User talk:142.165.171.201

August 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I'm afraid it doesn't look like you are here to work collaboratively with others. Expect to be blocked or banned if you continue in the manner of . --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not look to me like you are willing to collaborate. Collaboration requires discussion of points of view. For example, I tell you that science is unsettled, and you reject my contribution on the basis of "settled science." So, you do not admit even the proposition that scientific opinions can differ, then you say I am not willing to work collaboratively with others. It is not I who rejects collaboration, it is you. You discuss no points of view, none of the opinions I have offered, you present no arguments, no evidence, you stonewall, you accuse me of what you are doing, and then suggest that I should be blocked or banned. Ridiculous. I rather do not care about Wikipedia, keep your self-referential opinions in your preferred echo chamber, I shall not waste further time on such nonsense. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Collaboration requires discussion of points of view. No, it does not. We work from high-quality references and adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No source is binary: true versus false, e.g., the NYT denied the Holocaust during WWII. One man's truth is another's falsehood, and any scientific article is a mixture of both. I see that in my own scientific writing. Occasionally, I get something wrong, and it may take me years to realize it. Those errors tend to be single ideas that I find in my own writing, but much more frequently in yours. Your sources are stinky, and just how stinky they are you refuse to discuss, that is, you refuse to collaborate using an elaborate smoke-screen calling no-matter-how-ridiculously-biased-a-source reliable if it fits your limited and exclusive narrative. That Wikipedia uses journalist products sometimes with no science training beyond a grade school level as trusted sources is not even funny. And it is not uniformly that way for Wikipedia. The actual scientific contributions that are not current subjects of mass hysteria can indeed be reliable. For example, statistics on Wikipedia tends to be fairly reliable. Unlike Stalinist era propaganda, Wikipedia has not yet figured out how to warp statistics toward political goals, but given the very poor quality of Wikipedia's current events writing, I would not encourage you to try. For current events, Wikipedia is not at all reliable and elsewhere Wikipedia has developed a reputation as unreliable for same. Look up Wikipedia on AllSides. BTW, I no longer care; In my humble opinion, Wikipedia for current events is not salvageable. Moreover, please stop writing AT me, if you want to actually discuss something worthwhile step outside of Oz's curtain. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, but We work from high-quality references and adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You work from low-quality left leaning rags I would not use for toilet paper. What you are missing in doing that is any discussion of which factoids are true and which are not relying instead on legacy media fact checking of very low quality. Stop speaking at me, please, you are discussing an empty set and it is defenseless. Like I said, Wikipedia is well known to be biased for current events, and no squirming and pointing at rules will change that; change your rules to discuss what are or are not facts rather than relying on the suffocating opinions of under-educated intern writers in left-of-center fact-checking organizations bought and paid for by elitist corporate influencers with a pecuniary interest in distorting public opinion. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia at the very least. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)