to them. If they weren’t doing that, then obviously the bishops, priests and deacons would have nothing substantive to write about, and we’d have to question whether WP:ANGLICANRS and WP:BMI are the applicable policies for us to be covering the event and its aftermath. I would be etching my draft on the flea hypothesis into whatever stone, wood or parchment I could find.

Regarding forensic investigations, scientists have said since the beginning that only forensic evidence can determine the origins of the virus . A science editor with your level of experience and expertise should be able to comprehend this point and help resolve the content dispute without much effort. CutePeach (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You said "there is no raw serological data from the earliest patients, or verifiable phylogenetic data about the virus itself, and without those datas, one can’t do epidemiology". This is not true. This is not what any reputable sources say. There is more to "doing epidemiology" than identifying previous strains of a virus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, are you saying that the WHO’s investigation should go ahead with pre-1901 science and that Misplaced Pages’s MEDRS policy should block any reputable sources reporting on the abnormality of China refusing to share raw data and blood samples? Are you seriously unaware of these reputable sources? Here is one of many . CutePeach (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Since contact tracing is "pre-1901 science", and epidemiologists around the world are doing it, and the WHO is recommending it, then I believe that we should use some "pre-1901 science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I am sure the closer of the RFC will realise my comment does not imply that serological or phylogenetic analysis should constitute the entirety of an epidemiological investigation. I in turn realise that your comment here isn't implying that contact tracing alone constitutes everything that is epidemiology. Where we would agree - I hope - is if a government were to restrict contact tracing from a WHO convened epidemiological investigation, then it would possibly be considered by RSs to be compromised, and we on Misplaced Pages wouldn’t apply the MEDRS standard for every aspect of our coverage of the controversy. CutePeach (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read that article a few weeks ago. It is very frustrating how Misplaced Pages refuses to acknowledge how much information China continues to obfuscate about the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in light of it being repeatedly referenced in the real world, with real facts and data etc. Okay, I will go now, sorry. By the way, I am not an idiot nor uninformed about epidemiology. You never said I was. I worked for the State of Arizona Department of Health Services as a non-infectious disease epidemiologist for three years, doing mostly statistical analysis (I don't have an MPH). You are NOT being unreasonable, in my opinion.--FeralOink (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Alina Chan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Alina Chan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GermanKity, I was just about to add a line to that article with reliable independent sources. I have now submitted the draft for review. CutePeach (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi CutePeach, Yes, i can see you have added few more references. Now let the other editors review your article. GermanKity (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

GermanKity, you moved Alina Chan to draftspace literally seconds before I added some more sources to it, and now it's been stuck there for nearly a month, collecting even more sources. Please can you undo your move? CutePeach (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you insisting on creating a duplicate of existing material, base it on rather poor sources, and then decide to put it at the top to give it undue prominence of placement? If you continue with this kind of problematic editing, you're likely going to get sanctioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You can't run around like a bull in a china shop, not even explaining what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks? Your edit was reverted because it duplicated existing material, put undue weight on one aspect, and because you completely ignored WP:ONUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Word limits at AE

@CutePeach: FYI, Arbitration Enforcement has a very strict limit on word counts (500). You may want to trim or combine aspects of your comments to adhere to that. Here's the tool I use .--Shibbolethink 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shibbolethink. I use Evernote on my laptop which is my work station, and I add links in from my mobile, which is my personal device that I use for posting on Misplaced Pages. I was aware of the 500 word limit from watching other cases and I tried to keep it in the limit, but I think the links took me over the limit. I’ll try watch out for this in the future. CutePeach (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. dudhhr_Contribs 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Dudhhr why did you delete my draft so quickly? I was just about to start translating it from our Chinese article in ZH:WP . There are many good sources also in English . CutePeach (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I tagged it for CSD as it appeared to be a Test page. You can ask an admin to undelete it. dudhhr_Contribs 16:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I've removed the soapboxing by you and Hyperion35. I strongly advise you to stop using talk pages to voice your opinions about China, etc. That page is about discussing changes to a guideline supplement. Even on a covid article talk page, you need to restrain your self by discussing article text in the context of what reliable sources say, rather than spending every day soapboxing about the subject and accusing your fellow editors of censorship. You found a bunch of good sources on the deletion story, so you do know how it works, but you need to bite your tongue on all the other stuff. There are DS hanging over those pages, and at some point an admin will tire of your abuse of talk pages. -- Colin° 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Colin thanks for the note. I didn’t mean to sound litigious in my reply to you on the RFC page, but I did intend to be firm as there are some editors here advocating for administrators to ban editors who dare counter their POV on content and policy. I also didn’t mean to imply Bakkster Man is one of these editors, and I only linked to his post in the RFC discussion to show that he and other editors misunderstand WP:MEDRS’s application to COVID-19 origins. Bloom’s findings, as reported by RS, constitute evidence of a cover up, and he does not give it to add weight to the lab leak hypothesis directly, which is also misunderstood and subject of two long conversations on the page. If you read my vote in the RFC, you will know that my view isn’t very much different to yours or WhatamIdoing on changing the MEDRS and BMI policies, but I do think editors need to understand their application better. I have created a WP:POVDELETION shortcut for the benefit of editors who delete stuff in the name of NPOV, and I think we will need a similar shortcut for editors who delete stuff in the name of MEDRS. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we agree (or don't) on a particular content question. The main problem is behavioral. A functional response to "please stop talking about your opinions about China" is not "Bloom's findings constitute evidence of China's misbehavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Misplaced Pages requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from China and weapons of mass destruction into Chinese biological weapons program. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for all of your work towards achieving neutrality in the COVID-related pages.KristinaLu (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks KristinaLu! Where are you from? I wouldn't argue so much about the WHO as a source as we already discussed it here . Jtbobwaysf says that sometimes things need to go to an RFC. This may be one of those things, and the right venue would be WP:RS/N. CutePeach (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Some of the comments/accusations you've made on the IITOOC19 talk page are POINTY and don't AGF. Particularly this: "Some editors here seem to be misremembering the paucity of data here, possibly in a bid to downplay Bloom’s findings."

