User talk:Before the Bang

AfC notification: Draft:Lin Shu-ling has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lin Shu-ling. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lin Shu-ling (October 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lin Shu-ling and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lin Shu-ling, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lin_Shu-ling Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lin_Shu-ling reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artemisia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, I'm Zanhe. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Huang Clan Empire seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I've moved the article to Miramar Huang family, as "Huang Clan Empire" violates WP:POV and WP:OR. -Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Justin Huang ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Justin_Huang check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Justin_Huang?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Amis
 * Taitung Miramar Resort ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Amis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panai ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Taitung_Miramar_Resort?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited W. Ian Lipkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCP ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/W._Ian_Lipkin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/W._Ian_Lipkin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of General Sanctions for CoVID-19-Related Articles
-Thucydides411 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am specifically concerned about your edits at Ian Lipkin. Please keep in mind that special provisions apply to biographies of living people. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am once again concerned about your recent edits to Ian Lipkin. You added a huge amount of poorly sourced (much of it to timestamps in a podcast and in a Dr. Oz show) material. Much of it was synthesized to make claims that the sources themselves do not make. I've already warned you about general sanctions in this area, and I am not going to repeat this warning yet again. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not poorly sourced - that's an easily provable lie. You were asked many times to provide valid reasons for removing referenced factual information but refused to respond. Since you refuse to discuss it sensibly, then send it to an open discussion and seek consensus. In the meantime take a break from your information suppression job. Repeatedly vandalizing the page is juvenile and dishonest. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Before the Bang: as a third party who has no prior POV on this, I reviewed the sources being challenged and I have agree with the characterization of many of them as poor and the general thrust of the OR concerns. I think you may misunderstand the notice that's been placed here. Articles under general sanctions and WP:BLP articles in particular are expected to comply as strictly as possible with the WP:CCPOL: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.   is under no obligation to answer your rather odd questions on the talk page.  The WP:BURDEN is, in point of fact, on you to justify these edits.  Please also be aware that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia and complying with the BLP and CCPOL policies is almost never considered vandalism by admins.  If you wish to continue with these edits, you must discuss them on the article talk page or risk sanctions, which no-one wants to see.  I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So, which citations (you say there are many) do you consider poorly sourced and why? Which questions are odd? And why can a user delete large amounts of referenced material without having to respond to questions as to why he deleted it? Can you give actual examples instead of making generalized statements? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Before the Bang, I'll take these in reverse order, if you don't mind. A user can delete large amounts of material without having to justify the deletions because that's what the policies I earlier referenced require of us.  I gave the "actual example" of a quote from the BLP policy that says exactly that so I'm puzzled why you are asking that question again. I'm ok with repeating myself so: Contentious material about living persons ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. emphasis added
 * The questions that were odd were, I'm sorry to say, your only attempt at discussion. None of them are obviously about the sourcing and all of them are apparent attempts to beg the question. I don't see how those questions are relevant to the usage of your sources.  I'll say this again, since you've now edit-warred on the basis that "discussion is ongoing": No other editor is under any obligation to satisfy you with the answers you wish and taking the lack of answers as an excuse to re-instate the text is an error on your part.  See the link about BURDEN I posted earlier for specifics.
 * Some of the sources that are possibly questionable in context are India Today, Global Times the Dr. Oz Show, and the Straits Times. With the exception of "Global Times" these are usually OK but in the context of Covid they have to be used carefully and only with corroboration. The bigger issue is that you are injecting your own views to say what these don't actually say.  Take the statement: "This time-frame indicates that Lipkin was potentially contagious around the time of his media appearances in a high community-contact environment." You have sourced this to nothing any you can't because this is your own personal WP:SYNTH of other statements.  This is a clear violation of the WP:OR policy and therefore also of the BLP policy. I hope that I've answered your questions adequately and specifically enough for you.
 * There is also the issue that prompted the notification below: Don't edit war, ever, especially not in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. As stated above, sanctions were authorized by the ArbCom for BLP's in May 2014 and equivalent ones for Covid-19 by the community this March.  I strongly urge you to engage in a open discussion before making any further edits to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

