User talk:Seabreezes1

Starlings
Hi, best to add messages to the end of a talk page, they can be overlooked at the top. The page you edited referred to the starling family. As far as I know, the behaviour described is only shown by the Common Starling, not the many others. The phenomenon is described there  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Interesting, although I haven't seen anything quite as large or complex as the youtube clips, I have, since childhood, observed what I called "bird games" when large flocks have split and gone in different directions and then reunited. I thought it a combination of hide & seek and tag. I live on Cape Ann in Massachusetts. Seabreezes1 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Seabreezes1

Your submission at AfC Family estrangement was accepted
 Family estrangement, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mz7 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Seabreezes1. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
Please remember to sign all your talk page comments with four tildes and to indent your comments so they are easily distinguishable from others' comments. It's pretty hard to figure out what's what. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref for book
Have moved content here as we need a page number

Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation. Suggested updates...
Have 'you' noticed that 'you' give full answers to points but the Multiple editors that 'own' this page -against Wikipedia policy  only provide  very short  side-step arguments in an effort to put you on the back-foot again – in order that they can still own the article- against Wikipedia policy. A bit like them getting you to ascend every  down going escalator, whilst they appear to be  at the top and  looking down at you all the time. Me thinks, that is a neat trick they are playing on you!--Aspro (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoid edit warring by following BRD
Your recent editing history at Fluoride toxicity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know it was happening. I was rolling out my edits a bit at a time, text first then citations, then references and apparently YOBOL was actively undoing it all. I'm fine with moving to TALK, and I'm fine with comments like "that's not a good reference".... it will push me to do better, but I really think YOBOL is crossing the line. BTW: My references included the 2006 NRC Report, a 2014 literature review in Science World Journal and a 2005 analysis of studies in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. For heaven's sake, I removed the qualifier "children's" in front of the noun "teeth" in a sentence talking about dental fluorosis, and he undid that. I moved to TALK, which is fine, but what you saw was censorship. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Martin professor
Saw your section on the talk page. To answer your question about what is going on; Martin had a PHD student and approved (mistakenly I suspect) her anti-vaccination PhD. The pro-vaccine mob are looking to punish all who publicly question vaccinations. Have tried BLPN, ANI and Oversight on the BLP violations and Disruptive Editing but got nowhere. Have asked other admins for intervention. But multiple BLP violations remain today. Guy is an admin and good at hand-waving and making many factually inaccurate statements. As far as I can see WP is very broken. (This is the second failure of WP to address BLP violations by "motivated" editors I've been a party to. The last invloved editor was eventually banned as a DE sockpuppeteer.) Strangely, I have no intention of putting more time into a broken system. Stay safe. 124.171.192.238 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above paragraph was deleted by User:Drmies. I had asked for a next step on ANI and the result was worrying. Drmies wrote there, "I reverted their cries for help on other users' talk pages. Abiding by the BLP is not optional, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC). I don't know how you feel about being told what you can read but I would not appreciate it. SmithBlue (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I, too, don't want to waste too much time on dealing with these trolls. It's too bad. In theory, Wikipedia is such a good idea, but in practice it's turning into a tool for those with sinister intent. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may seen that Bilby turned up and that the DE admin has pulled their head in. I had contacted multiple admins on their talk pages - don't know if this was the trigger or something else. Anyway till WP demands that every editor and admin actively facilitate "a fair go" for all - Ad Dieu. SmithBlue (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Seabreezes1, I invite you to share your views on the article & user conduct at a current AN/I.

AN/I: WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me. Of course I will be bar-b-qued. Or minced. Guy isn't the fifth highest number of edits on WP through lack of experience. His smokescreens are sooo good. But anyway, bring chardonay as the baying mob will be dining al fresco. SmithBlue (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

July 2017
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood. I have never linked to YouTube, SciHub or any such sites. The sites that seem to have triggered this warning are informational sites citing scientific articles and law and a press release with excerpts from a governmental report that is difficult to retrieve directly. Will keep it in mind to cite the individual items (or news outlets like NY Times) rather than convenient lists. Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You appeared to link to an illicit copy of an Elsevier journal article. In general be very wary of linking to PDFs of things with copyright notices that aren't from the publisher's usual sites. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Discretionary sanctions
--Ronz (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well isn't this interesting. Per instructions, I went to Ronz's talk page and I didn't really understand what was being attempted to be communicated about my two small edits. That comment was promptly erased. At issue, I had added a very factual comment with appropriate documentation that Mercola also supported fluoridation.


 * Claims that fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.

I also deleted the reference to an opinion piece that concerns about cellular or wireless technology being carcinogenic are pseudo science. I replaced with two 2017 authoritative validations of the carcinogenic and other harmful effects from current wireless technology.
 * Claiming cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists.

This biography trashing Joseph Mercola seems to be well protected by those whose intention is to smear his reputation. So much for Wiki rules on biographies of living persons. Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing for Mobile Radiations and Health
Hi

We share a common opinion about editing of Wikipedia page Mobile phone radiation and health. Can we do anything about this. I have mentioned the same issue in talk page of the article but to no avail.

Thanking you for help in this regard.

