User talk:Adriaandh

A lengthy welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Adriaandh. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Andrew Hill (pharmacologist), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

''I notice that your username includes "andh" which suggests you may be AH or writing on his behalf, and that as well as creating the article on him one of your few other edits to mainspace has included mention of his work. Please read WP:COI and either declare a COI or state here that you are not he or closely connected to him. Thanks.'' Pam  D  10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:PamD I am not in any way related to Andrew Hill and do not know him even remotely except for reading his publicized works. I also do not have any conflict of interest through any type of organization or profit motive. I am a self employed engineer in the Telecommunications industry. My only conflict of interest is my interest in the unnecessary deaths of my fellow human beings due to the suppression of information and biased reporting on viable treatment options for the COVID pandemic. Unfortunately it appears that this interest is in conflict with Wikipedia reporting/moderation. If anything I have attempted to publish is false or misleading in any way shape or form, please let me know (with references please). And do not slander me with claims of cconflict of interest when the real biased reporting is from people like Alexbrn that is suppressing information to fit his narrative and promoting unsubstantiated reporting by non-medical media outlets on the Ivermectin page while suppressing actual medical research data. Also, it is amazing the lengths to which an association is attempted to be found. My name is clearly given in my username as being Adriaan (quite a common name) and my last name initials is dh for De Haan. If ever I write anything with regard to fraud prevention in the Telecommunication Industry I will be sure to declare any conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine, thank you. For all I knew you might have been someone called "Adria" writing on behalf of "andh", so I just enquired. Pam  D  11:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * User:PamD Sorry, I overreacted. I've just been exceedingly frustrated with the bias and censorship of Alexbrn and assumed this was part of another of his strategies to control the narrative. My apologies Adriaandh (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem - I just sort stubs and sometimes wonder when I see a new article where there aren't the usual signs of notability, then check to see what other articles that editor created, notice that you'd added AH elsewhere... it's a pattern which one sometimes sees! Sorry you've been having conflict elsewhere. Nothing to do with me. Happy editing. Pam  D  11:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "I see a new article where there aren't the usual signs of notability" Can you explain what that means? "signs of notability"? Also, I don't think I created any new articles, other than the page for Andre Hill.

Talk page procedures
I am an uninvolved administrator and have removed your comment at Talk:Ivermectin because it contains serious WP:ASPERSIONS against an editor. An article talk page is for discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article based on policies such as WP:V and WP:DUE. Particularly in a topic under general sanctions (WP:GS/COVID19), good procedures must be followed. If you have an actionable proposal to improve the article, make it in a new section without mentioning other editors. The proposal should focus on specific text to be removed from the article, or to be added to the article. Comments involving complaints about the core procedures of Wikipedia do not belong on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "actionable proposals to improve the article based on policies" - that is a farce, it is impossible to make changes to the site since it is under full control of a few overlords that have a pre-determined narrative. Where can I find more information on what checks and balances Wikipedia has in place to vet industry paying for administrators to promote biased opinions? Other than silencing any voices of dissent against biased moderation?Adriaandh (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not surprised that my references to the study being used in a deceitful manner was removed. Wikipedia is a total joke, where is the correct place to bring this up? How is an investigation requested into a contributor taking over an article for political or financial reasons? I will refrain from trying to contribute since there is clearly unsurpassable power given to certain individuals to write incorrect content about medically critical information without any oversight or investigation into their bias/financial motivations. Wikipedias claims of independence and open-ness is pandering. I will focus my efforts on other mediums to create awareness about the disgraceful practices of wikipedia Adriaandh (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed another such disruptive comment. I think WP:AE needs to be brought in at this point. --Hipal (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Another . --Hipal (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the procedure for reporting a biased moderator and investigating their financial records for funding from industry or other players? Adriaandh (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough of this silliness. If you have a complaint about behaviour take in to WP:AIN, with evidence. Further disruption in the wrong place (the article Talk page ) is likely to end up in your being removed the the topic/Project. Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure that is what will happen, I am actually surprised you haven't had all users with opposing views removed yet. Adriaandh (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Clear pattern to censor info
Adraandh; Dont take it to heart, this is a pattern that keeps repeating itself by any covid treatment that doesnt fit mainstream drug companies and organizations. We have seen it by HQC, Ivermectin, and Vitamin D/calcifediol (which is probbaly the most effective of all 3).

I am proud to have been banned by Wikipidia to comment after my comments on talk page re HQC. I learnd very quickly that Wikipida is as much free information like CNN is for conservatism or breitbart for libarelisim. Its censor at its best, to summarize the view of the few. Total waste of time. (this post might also be deleted because it probably somehow violates some wiki policy, whatever. I stand proud). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are tweeting, you should look in re calcifediol. While ivermectin is clearly effective, calcifediol has robust data to back that it has major impact, and since its only a vitamin with no side affects it could be given without much consideration.

Re wikipidia, whoever claims to be the most independent is usually the most corrupt..Berkshires (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew Hill (pharmacologist)


The article Andrew Hill (pharmacologist) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Been tagged for notability for a month, no improvements to sourcing. His studies are used by WP:FRINGE to advocate Ivermectin as a miracle drug. No Google Scholar profile, perhaps due to how common his name is. Does not appear to pass GNG. Only bios I've found about him are 'about our authors/staff' type pages, which aren't independent."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)