Please keep discussions to content not conduct on article talk. Thank you. Pound the sources, pound the policies, don't pound the table. Shibbolethink 07:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fauci BLP Violation and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

This response is in reference to this query:

Please see User talk:Thepigdog#Reliable sources in the context of medical subjects where I describe our standards for reliable sources for medical claims and claims against living people. In short it is not okay to accuse a living person of a coverup regarding a global pandemic with weak sources. This is exactly the sort of thing that will get an editor a topic ban from the subjects of BLP and COVID under the current discretionary sanctions.

In particular I need you to be aware that Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons are the standards these claims are being held to. Note that WP:MEDRS says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles", this is crucial here.

I see you were notified of the discretionary sanctions in those areas last March. Now that I have given you the link to the conversation I had at User talk:Thepigdog and links to the standards for MEDRS and BLP I am going to assume you have read it. Please be careful to hold to the standards laid out by the community for BLP and medical topics. HighInBC 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, thanks for your reply. I was aware of the discretionary sanctions in the areas of COVID-19 but thanks for the reminder. I am also familiar with BLP guidelines, but only on a basic level. As I mentioned in my query, Fauci has faced criticism from fellow academics on Gain of Function Research of Concern, and I do not see why this can’t be covered neutrally in non BLP pages like COVID-19 investigations. We already say that Peter Daszak was seen by some as a conflict of interest, which is WP:DUE there and cites good WP:RSs. The topics of GoFRoC and COVID-19 origins have political and societal aspects, which are covered not by WP:MEDRSs, but regular RSs. Please note, I do not especially agree with Thepigdog’s choice of sources, or the particular edits they may have been suggesting. CutePeach (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, the argument cn be made using only Fauci's emails and a published paper. Quoting the popular press is not required. Also the GOP hearings are a matter of public record. Thepigdog (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Be aware of Misplaced Pages:No original research particularly Misplaced Pages:No original research#Synthesis of published material. Also see WP:PRIMARY which says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Again this secondary source will need to meet the standards I have described above.

As an encyclopedia we should not be making an argument for anything. We should be only stating what relevant reliable secondary sources are saying, and again the standard for this is much higher for medical articles and articles on living people. HighInBC 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

and, HighinBC, these excellent principles have in practice sometimes been used in a manner favorable to particular POVs. As I am sure you're aware every word in "relevant reliable secondary" is subjective, as are the BLP guidelines, while the full rigor of MEDRS is applied selectively. Based on my 15 yrs experience here, one can if skilled enough in our style and jargon, argue in such a way as to use WP policy to support almost any position. WP is very much a NPOV zone, more than any other publication has ever been. NPOV does not mean, interpret the rules to support the conventional POV. We shouldn't use our rules to do the equivalent of what the classic EB did, to support the British Empire, or Diderot's Encyclopédie, to subvert the Roman Catholic Church Neither as Fox, to support the extreme conservatives, nor as the WPost does, to support the liberal establishment--I'd add a major left-wing publication, but there unfortunately aren't any in the US. But for my own views in more detail, i'd be glad to discuss them with you or anyone privately. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I of course agree in regards to interpretation. This however seems to a clear enough case. I am not saying the claims made cannot be sourced to our standards but the youtube links surely do not come close. I don't have a stake in this content dispute but I do want to be sure those involved are aware of the relevant policies. HighInBC 01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

email

I need to be able to email you--pls turn on your email. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG there is something wrong with my account. My email preferences are blank and I don’t know how to turn it on. Here is a screenshot of what I see: https://i.imgur.com/dKewhge.jpg. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

you have to go to user preferces, enter an. email associated with your account, and only the activate your email. it may not work from the phone site--you ma have to go to the desktop site first, and if you dont see an option to do so write the wp address without the .m. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG I just confirmed my email from the desktop version so it should be open now. I never received a confirmation email when I first requested my account. Thanks! CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

e mail received. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Accept reason:

I've loosened the rangeblock; you should be able to edit now. --jpgordon 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Blocked by Drmies