Ntu129 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. Paid industry astroturfers and social media troll-types monitor pages of topics like this in order to advance their agenda and suppress science. Wikipedia management, which is rather diffuse, theoretically could have some impact but it would require more effort than they could muster as well as value judgement. Frankly, the astroturf and troll behavior doesn't just devalues Wikipedia as a resource, it also turns it into a propaganda machine. That said, it staggers me that the very factual and innocuous edit I attempted on one particular page was undone as it only referenced historical and scientific fact. If you have the time and energy, applying for a position on the Wiki Arbitration Committee might offer insight. Seabreezes1 (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reply, Very unfortunate that editing of Italian/US court case is accepted while my edit (of indian court got rejected). I fully agree that astroturf and troll behavior does not suit Wikipedia. People nowadays quote Wikipedia pages in examinations and research papers as well. The chances of getting misdirected hence is huge. But I feel that we should focus more on what we can do rather than focusing on what we cannot do. Hence fill up the talk pages with all the requisite scientific, court case data. Of course aim is just information sharing rather than being biased in any way. Otherwise getting into the system(of wikipedia) and repairing it leads to more struggle,time and energy wastage. Thanks once again for corrective directionsNtu129 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Important notices
clpo13(talk) 17:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm Shibbolethink. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Anthony Fauci, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Shibbolethink You do not consider The National Review (leans right) and Vanity Fair (leans left) reliable sources when they make the same report on FOIA papers? It seems they balance each other, but there are other sources. This is a matter of historical fact that contradicts the earlier references of Fauci's denial (which I left).


 * How about Newsweek? They reported on the same thing:
 * - Jacobsen, Rowan (November 22, 2021). "How Dr. Fauci and Other Officials Withheld Information on China's Coronavirus Experiments" Newsweek.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not the sources you've referenced here that are problematic, but rather the text you inserted. That text is not verifiable in an NPOV fashion to those sources. (although, as an aside, I do not consider the Newsweek source reliable for this content). When you cite content for a BLP article, it is triply necessary to adhere to the sources, and not editorialize. And, moreover, guidelines like WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV become even more important. Because of the impact our writing can have on the lives of these living persons.It is also important to mention, WP:NPOV does not tell us that we should cite to opinionated sources on all sides and call it "truth." It tells us to attribute opinions to these sources when they are WP:RSOPINION. The heavy bias of these articles is demonstrated in the language they use. "Vindicated" "refusal to use the term gain-of-function" "attempts to prove." These wording choices on the part of the National Review are not encyclopedic, and should not be repeated here in wiki-voice. Frankly they are not WP:DUE and should not be repeated here at all. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Help me out. I wish CNN and NY Times were writing about the FOIA and the vaccine injured, but they aren't for their own reasons. Per your comment, our writing can have impact on the lives of others. I hesitate to reference "The Real Anthony Fauci" by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. which is meticulously documented with 2,200 references but guaranteed to touch off a firestorm as biased. I'd just like to correct the misconception left with the reader in current Wiki article in the simplest, driest, factual manner. I thought leaving the previous paragraph and starting with "Nevertheless" did that. Again, the misconception that Fauci is truthful and omnipotent is harming people.Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "the misconception that Fauci is truthful and omnipotent is harming people"1) I would consider this a straw man, as no one has, in that article, to my knowledge, asserted that Fauci is omnipotent or immune from criticism. 2) This is your view, it is not the mainstream view in the best available most neutral reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be "the truth" because there is always an unstated "truth according to X. "To forego this entire thing, Wikipedia completely ignores the question of what is "true." Instead, it is only reporting what is the view of the best available, most widely read, most widely circulated, newspapers of record and secondary academic review articles published in topic-relevant journals. I am sorry to tell you, if you believe your view is the one that should be represented on Wikipedia, and all other views removed...despite the fact that the best available sources aren't portraying it in this way... Then you may not be here for the right reasons. Wikipedia regularly bans users who are not here to contribute according to the policies and guidelines.I would take a long hard look at your purpose and interests here on wikipedia. And determine if they align with the goals of the project. Continuing to push a POV narrative that is not supported by reliable sources could result in your account being blocked. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? My purpose, as stated, is to publish fact in a dry manner. Here is a NY Times article and another attempt at doing so.


 * Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says (October 21, 2021). Carl Zimmer and Benjamin Mueller. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/science/bats-covid-lab-leak-nih.html


 * My suggested text based on just this article: The controversy over the origin of SARS-CoV2 drew increased scrutiny to both the relationship between the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance and the definition of 'gain of function' research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services initiated the “P3CO framework” for research on “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens” in 2017 which included research on corona viruses involving modification of spike proteins. The N.I.H. required that EcoHealth Alliance notify the agency if the engineered viruses turned out to grow 10 times faster or more than they would without their new spike proteins. The researchers described finding that WIV1 coronaviruses engineered to carry spike proteins were more virulent in 2018. They killed infected mice at higher rates than did the WIV1 virus without spikes from the other coronaviruses. Reports were made to NIH about this unexpected increased virulence, but the term 'gain of function' was not used. Fauci continues to maintain that the enhanced virus described in the EcoHealth report on unexpected results to the NIH do not fit the definition of gain of function, and that the virus described in that report is substantially different from the COVID-19. Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink I believe my original edit was mild and appropriate for a biography of a living person. I have also verified that The Intercept, Vanity Fair, and NY Times sources are considered to be generally reliable by Wiki, although Newsweek is only moderately reliable post 2013.

