User talk:Dr Wiselove

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Vaccine Choice Canada, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ixocactus (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am very aware of the five pillars of Wikipedia which is why I was so appalled to see articles of several organisations and people that were verifiably false, bias, opinionated and unsupported by checkable references. Calling Bigtree part of the anti vaccination movement is a slur and is demonstratably false. Since he is still alive he can be questioned directly if he is “anti-vaccination”. Since I did not want put forward my own opinion I merely deleted unsupported biased and potentially libellous claims. It seems rather than deleting false and unsupported claims, you suggest that I add my own opinion? But when someone makes a false claim about a person or organisation, surely it is better to remove it than honour it by making a counter claim. Del Bigtree is alive and broadcasting, he is open to direct questions that he promises to answer in two days. Would a statement from Del Bigtree that he is not anti vaccination count as evidence that he is not Anti-vaccine? If not why not? Dr Wiselove (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Del Bigtree, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Informed Consent Action Network, you may be blocked from editing. Ixocactus (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The content I removed was false and against Wikipedia guidelines. ICAN and Del Bigtree are not anti vaccination. I removed references that went against Wikipedia guidelines, I.e. libellous to living person only supported by tabloid journalism Dr Wiselove (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit was not intended to be disruptive. Wikipedia is a vital resource and misinformation ought to be edited out in an open source fashion. Please explain why you view my edit to be disruptive? If it is a technical issue, please let me know. If it is a content issue, then I kindly ask you to provide uncontroversial support for the claim the ICAN is anti-vaccination Dr Wiselove (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

“	Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person.” I edited pages concerning Del Bigtree and ICAN. The pages clearly went against the above guidelines. Calling something “Fringe” or “Pseudoscience” is not neutral, it is bias and a slur. It is not substantiated in any of the pages I deleted text from. “Fringe” is not necessarily a slur, but still needs to be explained. Several bodies categorised as fringe by Wikipedia currently claim specifically to be referenced with papers published in respected medical journals, government statistics and other verifiable sources. Further more their stated claim is to advocate for the right to consent to any medical procedure. This is so far from fringe that it forms the basis of medical ethics and is enshrined in the human rights act of 1996. Dr Wiselove (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Potentially libelous statement
Please don't make such statement - they can be seen as a threat by you to take legal action or encourage others to take legal action, and that usually leads to an automatic WP:NLT block. You can discuss whether something is libelous, just not assert it in any fashion that might be seen as a threat. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I was quoting from the first pillar of Wikipedia. No content is supposed to be potentially libellous to living persons. I feel threatened by this message since all I was trying to do was uphold the Wikipedia key values. The edits that I made were to delete verifiably false statements that were clearly unsupported, clearly bias and potentially libellous to a living person. I would support these claims by the following arguments: Del Bigtree claims not to be part of the “anti vaccination movement”. Del Bigtree and ICAN report to provide critical journalism about safety issues regarding pharmaceutical products. He advocates for the right for informed consent to be required before any medical procedure is given. This means that he is for voluntary vaccination. In making this simple amendment of removing anti vaccination from descriptions of living professional people who are not anti vaccine I am now being accused of being threatening. Do you find it threatening to be asked to conform to Wikipedia guidelines? Do you accept that unsupported allegations against living persons is potentially libellous? Do you accept that Del Bigtree is not anti vaccination? Dr Wiselove (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)