User talk:JFJ88

November 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gerard Rennick have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gerard Rennick was changed by JFJ88 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900669 on 2021-11-03T07:04:47+00:00

Edit warring
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and citations
I've noticed your unsourced text at the Rennick article. Please note that it's important for all material, especially if controversial, to be supported by independent reliable sources and cite them (WP:RS, WP:CITE). If I understand there was a claim that the hospitals are full because of vaccination and that it also affects the economy, when statistics in the world appear to show the contrary, that vaccination is a good strategy to allow a return to normal activity, including to work, and that lockdowns were needed because hospitals were full of COVID-19 patients, not "vaccine-injured" people. Claims like these are considered extraordinary. If they are part of Rennick's arguments, a reliable source may have reported about it. — Paleo Neonate  – 11:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't disagree that extraordinary claims require legitimate sources. A paradox in itself.

However the edit I made corrected the statements to align with what Rennick actually said. Rather you are implying it's not what is said by the subject that matters, but the interpretation of an opinion arricle.

Why would you willingly promote misreprenting what the subject says? JFJ88 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, when I looked back I noticed that you had linked an image to the text and that the in-article text copied it. Thus you did provide a source and the text you inserted wasn't yours; while my information about how Wikipedia works above is valid, I misunderstood the context.  So this was a primary source (despite being an image on an independent news site), and the quote was extensive, exceeding the limits allowed by copyright (maybe it's under a license that allows copying, if so, perhaps it's even acceptable for Wikisource).  For the article, it would be better to cite the The Conversation article (i.e. with cite news) and to include short quotes or a summary of that article's analysis.  As for "Why would you willingly promote misreprenting what the subject says?", it's of course not the goal.  The article's talk page would be a better place to work on such technicalities, so we can resume out there...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and quoting WP:RSP about The Conversation: "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION." so it depends on how it's used.  If you can provide a link to the actual article at the talk page it would be a good start for other editors to evaluate it.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)