Block will expire in a month

See details Reason Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in. Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

drastic times, drastic measures: CU block

@ToBeFree: CutePeach (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You do not appear to be blocked. Could it be that you are looking at the commons without being logged in and seeing your IP is blocked? HighInBC 06:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I just read that link. @Drmies: do you recognize this block? HighInBC 07:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, HighInBC, like you I don't see a block. Things have been checked by Jpgordon and NinjaRobotPirate, and maybe they have something to offer and, as usual, I will gladly defer to them if they think this or that block is no longer necessary or whatever. I checked months ago but found nothing concerning about this particular account. I do know that there's a couple of range blocks in the Philippines, and I placed some of them ("drastic times" sounds like me, but there are quite a number of heavy disruptors there). But I don't think I've had anything to do with this user specifically recently. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: This is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&logid=117924593 on 110.54.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page). The user can't appeal while they're affected. They can only complain afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC I was definitely logged in when I saved that block message on Saturday. I just got blocked again a few hours ago with the same message and it keeps on happening evening times. I use Globe Telecom but sometimes I have to switch to my Smart Communications SIM, and sometimes I get blocked on that too. Maybe using two SIMs triggers a block, but you should know Dual SIM phones are very common in the Philippines, unlike the US. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly, there are two possible solutions: IP block exemption on your account, or making that block anon-only. There seems to be an agreement above that you are not the intended target. {{checkuser needed}} for implementation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser already done. There are actually two rangeblocks affecting this account; the wider one is anon-only, but this narrower one ("drastic times") is all users. I'm going to loosen the block to anon-only and see what happens. --jpgordon 17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CutePeach, HighInBC, Drmies and Jpgordon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree and Jpgordon CutePeach (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

AfC notification: Draft:List of Filipino Singers has a new comment

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Filipino Singers has been accepted

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Misplaced Pages! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Accusing me of actions or POV

Hi CutePeach, please do not continue to accuse me of malfeasance, incompetence, or POV in article talk space . That page is for discussions of content, not conduct. If you have concerns about such things, the appropriate place to raise them would be (in order) A) my talk page, B) the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN, WP:DRN), or C) the appropriate admin intervention mechanism (WP:ANI, WP:ARBE). But, more than anything, I would tell you that you should have evidence for such accusations. Accusing editors of malfeasance repeatedly without evidence could run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

On a more personal note, I very much already told you that my citing the Denver Gazette piece was a mistake, that I did not intend to cite a syndicated column from the Washington Examiner (an opinion piece from a non-RS on this topic according to RSP), and I don't want to use it to support my argument any further. Same with the Forbes contributor columns. In my haste to find every article on this topic (and cast as wide a net as possible), I included several that should not be used in this discussion, as they are not reliable. I am no longer using these to support my point. Continuing to cite these in a way of accusing me of POVSOURCING or of malfeasance several comments after I retracted them is A) beating a dead horse, B) not assuming good faith, and C) not very kind.

Most of all, I really would appreciate it if we could just work together on these articles. I'm not doing the things you've repeatedly said I'm doing. I am not interested in silencing POVs I disagree with, or pushing a POV in article space. I'm not only using the sources I agree with or citing papers without reading them. I have worked to make your inclusions in articles more NPOV and integrate them with both the overall agreeing and disagreeing sources on these controversial topics, just as I hope you would do for me.

I really would like to work together, and I'm very much not a fan of being accused of things I haven't done, let alone repeatedly. As an aside, if you accuse someone of doing something without evidence, and then they respond "I didn't do that," I would not recommend continuing to accuse them of that same thing, again, without any evidence. It isn't very kind and it definitely isn't assuming good faith.

I would appreciate it if you have a problem with my behavior, if you could address it with me directly on my talk page, with specific quotations of something I've said, or diffs of something I edited. That is the proper way to address these things on Misplaced Pages. Thanks.--Shibbolethink 23:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: They seem to have disregarded your warning (which there's no point I attempt repeating) and have now posted a long rambling diatribe at ToBeFree's talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, thank you for the note. I will work on this draft and ping you again when it is complete. CutePeach (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alina Chan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alina Chan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary thank you for reviewing my draft. Please can you tell me if you read the MIT Technology Review reference, because actually it is almost entirely about the subject, and even has her name in the title. I will also make further improvements to the draft. Tagging Chalst. CutePeach (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm on vacation at the moment and have to base my comments on my recollection, but first, on a formal reading of policy, MurielMary's judgement that the article lacks the sourcing to meet GNG is quite wrong: the article's reflist contains ample WP:BASIC-quality sources, and second, not having the article pass in to mainspace at the moment may be a blessing. I advise you not to appeal her closure of the AfC quite yet, but get some feedback from editiors who have experience with contentious AFDs on changes you can make before it goes into mainspace, because I am fairly sure that it will be subject to our deletion process not long after, because Chan's work has been flypaper for conspiracy theorists and at present, the article arguably does a poor job of representing her critics.

