User talk:207.47.175.199

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've closed the discussion at WP:AE. Please follow the link above and read it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 07:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not shown an interest in Falun Gong. Rather, I linked to an article in The Epoch Times that was relatively unbiased, and appeared to be factual. So, your argument reduces to the guilt by association. So, if you visited modern day Germany, would that make you a National Socialist? The same illogic is used to discredit every single bit of information printed in The Epoch Times, and accept every single bit of information in The New York Times, even when the same identical information appears in both sources. You don't see the problem with that, fine, then figure this one out, "I always lie." 216.197.221.17 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Feb 22
You should never remove another users posts without good reason (in other words post that violate policy).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Page-blocked
You have been blocked for 2 months from Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, because you have been bludgeoning it long enough and to spare. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

September 2022
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem passionate about the things you are adding, but we still have a set of policies here that are strictly followed, particularly when it comes to medical. WP:MEDRS is worth a read.  To be blunt, if you come in a try pushing a point of view, even if you are right, you end up getting blocked off the system.  Not because of the facts, but because of behavior.  With hundreds of thousands of editors here, with all kinds of backgrounds, it is like herding cats.  So people who come in with a "battleground" attitude simply don't last.  If you want to be a part of what gets published, you are going to have to moderate your tone, and adapt your methods.  You seem like you have a medical background, but it takes more than that to work in collaborative project that quite literally spans the globe:  you have to get along, even if it means biting your tongue sometimes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Your 18:44, 21 Jan. comment at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration has been removed for cause, for reasons I'm sure you well understand, as WP:NOTFORUM. Please cease expounding your general opinions about the topic on the Talk page and confine your comments to how to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * All of my comments and statements have been removed, dozens of them, all the citations, all the reasoning. There is no way to improve the article because of the vandalism of contributors. What would your suggest? The article and rules for contribution allow only for rather crackpot contributions from my POV. The article is dangerous, and I have been censored so may times that my patience is at an end. You have a problem with bias. This is becoming legend, that is, well known. For example, take the statement that because circa 100 nut cases signed the GBD with crackpot names that the 1,000,000 other signatories are somehow illegitimate. The article is really poor quality. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mar 23
You may need to read wP:or wp:rs and wp:bludgeon. As well as wp:consensus as to "lawlessness" please read wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I read them. I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is one of the things that happened to me today, and has been for quite some time. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But, it acts like one by interpreting rules for those who object but not those who have "consensus" irrespective if the consensus is gibberish or not, and using rules when they do not make sense. With respect to Bludgeoning, it is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view, so what do you call misinterpreting every single statement I make, deleting all the references I have ever used and having two or three people do that to me at the same time? Would you feel bludgeoned when 3 people argue the face off a clock just to be contrary? I do. Look for most things I would not care, for the GBD, people have been bludgeoned, ruthlessly. I think Wikipedia needs to do better. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, reverting you is not vandalism, if you think you are being misrepresented or lied about take it here wp:ani, if you think users are vandals take it here wp:AIV. But I would advise against it as a wp:spa making wp:npa violations. But if you keep on bludgeoning then GBD page you will end up with a block. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. Vandalism is changing the title of a post to "Nutcake comments" or some such. I want to improve the GBD article. No one has in a long time. This may be because most recent news does not support the opinions expressed in it. I will try to not react at all to personal attacks, they are, after all, off topic. However, there is a difference between that and claiming that I have not followed the site rules, which is perhaps most of the bludgeoning you are referring to. Perhaps you have noticed that some posts of that type correspond to policy violations made and then projected on me. If I did not react to those, then my text would be deleted. Wikipedia's rules make it very hard to post anything to that effect because those rules are not objective. For example, Allsides does not cite The Epoch Times as unreliable, and in fact complements the lack of biased language.  Allsides merely says that The Epoch Times story choice is 'lean right' but Wikipedia rates The Epoch Times as unreliable. This appears to be incorrect. Wikipedia thinks Allsides is lean right and suspect. Funny, I think it is lean left. I want to do good and help people. If you think this is futile, I can stop. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)