User talk:Knowledge Contributor0

Controversial topic area alert
—  Newslinger  talk   08:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Great Barrington Declaration, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me what was the unreliable sources that I added so that I can correct them? Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Knowledge Contributor0, the edit Special:Diff/982932618 added two citations of the Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source on Wikipedia. When adding a deprecated source to an article, a warning notice is displayed before you are able to submit your edit. —  Newslinger  talk   10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for the clarification Newslinger. Second, I was aware that it is a deprecated source and I reviewed WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255, and I read the following paragraph "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.". The article right now is in a very bad shape; a reader who reads this article won't get any context about the declaration or why the people who signed the declaration did it, and will have to go elsewhere on the Internet due to the lack of information in the article.
 * In addition to the lack of WP:NPOV, the article in its current status will fit more with the title "Responses to the Great Barrington Declaration" than the current title. Consequently, I felt it is warranted to apply WP:IAR to include more information about the co-signers and the reasons they signed the declaration for. Since many of the co-signers didn't get the chance to appear in main stream media due to the highly politicized nature of the subject, I feel that this is one of the exceptional cases that WP:IAR should apply to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255 specially that it includes only interviews with co-signers (window for co-signers to express their opinions) not factual information. What do you think? And will it help if I added an introductory statement like "In an interview with the Daily Mail" to warn the reader about the source? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss this proposed addition on the reliable sources noticeboard. Please keep in mind that claims related to living people are subject to stricter reliability standards, described in WP:BLPRS. —  Newslinger   talk   12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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! —  Newslinger  talk   08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
I have unblocked you following CheckUser findings that you are not the banned user I thought you were. I apologise for this error on my part.

That said, it is completely implausible from your edit history that this is your first interaction with Wikipedia, so please provide some clarity about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for unblocking me. As I mentioned in my appeal ticket, I used to make infrequent edits in Wikipedia many many years ago (didn't bother to create an account back then). So I am very aware of the framework of Wikipedia, even though I must admit that my knowledge is outdated (e.g. I didn't know that the daily mail has been banned). I never claimed to be a newbee. On a personal level unrelated to editing on Wikipedia, I am aware of how verifiability of claims work and how scientific consensus/main stream theories is established through systematic reviews, and this helps me on a professional level. So in summary, while I did only 3 edits this year, the ones you saw with this account, I am not new to Wikipedia and I have never been banned or even had a disrespectable conversation with anybody before for any reason.
 * I didn't feel the need to contribute to Wikipedia over the years because I saw that the editors were doing a great job, so I didn't feel the need to. That was until a few days ago when I saw the article Great Barrington Declaration, and to be honest I was shocked. I felt that the focus of the article was not to talk about the declaration but to attack it. For example, there was a suggestion in the talk page to delete the word "Great" from the title because it is self claimed by the sponsors! This gave me the impression that some of the article editors didn't even bother understanding the title of the article they are editing and were there just to promote an unbalanced view. I know I may have chosen a bad time to start editing again on Wikipedia and may started with the wrong article, and many things I couldn't imagine happened in the last few days e.g.
 * 1 - Me having the need to cite Daily Mail as a source for a scientists' views due to the lack of coverage of their views in main stream media.
 * 2 - To my shock, Google (out of all search engines) removing a petition by top scientists from search results and returning it after people complained without even bothering to explain why it was removed or returned.
 * 3 - Guardian covering top scientists declaration with the title "Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'".
 * It is like I am living in a different world, where Google did something only the Great Firewall will do and there is no difference between the Guardian and Daily Mail (except that they are on different ends of the political spectrum). To be honest, if I was writing an article about creationism it wouldn't have contained as much attack as this. So, I decided to join to help in making sure that the censorship doesn't extend to Wikipedia. I am saying this because I am expecting that most of the topics that I will be engaging in will be highly controversial in the time being and reflect views that represent minority (not in the scientific literature but in main stream media). So, it will happen many times that my suggestions won't be favored by the majority of the editors and I hope this is ok. I would be glad to provide any clarification for my position at any time, and I would like to thank you for giving me the time to clarify my position. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Undo at Fringe Theories
Sorry for that, but I don't think it appropriate. While I understand your reasoning, "pet" there strikes me as forgivable rhetorical device rather than libel. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, but according to WP:LBL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.". Now the question is: is it defamatory to call a living person an animal? The definition of Defamation is "Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.". Now is it a false statement? Yes. Does it harm a human being to call him/her an animal? Yes because it is Dehumanization. Is it just? No, because the living person didn't stand trial to defend against that description. Therefore it fits the definition of WP:LBL and should be removed immediately without discussion according to WP:BLPREMOVE. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, no. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me if there is any flaw in my reasoning. Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe your reasoning is flawed insofar as it mistakes a common idiom for its literal meaning. If it were accepted, calling Richard I "Lionheart" would be libelous were he alive.  At best it is sophistical and at worst disingenuous.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Richard I "Lionheart" with the implication of courage doesn't "unjustly harms their reputation" as courage is good reputation. Unlike describing a person as a pet which implies that the person acts willingly like an animal with no mind or willingly accepting being treated that way. Now in law, "Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged." and "A publication is defamatory only if a defamatory sense is conveyed to an ordinary person." . Since describing Richard I "Lionheart" didn't damage his reputation and won't be conveyed by an ordinary person in defamatory, it cannot be considered libel. While calling a person a pet aims at doing harm to their reputation and can be conveyed to an ordinary person in defamatory sense. When you read the statement that I deleted, did you feel it was written as a compliment to the person to promote their good reputation or conveyed defamatory sense to harm their reputation? How do you think in a court of law describing person as a pet will be conveyed? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your original argument seemed to hinge on dehumanization, thus my "Lionheart" example. But in this instance, in all of the common law jurisdictions with which I am familiar, it would be considered protected opinion (and not a close call).  One of the keys to defamation is that statements must be taken in context.  That is your key failing here.  The text at issue cannot reasonably be interpreted to imply anything bestial about the person named.  It is a common turn of phrase.  It would be as if every time the phrase "pet theory" was used, it had to be about domesticated animals.  I understand we disagree about this, but I will trouble your talk page no more.  All the best.  Dumuzid (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Protected opinion can't cause harm to person's reputation or it will be considered libel. The text conveys that exact meaning of harming another person's reputation through dehumanization. There is no doubt here from the context about what the writer conveyed by using the word "pet", and that they meant harm to the person's reputation. Nevertheless, in Wikipedia editors can't write their own opinions about living persons without reliable source, which wasn't the case and will still warrant applying WP:BLPREMOVE. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Infobox person&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Circumcision and HIV&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Proud Boys&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jon Ossoff&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Proud Boys&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Chris Cuomo&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Xi Jinping&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Robert Byrd&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gliese 1061&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service
Hi Knowledge Contributor0! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:


 * 1) Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
 * 2) Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
 * 3) Paste  underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
 * 4) Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)