User talk:2A00:A040:19A:4785:DC22:AFCF:EC96:C255

SPA
You really need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not drop this you might get a block, stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you I am just a regular person with no special interest in this particular subject. I read Wikipedia a lot, but edit only very rarely. On some occasions in the past I saw that some articles were seriously incomplete or contained factual errors and edited them or explained the problem in the talk page. I never encountered any kind of opposition before. My edits were accepted and when I pointed to errors in the talk page, people actually fixed the articles, as I suggested. I now looked at some edits and completions of articles I remember making a decade ago, and they survived exceptionally well. As this being a single purpose account, because I rarely make edits, it will always look like this, but every time the purpose will look different. Maybe I will create an account for future edits. I never planed this to develop this way. This started from me being asking a question, because the article seemed unclear to me. I am really surprised by how people attacked me here, and I don't understand what their problem is. I actually tried to help to make the article better.

Go on and block me if that makes you feel good.
 * I am not an admin, I am just warning you that one might if you do not drop this. You have been told by more than one editor there is not an issue here we can address in the way you want. No one is attacking you, we are asking you to listen.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And what is the issue? To me it seems that you are just threatening me.
 * The issue is that you have been closed down more than once for violation of wp:soapbox, you have been told that your interpretations of policy is wrong, you have been asked by more than one user to stop (and been told why you are wasting our time over this). We have policies like wp:rs which are clear, we say what RS say, yes that is one of our golden rules. It does not matter if your wp:or says we are wrong. You have been told this. If you do not wp:dropthestick you are being wp:tenditious and that might get a ban as wp:disruptive. I am not threatening you, I am warning you to drop this and decide to make contributions on other articles. This topic has been exhausted do not exhaust the project patience.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I never promoted anything here. I pointed to problems in the article. It seems to me that you selectively apply the policies to argue your point, while in fact these policies say the opposite. If you check the reliable sources, you will see that this is not a conspiracy theory as defined in the article. I presented 2 such highly reliable sources and it is easy to find many more.
 * Read wp:v, it has to say it, not that you infer it. They do not say its all not a conspiracy theory (or even that the best parts are not). As I said in my last post, some of the lab leak stuff is a conspiracy theory, and most sources (at best) say only that the basic idea (and not the actual accusations) should be looked at (as I have already said, more than once), not that is is valid, and not that is is not a conspiracy theory that the Covid virus was manufactured and escaped. This is my last comment here, I have warned you to drop it, the ball is now in your court, do as you wish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the discussion was closed again. Never mind. I will find something more useful to do than argue with a bunch of bullies here. That's actually a good argument why it is better not to open an account and waste time on this.
 * I recommend you read the Talk page at COVID-19_misinformation, and discuss your concerns there if you're still not satisfied. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have no special interest in this. I just read a Wikipedia article, thought there are problems in it and tried to help make it better. I learned that this doesn't work this way. You can do with the article whatever you want. It is not my problem and I am not going to waste any more of my time on this. You might want to read the discussion from your link though.
 * the Talk page is a great example of thoughtful discussion among many different editors with WP:CONSENSUS as the goal. You'd do better joining in there than pursuing a fruitless WP:1AM campaign at peripherally related articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

NPA
Please read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)