User talk:Felixkrull

McCann
That source is not a reliable one. It violates our living persons policy, so please do not restore it. In addition to that, the issue is already dealt with elsewhere in the article, in this section. SarahSV (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Please also take this opportunity to review policies on reliable sources and original research. I'd also recommend WP:VNT and WP:Academic bias, as complimentary essays which give a pretty valid outlook of existing policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. ''Your personal opinion is all nice, but nobody cares about it unless you can provide acceptable reliable sources to support it; as must have been said a couple of times to you already. Accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased is also borderline uncivil, so I suggest you take some time off and find a less controversial topic.'' RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As it turned out, I was right. The bias is clear for everyone to see now. Case in point, the government of the UK has been advised that a lab leak is now the most likely origin of covid 19. That was clear all along to anyone who could see through the corruption in some scientific circles. And you don't decide when I take time off, buddy. Felixkrull (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the the Political commissars are already lining up behind the front to shoot everyone that steps out of line. :-) That surely will help the discussion along ... Felixkrull (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)