I could help once I am back from vacation, but that will be two weeks from now. I'm pinging DGG, who is probably too busy to do much, but at least any advice or people he puts you in touch with are likely to be a great help. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I will look at the article this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that it would pass AfD, as various sources have mentions. If sources have more in depth coverage on the person, I suggest adding those, this would make it unambiguous. I trust DGG's judgement will be good with his extensive experience evaluating BLP notability. —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I put a comment on the article explaining the situation . DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Important message

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.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What can I say

Since I'm familiar with WP and its processes I also teach about it (this is humor but related). Often it helps and guides. Sometimes it doesn't, usually for WP:IDHT reasons or because the main goal was to unreasonably push a particular point of view that wasn't mainstream yet (WP:RGW, etc). I didn't actually read your full post at the admin's page and already said that I would stop replying there. I saw ACTIVISM, well, my activism here is Misplaced Pages and reality. Since someone already filed an AE report, I may also participate tomorrow. In case it doesn't result in a topic ban, I would suggest editing in other areas by your own initiative to show a general interest in the encyclopeda. You have already started a bit and have writing skills. If a topic ban results, I suggest to do the same and to attempt an appeal after six months of productive editing in less involved areas. I also request to please stop pinging me for every reply, unless there's a good reason, like a thread I'm not likely to already be watching. Finally, what is more plausible RGW activism, a new editor who's obvious goal is to push an idea since the beginning, or someone who edited hundreds of pages for years? Those are aspects that are easy to assess. My account was created pre-pandemic, was not a sleeping account and has never been blocked, this hopefully means something. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps another point and you are the one who can determine this. If you happen to have a conflict of interest (this may include having published on the topic elsewhere, being familiar with some relevant people, part of a group, etc) it's difficult to objectively edit, which is why we have policies like WP:COI. I personally avoid editing articles about software I wrote or maintain, musicians I know, companies I've worked with, or about network protocols work I've been involved in (i.e. RFCs). I would tend to either write material that seems promotional, create articles on non-notable people or to unduely criticize some trends or insecure protocols, perhaps be tempted to push links or citations to my own literature, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have written a 574 words statement for AE and at the last minute decided to not post it there at current time. I'll keep it for the next time (and might file a report myself if necessary), as I find that it may be a bit hasty. Moreover, the focus of the current report is on a particular event, while mine is a more general TE and soapboxing case. For now all I ask is to carefully read what others post and try to understand what they perceive, then to also consider my previous advice on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I would tell you to post your statement there as well, because it is common for AE cases to expand beyond the initial complaint with added comments. It's all about the user's conduct, not only about CutePeach's conduct in the specific instance Bakkster Man described.

Truly, my understanding of that noticeboard is that it's a venue for succinct and sanctions-relevant posting of comments encapsulating a user's behavior, so that admins can read about it and decide if it is problematic. Admins then discuss, generate a loose consensus (although it is not consensus that determines the close) and a closing admin determines appropriate sanctions (or none). Nothing about that restricts the discussion to the initial events of the posting. I think it's just like ANI, except more succinct and only for applications of Discretionary Sanctions. This sort of broadened scope happens at ANI all the time, and I've never perceived it to be out of order in either venue.

I don't think it would be inappropriate for you to comment about CutePeach's alleged TE, as I have already. I say this because I also don't think we should waste more admin time than necessary, and deal with this all in one go. Put all our cards on the table, as it were, so that admins can assess this user's conduct all at once. At the same time, if we feel that the responding uninvolved admins are not amenable to either of us posting longer descriptions of problematic behavior, we can withdraw our comments and post them in a follow-up AE about the user's longer term conduct in this area. Does that sound fair/justifiable to you? You are free to do as you wish, of course. Just a suggestion. Pinging ToBeFree as well, to weigh in re: any procedural concerns.--Shibbolethink 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that having all arguments on the table in this specific AE discussion may be necessary to make a fair decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Participation request

Hi CutePeach, please take a moment to provide a statement at WP:AE#CutePeach, and please wait for the result of the proceeding before continuing to edit the article in question, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, this is in essence a de facto page ban, which I'm not sure is supported by policy. CutePeach, if you choose to make a statement, keep it short and direct because there's a group of editors plotting to go after you again, and whatever you say will surely be collected by them for later use. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, I have a very busy day and will not be able to write a statement till after 20:00 GMT +8 at least. Please keep it open. Thank you.

@Mr Ernie: thank you, I will do my best to keep it as short as possible, and maybe I'll put it in my sandbox first for review. Bakkster Man’s complaint pertains to WP:ONUS and WP:ARBPS/4A, but neither of them are applicable here, as deleting content where it is WP:DUE is in fact a WP:POVDELETION, and WP:ARBPS/4A describes "scientific theories" while the lab leak hypothesis - as the name suggests - is just a hypothesis. I may have also made some mistakes, which I will have to confess to and atone for. CutePeach (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, due to what seems to have been edit warring, if it had really been necessary, a completely policy-supported partial block could have been placed. I'd like to let CutePeach answer the accusations, with the time and detail they need, before taking any action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, no worries and no stress, as much as that's possible when one is the subject of an AN discussion. Please take your time. People are asking for long-time sanctions; there is no need to rush the decision, especially if you currently limit your participation to the AE page anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Have you approached the other editor who "seems to have been edit warring" with the same concerns? And just so it's very clear - the ones asking for long-time sanctions have content disagreements with CutePeach. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's not much on that page Ernie, and I would like you to remember of AGF... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree as a courtesy, I won’t edit the article, but I reserve the right to continue the discussion in the talk page, as there is one matter which requires further clarification.

