User talk:2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE

June 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

saying wp:cabal does not exist is not a personal attack. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're clearly only interested in complaining about "wikiactivists". Go take a look at WP:YWAB. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are clearly interested in removing any disagreeing opinion, in blatant disregard of wp:npov. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're clearly interested in not reading WP:NPOV, which actually says that minority and "plausible but unaccepted theories" don't need to be mentioned if that would create false balance. Neutral is "neutral according to the best sources", not "neutral according to the proponents of the minority opinion". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * you are clearly interested in not applying wp:npov, which actually does not say anywhere the opinion of the POTUS presented at the biggest geopolitical meetin, G7, should be not be mentioned in the article, and further discussion on such inclusions should be trimmed so the said POTUS opinion can continue to not be presented in the article. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the POTUS hold a degree in virology? Has he got his opinion published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? If not, then his opinion is not really relevant. We trust scientists, not politicians - see WP:Academic bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you applied your own bias and blocked even the start of a discussion on a disagreeing opinion. thank you for admitting you applied your own bias, in direct opposition to wp:npov. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ah and in case you haven't noticed, there is an "International politicians' calls for investigations" section whose epitome probably is the opinion of POTUS at G7. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's where I think you're confused: We already have Biden's opinion on this. Should we include every single thing he's ever said about it? No, that would go against WP:WEIGHT. Our job is to include his opinion as much as it is relevant to the topic, as shown to us by the most reliable encyclopedic unbiased sources on the topic. And his opinion doesn't hold much weight in those. So we only include it a little bit, when it is extremely news-worthy. We don't include every single time he has said anything about it.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the difference is that the other G7 have been involved in the geopolitical move, AND the talkpage already has a reference specifically about "European leaders" and their position of the lab leak. it's not seeing the forrest of the US tree.  2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the page in question or are you just complaining because it says something you don't like about the lab leak? The page already has a whole subsection about the US government's actions (which is strongly indicative of an existing systematic bias in giving more coverage to events in, particularly, North America)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And as you can see, if it is contrary to yours, you have absolutely no interest in the opinion of a Nobel laureate virologist on the subject, since more than a week later this has yet to be included anywhere: https://khn.org/morning-breakout/nobel-winning-biologist-backpedals-slightly-on-covid-lab-leak-theory/
 * People offering contrarian opinions aren't relevant (since opinions are inherently WP:PRIMARY sources). What's relevant is what gets published in peer-reviewed, reputable journals (those are WP:SECONDARY sources, on which all articles should ideally be based). I've given you a link to a sample. Otherwise, you're free to go on PubMed or other such databases and look for review articles from authors with credible expertise in credible journals. I can tell you from having done that that most don't even consider the lab leak. That this doesn't match with the political Zeitgeist is not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep making sure that all mainstream sources are completely removed from the talkpage just because happen do defy your personal subjective opinion. It is not important if you remove 100 rule-abiding comments if you can tag a single off-limit comment with the other 100% constructive comments. it is not at all like an accidental or intentional behavior of a "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest".  2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. <=totally unrelated comment which absolutely does not apply at all in any way to the current discussion. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID general sanctions notification
Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)