User talk:ReasonAndScience

Welcome!
Hi ReasonAndScience! 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! Longhair\talk 19:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Your relationship with the PPP
What relationship do you have with the PPP? The fact that you, Bonafidemd79 and DiamondInTheRug have started editing the PPP article after a long period of domancy suggests to the casual observer that there is off-wiki coordination. If you have a relationship with the PPP, you must disclose that per our Conflict of interest guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not a member of PPP. Consistent with the COI policy my edits are not about myself, family, friends, clients, employers, nor do I have a financial or other relationships with the organization. ReasonAndScience (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not know who Bonafidemd79 and DiamondInTheRug are. ReasonAndScience (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Physicians for Patient Protection for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Physicians for Patient Protection is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Physicians for Patient Protection until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Physicians for Patient Protection. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Physicians for Patient Protection, you may be blocked from editing.   Inexpiable (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Quit your agenda
I see you've logged into another account of yours now your vandal one has been banned. If you continue your disruptive editing on that article further investigation will be carried out against you and all the other accounts you use DiamondInTheRug. Inexpiable (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Single purpose account, WP:Sockpuppet, WP:MEAT Inexpiable (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, you were not part of the recent edit warring, and appear to have had been editing earlier to remove bad content as much as add valid content. In my opinion over-reached in accusing you of socking. David notMD (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you blame me? The entire article is fishy as with all the recent editing. All these new accounts with such few edits have come out of the wood works to edit this article, that until recently was averaging less than 10 views a day. All the accounts seem to have the same agenda and each edit in the same way with edit descriptions. I would expect a new user to not even bother writing a description as to what they edited, yet somehow these accounts are doing just that and the wording sounds awfully similar. It makes no sense. And just moments after one of those accounts was permanently banned ReasonAndScience suddenly appears? Coincidence, maybe, but it sure is suspicious. Even admins have commented that something isn't right. Maybe it is not the same person but definitely some sort of off Wikipedia communication on social media of sorts. Which still violates WP:MEAT. Inexpiable (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I agree with you that this is meatpuppetry. As I wrote on, My main theory right now on what caused this unusual event is that they have a private newsletter (or multiple such newsletters, or even mailing lists for higher ups) and they criticized Wikipedia's coverage in one of them. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that these are physicians - active or retired - who became aware of this article and focused on it. So perhaps not socks, and not even organized meats, but more like crows mobbing an owl. (If you've never seen this, a crow or two happen upon a barred or great horned owl, and call out with alarm calls that attract other crows.) Each editor may be violating NPOV, and thus revertable on those grounds. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)