In this comment in the WP:ARE you say that the evidence presented by Bakkster Man seems to show a case edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. However, as I told Bakkster Man; deleting WP:DUE content is at odds with the WP:POVDELETION, and his response only was that I "do not understand WP:DUE thoroughly enough", then opening the WP:ARE case. Since they premise their case on WP:ONUS, and since I have yet to provide my statement, I ask you not to make assessments of the case from within the docket section until you have heard evidence from all parties. Mr Ernie’s Atsme’s and Dervorguilla’s statements support my position.

It should be noted that in this 15,000 word discussion between myself and Bakkster Man and others , a number of edit proposals were put forward, none of which were accepted. In another discussion , which got forked into this , you see another 10k+ word exchange, where Colin calls Bakkster Man’s objection to covering preprints based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP a red-herring , and I am now expected to put forward edit proposals, which I can only presume will be rejected - which is why I have let it slip up till now, but will get on tomorrow. This is why I made this complaint on your talk page, which you did not respond to. Your silence could be interpreted by some as sympathy. Or perhaps you were not aware of these two previous conversations as context to my complaint? Please comment. Tagging: DGG. CutePeach (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I did respond, in Special:Diff/1034798681, but I took no action at that time. As there is now an AE request, it seems to have been the right decision to wait. And at the moment, I'm waiting for further AE statements... even the main named party hasn't responded yet. They seem to be actively editing other pages, though, which is perhaps a bit unconventional when exactly this area of editing is currently under discussion. I first thought it's about one article, but that has changed, so I continue waiting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My comments about red herrings and preprints were specific to that topic, which I think warranted mention purely as a scientific controversy that had wide coverage in mainstream media. I agree with Bakkster Man that preprints are entirely worthless at the level of science and science development, and specific scientific discussion of such preliminary research publication is way too premature for inclusion here. -- Colin° 09:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Colin, the apparent pre-adaptation claim rationale for the COVID-19 lab leak theory hypothesis, was not made only by Chan, Petrovkey and Sorensen in preprints, but also by Robert Redfield in his widely covered interview with Sanjay Gupta on CNN, albeit in a somewhat crude - and even unscientific - way . In a later interview with CNN , Marc Lipsitch said of Reford’s comments with all due respect, I think that's nonsense, giving reasons which I am sure you would agree we could should provide for WP:BALANCE. In the MIT Tech Review piece on Chan's paper , Jonathan Eisen is quoted as saying he doesn’t think we’ve traced enough outbreaks in enough molecular detail to really know what's normal, which we can provide for BALANCE there too. Chalst mentions the need for this above #Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21).

In the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 the apparent pre-adaption in also mentioned - in more scientific terms. However, this document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and it isn't offered as a rationale for the lab leak hypothesis, so it would be WP:SYNTH for us to use it in that way. I was planning on asking you and DGG for an expert opinion on how we can use the WHO document as a reference, if at all - and I now also want to ask you to reconsider your current position in the WP:ARE case. Shibbolethink promoted their 34 page WP:SELFPUB diatribe in multiple talk page discussions , but I made the apparent mistake of being WP:KIND to him and not dismissing his paper out of hand, which I believed was the right thing to do at the time . I actually read his paper and let him know I agreed with most of it - especially on GoFR versions of the lab leak hypothesis - but I asked him to read one paper of a version of he hadn't considered , which he evidently did not do , and the conversations went downhill from there. It's telling that he advised Bakkster Man to close the case and wait for me to open one, which in his mind would give them the advantage .

You may ask why I didn’t start with Redfield for the apparent pre-adaptation section I rewrote. The answer to that is that I was being asked to rewrite an entire article from scratch, so I started with the publications in chronological order, and Sorensen et all was first. The later papers from Chan and Petrovskey were considered more credible, and were very neutral. Compared to Chan's paper, Petrovskey et al is actually more suggestive of lab origins than natural origins, and it has passed peer review in a prestigious journal . The pushback Chan and Petrovskey received is itself worthy of inclusion, with these sources . If you got this far, can you now agree this apparent pre-adaptation thing is potentially bigger than the Bloom et al story, and that WP:SCHOLARSHIP argument is indeed a red-herring? CutePeach (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, The difference between my conduct and that of others in the diffs you linked above is that I have never tried to use my self-published or non-RS-sourced work to support any content placed in article-space.

Because I know that it would contravene A) WP:ARBPS/4A's requirement that statements about scientific theories be sourced to reliable scientific sources, (e.g. literature reviews in topic-relevant peer-reviewed scientific journals), B) our policy on WP:OR, C) our policy on COIs, as I would never cite a paper I published for something controversial or non-topic-relevant, and D) our policy on WP:RSes.