, thanks for your reply. I asked which questions were odd? That means: Can you please quote one of the questions and tell me why it’s odd? Or even better answer it! Instead you’ve just repeated that in your personal opinion they were odd and spouted more unsubstantiated, ‘out in the weeds’ generalizations. If you’re so sure about your case, then why refuse to answer even one question and engage in a discussion about it? Please, if you are genuinely independent, let’s look at the evidence (the specifics of the article) and establish a baseline of truth from which we can proceed in a logical fashion. Here are the questions. 1. Is Lipkin an "extremely poor source" for his own views? (How is this question not related to a discussion of the sources as you claim, btw?) 2. Is Lipkin's messaging to "the whole country" relevant to a presentation of his advice on SARS-CoV-2? 3. Did Lipkin "misremember" that he saw a "particularly compelling" 2003 WHO study that found masks "had a dramatic impact on community transmission"? 4. Is Lipkin's quote on Dr. Oz a misquote? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Before the Bang, this is not a college debating society or a pseudo-legalistic proceeding. I have said multiple times that no-one, myself included, is required to satisfy your demands and that continues to be  the case.  The policy in question is WP:BURDEN.  This is the fact: You attempted to add material,. You have been challenged on that material.  It is now up to you to justify why you think this material is allowed under policy. It is not up to anyone else to answer your questions.  Feel justified all you want that we are cooperating to stonewall you or whatever but that is not going to change the situation.  You are not allowed to keep re-adding your challenged material on the basis that no-one is answering your questions. Go to the talk page and please engage in an actual discussion.  Multiple experienced editors have challenged this material as violating our core policies and until you address those concerns you are engaging in disruptive editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations, and misinformation. You write: “Go to the talk page and please engage in an actual discussion.” I have - why don’t you go there instead of bombarding me with juvenile threats and generalizations? Again, I have explained several times that an hour-long broadcast between two eminent professors discussing Lipkin’s views (in which Lipkin speaks for the bulk of the time), constitutes a reliable primary source for an article presenting Lipkin’s views. I have then asked why do you think Lipkin is an unreliable source for his views? Your response? Crickets. I have been accused of misquoting - ok - so i ask ‘Which quotes are misquotes?’ I need to know which specific quotes you’re talking about so i can prove that they’re legitimate, right? Your answer, ‘It’s not up to anyone to answer your questions.’ So how on earth can i defend the quotes if you're not game to say which ones? Now, you did mention four sources that you said are ‘possibly questionable’. (So the other 70 odd sources are fine? Why were they wiped?) These four include The Global Times, which is particularly amusing as Thucydides411 wrote: “Global Times is reliable for this sort of basic information (someone met with someone).” So on that point it seems like an argument between you and Thucydides. Could the two of you please debate that point together and get back to me as a united front? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at W. Ian Lipkin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, I haven't reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period so why are you sending me this? Is it supposed to be an intimidation tactic? Did you send the same to Thucydides411, who started this when he unilaterally deleted material backed by over 70 different sources? Then repeatedly deleted it without engaging in a discussion on specifics? Bear in mind he does have a reputation for wiki-wars and wiping referenced material, especially concerning his pet pro-CCP causes. Before the Bang00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang (talk)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing at Ian Lipkin
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Ian Lipkin. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Note: I am referring to this message you made. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Salvio 09:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and will also add that persistently failing to get the point is disruptive in its own right. Salvio 10:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what they say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the reasons for the block, I blocked you because you were edit warring and I considered the edit war particularly serious, because it violated this clause of the BLP policy: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. I simply took notice that there were good-faith BLP objections, that did not appear to be unreasonable on their face and that you were restoring such material unchanged without obtaining consensus. Salvio 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that Before the Bang has just added back in the exact same material that earned them their previous block:. This is Before the Bang's first article-space edit since the previous block. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Before the Bang has now reverted a second time today to add in the exact same content that they originally got blocked over. They also added in an accusation of "vandalism" in their edit message this time. Before the Bang doesn't seem to have learned anything from the last block. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Permanent Unappealable Ban
Inflammatory lies (Lipkin is a Columbia University professor ffs) made while canvassing, as mentioned one section above, and conspiracy theories ( Holmes was the only non-Chinese scientist invited to help map ) warrant a permanently un-appealable indefinite block on WP:NOTHERE WP:TROLL grounds. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! Pretty soon we could just have people like you running Wikipedia! No need to stop at permanent bans, we could WP:URLTRK and WP:VOCTRN. Before the Bang (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)}} wrote: "I strongly recommend you change your approach ... or you are very likely to end up indefinitely blocked."

Dear Above, Guess you’ll object on WP:BREAKINGNEWS grounds but WP:SHOUTING WP:WIKICODE and/or generalizations is not in and by itself a winning argument. I’d be surprised if it’s grounds for WP:INDEFENITEBLOCK

Here’s the little known thing: if you click on that code, there are rules behind it - good ones - well thought out - with specific details of when a rule should, or should not be applied.

Re the WP:ADMINACCT rules, can you post the ones that say quoting W. Ian Lipkin is prohibited - and those “refus(ing) to get the point” will be WP:BBB (‘blank-block-n-banned’)?