User talk:216.197.221.222

November 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generaliation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You deleted the following:
 * Reputable journals do a great deal of fact checking. The due diligence can be quite exhaustive. That would not be the case for predatory journals. Wikipedia's lack of common sense for current politics has generated considerable controversy, see https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased which lists a litany of studies and opinions alleging Wikipedia's left-wing bias for current politics including an opinion from Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger who conducted his own bias analysis of the website, saying Wikipedia is “badly biased.” The reason for bringing that up for this article is because of the harm caused by what appears to be a propaganda piece made up out of whole cloth. The claim that the point application of bias correction of one of Wikipedia's most excessively biased hit pieces should not be applied because it is irrelevant to the content of that hit piece is logically untenable. It seems more alike to a magical incantation, a mambo-jumbo, than a robust argument. 216.197.221.222 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am reporting this to AllSides as an example of censorship on your website.216.197.221.222 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's what it takes for you to stop sharing your off-topic opinions on months-old discussions, by all means. MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Great Barrington Declaration Wikipedia article did a great deal of public harm. It continues to tout dangerous ideas from discredited sources. It is supposedly the case that eventually the truth will out as more unbiased information comes to light. Not so with Wikipedia's political bias. You have irked me by deleting comments, references, solid sources, scientific facts and the like for as long as that article has existed without any recourse. This has had an effect on me. For example, the non-sequitur link to 'climate-deniers' had me question in whose mind such a gibberish linkage could apply, answer: Wikipedia's daydreams. So, I investigated 'climate change' on Wikipedia and found a hornet's nest of delusional ideation. FYI, the only green house gases worth investigating are water vapor and to a lesser extent ozone, oxygen and nitrogen. You could leave carbon dioxide completely out of the equation and it would be contribute a fraction of a percent error to any subsequent investigation. Politics and science are immiscible, like oil and water. You would be wise to stop confusing yourselves and your readers by pretending that politicians, and media pundits are scientists. By pretending that Wikipedia does no evil by willful misattribution is not acceptable. 216.197.221.222 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)