In every one of those instances, I was responding to a claim someone else had made about scientific fact on a talk page, in which they misunderstood some intricate detail about virology. So I provided the knowledge I have about viruses, to try and explain why they were mistaken.

It is also helpful to know that I am not even the one who brought up my reddit post , KristinaLu brought it up: . I brought up the userspace essay WP:NOLABLEAK, where Novem Linguae repeats many of the same points I made in that post.

I also added this disclaimer : "all of the above is original research, but this seems a good time to remind everyone that WP:OR does not apply to talk space. I'm not arguing any of the above belongs in article space. not only because it's OR, like the rest of this thread (including most of the other comments in this section), but also because it's WP:UNDUE."

I stand behind these claims, as when they are put in context, it shows I did nothing to contravene WP:PAGs.--Shibbolethink 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink you seem to have your dates mixed up, as you first brought up your Reddit post with me in this dif , and you did so to counter a point made by Ralph Baric in his paper WRT speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and a further point made in his RAI interview WRT to his comment you can do it without leaving a signature yes, using three or four different approach for coronaviruses, which were developed by different researchers, you can leave no trace that it was made in a laboratory (27:15), both of which are WP:RSs. You did so without providing any expert opinions quoted in reliable sources to support your POV, which we could then provide for WP:BALANCE in our articles. We have both agreed not to put the POV of one group of scientists to the exclusion of another .

In your conversation with KristinaLu, you again get the dates mixed up, and conveniently leave out of the diff where you first brought up your Reddit post here , linking to a section of WP:NOLABLEAK which references your paper, again countering the point Baric makes WRT signatures. This is the shameless plugging of a WP:SELFPUB paper in the form an WP:ESSAY, which we should probably nominate for deletion for this very reason. I first published my WP:YESLABLEAK essay in mainspace, to welcome you to contribute to the Counterpoints, since I was asked by the original author of WP:NOLABLEAK not to post there anymore, after I called you out for lack of WP:COMPETENCE for mixing up papers . For some reason ToBeFree moved my essay to userspace, but I would like for it to be moved back to mainspace, as policy guidence for this topic area. Ideally, it should be renamed to WP:LABLEAK for neutrality sake. DGG, do you think this would be possible?

Shibbolethink in the face of the accusations you are making against me at the WP:AE, your disclaimer is moot, as with the diffs I provided here, you are clearly arguing for people to read your Reddit post in article talkspace to effect editorial decisions in article mainspace. Your argumentation has even persuaded Colin, the original author of WP:MEDRS that there is somehow a scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 can’t possibly have been subjected to GoFR , when we have a paper and an interview with the most-eminent and most-cited coronavirologist in the world who has clearly been saying otherwise - from early 2020. There are even more stunning comments from Baric in this MIT Technology Review from Rowan Jacobsen . I strongly urge you withdraw your participation in WP:AE before I get around to making my statement, otherwise it may result in a WP:BOOMERANG for you, which is not what I want. I didn’t participate in the WP:AE against you, and you will see from my upcoming statement that I have only good good things to say about you, besides for the fact that you have find it difficult to keep your personal POVs out of our editorial decision making process. CutePeach (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the essay may have escaped a MfD discussion by being a userspace essay. It's a user's response to another userspace essay and thus belongs to userspace; it's also likely that you would like to exercise at least some control over how it is edited by others, which isn't possible in the Misplaced Pages namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, here are some responses:

re: my reddit post, I have only ever mentioned it on talk space, in discussions about matters of scientific content, and only in places where I am referencing the citations I put in that post. This is in line with our policies on WP:OR, which explicitly do not apply to talk space or user space. Can you imagine how onerous discussions would be if it did? When I provided diffs, I did so based on the dates of diffs you provided, there is no mixup. I do not reference my reddit post in that "first diff" you provided of the conversation between myself and KristinaLu, I provide a link to WP:NOLABLEAK, as I explained above. That essay contains this disclaimer right at the top of that section: "This section contains personal opinions and original research. You've been warned."

re: "We have both agreed not to put the POV of one group of scientists to the exclusion of another" I have not agreed to do this, I believe you are misinterpreting my comment there. I believe POVs of various experts should be presented in proportion to their representation in secondary sources, as described in WP:DUE and WP:RSUW.

re: "mixing up papers" I have done nothing of the sort. There are multiple papers in question about whether or not they "qualify" as "GoFR" and I have addressed them as they have been presented to me. It was not a "mix up."

re: Colin, I would guess that his belief in a scientific consensus about the unlikelihood (not impossibility) of GoFR in COVID-19 origins is based on the available RSes and the quotations I provided from peer-reviewed literature review articles published in topic-relevant reliable journals. I would ultimately defer to him about that, though.

