User talk:Conn!3Mack

Welcome!
Hi Conn!3Mack! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Steve Kirsch, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Trying to change facts that established ona Reuters Fact Check article.   scope_creep Talk  22:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is not constructive about the "citation needed" template. There is a statement made regarding an article they say appeared in May 2021 so it needs a source to back it up and show it isn't just made up. At least that makes sense to me. Instead of the correct citation, there is a citation for the claim that it is false and/or inaccurate, which is putting the horse before the cart, so to speak. Today I followed that link and see that it has a link to the archived article they are referring to . That is the citation that is needed there. Wouldn't you agree? But when I go to that original web address , he isn't listed as the author. It is attributed to a group named vaccinetruth. I'm working on confirming who the author of that article is. In the meantime, Health Feedback is basing their claim against him partly on the statement, "Biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles which carry the mRNA show that the ovaries get the highest concentration." It you look at the original article, it clearly points out that the injection site and other locations aren't included in the comparison, to make the graph easier to read. It says, "NOTE: There are areas of the body that are not included here like the injection site (165), liver (24), spleen (23), and adrenals (18). These were not included so you can see more detail. The graph ends at 48 hours because that is the extent of the data provided in the original Pfizer study." So, the statement being used against the author is being taken out of context. It seems that the feature article may need more than just a citation and may need some rewriting/revision for the sake of accuracy. I haven't done much editing here so please explain, if I don't understand something.Conn!3Mack (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)