Lerner, Sharron (September 9 2021). “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence that U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” The Intercept.

Eban, Katherine (October 22, 2021). "In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan". Vanity Fair.

Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (October 21, 2021). “Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says”. The New York Times.

I can revert to my original edit with the improved references, or I can publish more material with the same references. Although more data may be considered less appropriate for a Wiki bio, if you feel it is necessary to substantiate the facts, I'm willing to engage. Again, my purpose is to provide honest, accurate and factual data in Wiki:
 * The controversy over the origin of SARS-CoV-2 drew increased scrutiny to both the definition of “gain of function” research and the relationship between the N.I.H. under Fauci’s leadership and EcoHealth Alliance under the leadership of Peter Daszak. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services initiated the “P3CO framework” for research on “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens” in 2017 which included research involving modification of spike proteins in corona viruses that N.I.A.I.D. determined was outside of the definition of gain of function. The researchers subsequently found that a WIV1 coronavirus with engineered spike proteins was more virulent and killed infected mice at higher rates than did the parent WIV1 virus without the modified spike protein. EcoHealth Alliance reported this unexpected increased virulence to N.I.H. Although many scientists voice concerns over the biosafety and oversight of P3CO research, Fauci continues to maintain that the chimeric virus used on humanized mice described in the EcoHealth report does not fit the definition of gain of function, and that the virus described in that report is substantially different from the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Seabreezes1 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in this edit, you have done what is called WP:SYNTHESIS. You have juxtaposed ideas that are not juxtaposed in the original text of the sources and drawn conclusions in a way inconsistent with pure WP:SUMMARY. In doing so, you have introduced your own opinions into the work, interpreting them in a way that is not compatible with wiki-voice. For example, experts truly are split on whether or not these experiments count as "gain of function."        But the way you have juxtaposed the sentences and statements, and written the text, puts the idea in wiki-voice that the experiments are indeed GoF. We can't do that, not when the scholars are split and there is no consensus. You are essentially writing into the article "Fauci lied" without directly saying it. Example: "Although many scientists voice concerns over the biosafety and oversight of P3CO research, Fauci continues to maintain that the chimeric virus used on humanized mice described in the EcoHealth report does not fit the definition of gain of function" This sentence is not encyclopedic, leaves out a a great deal of complexity of the issue, and is not verifiable to the sources. The consensus of the sources does not compare these two clauses (scientists concerned about oversight of P3CO & Fauci maintaining the experiment was not GoF) as related, but your edit does. That's synthesis. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The "gain of function" edits on Fauci are not constructive today either. Please stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The exchanges on this page made my edit better, more disciplined with solid references. For that I'm grateful, but I'm stopping. FWIW: Your POV that my factual well-referenced entry in the timeline is 'not constructive' is hardly disciplined and in keeping with the Wiki mission. In fact, the censoring of factual material reported even in the NY Times, albeit fleetingly because it is contrary to the dominant narrative, contributes to hate-speech in society. Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Muboshgu that your edits were not constructive. FWIW, you are looking at this dispute from the wrong direction imo. The issue is that your edits further a narrative which is not in keeping with the WP:MAINSTREAM view of these events, not that they are not sourced to reliable sources. The interpretations you draw are, however, not sourced to those citations. Your edits continue to juxtapose unconnected ideas in a way that is WP:SYNTHESIS, drawing negative conclusions about Fauci which are not present in those sources. And so your solution appears to be to remove Fauci from the sentences. But placing it in the Fauci article creates those negative connotations directly. It remains a BLP issue. And, regardless even if it were on another page, it still creates SYNTHESIS about the experiments. For example, this sentence: "documents reveal that corona virus research funded by NIH through EcoHealth Alliance on humanized mice increased transmissibility and mortality to an unexpected extent" is not just misleading, it is false. All that was seen in the experiment was slightly higher weight loss than expected in a few mice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agreed to stop, but you had to call me a liar on my page? From the NY Times:
 * The N.I.H. required that EcoHealth Alliance notify the agency if the engineered viruses turned out to grow 10 times faster or more than WIV1 would without their new spike proteins.


 * In some experiments, it turns out, that viruses did grow quickly.


 * “EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as required by the terms of the grant,” Dr. Tabak wrote.


 * The N.I.H. also sent Representative Comer a final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance submitted to the agency in August.


 * In the report, the researchers describe finding that WIV1 coronaviruses engineered to carry spike proteins were more virulent. They killed infected mice at higher rates than did the WIV1 virus without spikes from the other coronaviruses.
 * I've stopped, so should you.Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moral panic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I added another reference reporting the same thing as The Hill, the new one from The National Law Review. Both are just reporting fact pointing to the current CDC guide. I'd point to the guide, except the problem is the guide keeps changing which is the point. Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)