I will not be withdrawing my AE participation, as I stand behind the diffs and arguments I provided there.--Shibbolethink 19:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

ARBPS

A note about it, it's an important precedent in relation to WP's coverage of pseudoscientific topics, but does not replace current relevant policy, some are: WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI, WP:PARITY, WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. So although the new WP:ARBPS/4A redirect is harmless, it is less useful than those. Also, when I placed the tag above it was not necessarily in relation to COVID but simply because you mentioned an interest in some articles like about the aquatic ape, at ToBeFree's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Gabriella Stern has a new comment

AfC notification: Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has a new comment

AfC notification: Draft:Catharina Boehme has a new comment

AfC notification: Draft:Alina Chan has a new comment

Don't

If I have ever given one single piece of advice in my brief time here this is the best worded I could possibly give, Don't. Almost nothing good ever comes from arbitration and that's after assuming good faith on the part of all involved. I have seen too many amazing editors, both experienced and new, run-off by arbitrary cases and it is wholly because I have never met a human being alive that doesn't have a conflict of interest and most will do anything possible to advance their own interests regardless of its affects on others. Misplaced Pages will survive long after we are gone but it won't be the same because we are unique and bring our own unique perspectives. It is what makes us intrinsically beautiful but also destructive and leads to ugly moments, as shown in our historical interactions with each other. Humanity can be it's own greatest benefactor or it's own most deadly assassin. Understand that I not only appreciate but very much like many of the editors who have commented on your case from both directions. I am not picking a side, only offering a bit of advice as I understand more about the human psyche than most give me credit for (See Don Quixote). Everyone wants to be a champion for their cause and if you are human, you have a cause, even if you have to make one up as you go. --ARoseWolf 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Block

HighinBC, I was asked by ToBeFree to refrain from editing until I post my statement. The edit proposals I posted , which was the largest post I made, was prepared long before the AE case was opened, and I only added the NYTimes article to it last night. In the AE case, Bakkster Man even mentioned these edit proposals he was waiting for . How was making this post and the others "gaming"? This is just bizarre. CutePeach (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A late block notification

Hi CutePeach, sorry for the late notification. As now described in Special:Diff/1036795369 quoting your own words, you expected a topic ban to happen, and your approach to this situation seems to have been editing in the area as much as possible before being banned. This is gaming the system, as such bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so you have been blocked while you did it, to prevent it from continuing. I'm relatively certain that the main aspect of any resulting surprise is about the timing, not the action itself. Keeping the AE discussion open to wait for your appeal was not an invitation to continue editing in the area while the process is ongoing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I will add to this statement that it is does not seem that you wrote the 16k of text in the 44 minutes it took you to post it. It looks more like you used the extra time you asked for to write these statements and saved them up to post all at once after you posted your statement. Quickly getting it all out before the ban went into place. This is what I refer to as gaming.

Your delay was meant to give you time to prepare, not to give you extra time to edit in the topic that you yourself felt you would be topic banned from. HighInBC 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

HighinBC and ToBeFree I prepared those edit proposals before the AE case, updating only the NYTimes part. Yes I believe you are biased and enforcing policy unequally - giving me no hope in the AE process - but that doesn’t mean I made what a "last hurrah" with my edits. You make a majestic leap in your assumptions. Please undo your actions, as they are not based on policy. CutePeach (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero 01:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I gave you the narrowest possible topic ban that I saw a consensus for. This, however, is not a free pass to move to other areas around the edge of your topic ban such as Chinese biological weapons program, but an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area. Acting in a disruptive or tentious fashion in other parts of the COVID-19 topic area or in other topics will lead to additional sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. I hope you take this opportunity to show the community that in 6 months that we can lift this topic ban. --Guerillero 01:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

AP discretionary 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.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Note: Johnuniq issued the alert. Now, CutePeach, you've jumped from one contentious area to another. Tread carefully, alright? Adhere to WP:RSP. starship.paint (exalt) 06:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This is very good advice. This is another very contentious area where sourcing policies will be closely applied, as well as conduct policies. CutePeach, if you manage to get a second topic-ban in quick succession then it's entirely possible you could end up with a long block or even ban from the entire project. I don't see anything to justify that at present, but I am concerned it could happen if you grow more frustrated in editing this very contentious area. The Land (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hunter Biden laptop controversy for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hunter Biden laptop controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

soibangla (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

CP, I'm a little surprised that, after getting into a lot of hot water at a contentious area and getting advice that newer editors should edit somewhere non-contentious, you create an article about something incredibly contentious. And not only that, but another area contentious because of conspiracy theories surrounding it. This one isn't even in your wheelhouse, which at least the other one was. I feel like you could very easily end up t-banned from AP2; there's extremely little tolerance for anything that could possibly be characterized as disruptive editing there, and doing anything that wastes other people's time is considered disruptive. What happened to the idea of editing at Filipino musicians? —valereee (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Party line

Hi Cutepeach, as far as I can tell, no editor is pushing the "party line" argument for describing the Biden-Ukraine controversy as a conspiracy theory. At least to me, it's coming off as a "political affiliations" variety of personal attack described at WP:WIAPA. I am watching the discussion at the conspiracy theory article, your laptop article, RSN, and the deletion discussion, and to me the "party line" argument seems like a straw man, in that no one is proposing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, this comment looked like a rebuttal based on the Dem's party line. I will read WP:WIAPA tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by CutePeach (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The AGF reading to me comes fairly easily: that user is suggesting that a neutral article would include the well-covered responses to the corruption/misconduct allegations. They also don't say that's their reason for supporting the current name of the conspiracy theory article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, CutePeach, your statement According to some editors, this video and all other laptop related material should be considered "conspiracy theory" because the 2020 Biden campaign said so... is baseless. You defend it by linking to a post that you say looked like a rebuttal based on the Dem's party line, but in reality it simply points out that denials aren't included. As Firefangledfeathers said, WP:Assume good faith. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Global Virome Project

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Global Virome Project, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have kept the article from eletion, but it will have to be improved by more extensive information and additional substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG it will be difficult for me to work on this draft, and also the ITPPR draft, with my COVID-19 origins topic ban still in place. Do you think it is worth me requesting an appeal or full ARBCOM case to review administrator actions in this topic area? The COVID-19 investigations page still hasn't been updated with WHO's disbanding of its investigation team. The media has corrected its editorial coverage, but Misplaced Pages has not. CutePeach (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

stay tuned. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach and DGG, I can finish this off. I will also finish off Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

IP block

Oshwah why block all accounts from a mobile IP just because another editor from the same mobile internet provider used it? These kinds of blocks are extreme, for a country where most people use mobile. CutePeach (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization

A tag has been placed on Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

per G10, as entirely a criticism page with no NPOV version in history, and per G13, as 6 months stale.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Shibbolethink 14:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, so out of the six million plus articles and the many thousands of drafts on Misplaced Pages, this is the subject you want to work on now and this is the way you want to broach it? This, and the post below looks like WP:HOUNDING. CutePeach (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As you are well aware, we have very similar academic interests. This extends to interest in the WHO and pandemic planning in general. Always has. This CSD was a procedural error. The below post is an extension of being involved in your ArbE. That’s the extent of it, and I have never been particularly interested in your edits outside of this very narrow topic area. Good luck, and I hope you find somewhere to edit productively and constructively. — Shibbolethink 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It was submitted, and, while I am not checking through to see what was intended, I can say regardless of where I stand on any issue, that the current version has so actual content. So I declined it, without making any judgment about what should be done with it. It's no longer a g13, in any case. As a draft, it can't be deleted for lacking content or context, but it can't be accepted into mainspace without it.

I want to say also, without caring what side anyone is on about anything, that I don't like methods that might conceivably be though to verge on evasion, such as mis-titling an article to use it as a WP:COATRACK for some other specific subject., or using draft space to work around a decision made about content in article space. I work mainly at AfC these days, and I see this several times a day, generally from coi editors, but also from fans, or from editors with a determination to see their view of something get in WP.

I don't like it, regardless of what I think of the merits or whether I agree with the prior decisions. Everyone experienced who works with new articles at AfC NPP or AFD feels similarly regardless of how we may stand on anything else. We all try to stop people we agree with from doing this as people we don't agree with. I try to get as many professor articles included as possible, but I will try to get rid of an article where the editor plays games like this just as if they violate copyvio . We have a difficult enough time making decisions without these complications.

I also don't like it when people use questionable deletion reasons for such purposes. Calling something G10 is a serious business. I've used it, I've deleted such content as an admin and blocked people who do it; I've suppressed such content as an oversighter. It should not be used as part of a content disagreement any more than a personal disagreement. I don't know any admin who would ever feel otherwise.

WP can be thought of a game where one tries to outargue one's opponents. It shouldn't be. It's certainly not a game where the goal is out maneuver one's opponent. In a sense it might instead be a game where one tries to find more good references than an opponent, or write better articles, or write articles so strong that nobody who might dislike them could possibly remove them. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This may violate your WP:TBAN on covid origins

Diff @ 06:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Recall that your TBAN is on covid origins, broadly construed. I would advise you to tread more carefully... Even if this is just "viral origins, broadly construed" it gets right to the heart of what Guerillero said above in the notice of your TBAN: This, however, is not a free pass to move to other areas around the edge of your topic ban such as Chinese biological weapons program, but an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area.

Some of this edit appears to me (as an involved editor) as Just barely avoiding the topic area. Especially:

• This requires that key stakeholders, such as researchers and health workers on the ground pass data to international agencies such as the WHO or the MSF, as free of restrictions as possible, within the constraints of medical privacy laws
• In an interview with Discover Magazine, Ian Lipkin said of virus hunting "Initially the evidence is circumstantial", likening it to Criminology where a motive and opportunity need to be established.

Tagging admins: @Guerillero @ToBeFree @HighInBC — Shibbolethink 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm out; enforcement attempts against CutePeach just lead to headaches and spoilt weekends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Understood, sorry to drag you back in. — Shibbolethink 00:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the ping :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My reading is that it is close but not a violation. Someone who is more suspicious than me however may think you are trying to make a point about the topic you are banned from by talking about something adjacent to it. Good thing I am not that suspicious. HighInBC 09:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Criticism of the World Health Organization (November 14)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Would love to contact you in real life

For professional reasons that will quickly become obvious. I've enabled email on my account. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)