User talk:StN

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, StN! Thanks for weighing in over on the Transhumanism article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:


 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
 * When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, StN, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 09:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:204.184.48.113
I have blocked him for 24h, but is not that active. Nonetheless in future cases you want to report vandalism, see Vandalism.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello StN, you might want to expand your user page so that people know where you are coming from. --Loremaster 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Biopunk movement
Hello StN, could you read Annalee Newitz's Biopunk and Genome liberation in order to expand the Biopunk article's proto-movement section? --Loremaster 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've recently improved the Biopunk article. Feel free to expand it if you think you can contribute. --Loremaster 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism
Transhumanism will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006. --Loremaster 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:FM2030.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FM2030.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peta 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning
Hi Anville. Is it possible to ban anyone from editing Wikipedia who deletes or otherwise vandalizes an article? I'm thinking of a "one strike and you're out" policy.--StN 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you've read the Vandalism Policy. Usually, people are given at least one warning, although if the edits they make are clearly intended to be disruptive, the normal escalation from "use the sandbox if you'd like to make further tests" to "you're out of the game" can be shortened.  As far as I know, the only place where a "one strike and you're out" policy has been implemented is with the article Bogdanov Affair.  That was a deliberate choice by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't think it will happen again very easily.  That situation involved the people who started the Affair itself promoting their viewpoint on the Wikipedia and disguising their aims with sockpuppets and jargon.  (They or their supporters are still at it, too.)  It was an extreme case which has led to indefinite semi-protection and immediate blocking of violators &mdash; just a nasty situation. Anville 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2 Questions and 1 Invitation
You can send me your answer to my email account. --Loremaster 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What does the user name "StN" stand for?
 * 2) Are you fact Stuart Newman?
 * 3) Would be interested in joining the online forum my colleague and James Hughes participate in?


 * Loremaster, thank you for this invitation, which I appreciate. But I would prefer to maintain my anonymity and not participate in any online forums.--StN 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. ;) --Loremaster 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Human Enhancement
I've improved the human enhancement article. Can you work on improving the Human enhancement tecnologies section? If so, please read the talk page before you do. --Loremaster 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) Luk suh  04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Center for Genetics and Society
A template has been added to the article Center for Genetics and Society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. JWSchmidt 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanism
Hello StN. Could you plase intervene in some of the debates on the Talk:Transhumanism page to explain the extent of your past contributions and how you view the article as it stands now. --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank for your prompt intervention. --Loremaster (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you are the one who came up with the title Threats to morality and democracy for the Brave New World argument in the Controversy section of the Transhumanism article, could you please intervene in the current debate about this title on the Talk:Transhumanism page? --Loremaster (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your vote and comments are urgently needed on the Talk:Transhumanism page in light of an attempt to split the Controversy section into a new article in order to make the Transhumanism article into a puff piece. --Loremaster (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon 128.252.174.116
I saw your request for mediation regarding. Note that mediators can't block anybody; all they can do is try to calm things down. You can put a note on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if necessary, but I don't think we're at that point yet. --John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for IAK
Hello! I'm Ltwin and I have agreed to help with mediating the article. On the case page, when asked "Whats the dispute?", you said the main issue was CAMERA criticism being in the lead. I have proposed 2 compromises. I've been told the first one is not likely to succeed, but I would appreciate your input on both, especially for Prop 2. I hope I can be of help. Ltwin (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the last sentence was completely removed and Prop 2 implemented, with the newspaper information dealing with CAMERA that was cited but still removed was put back in, would you be able to accept that? Ltwin (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some form of this could work for me. However, I would prefer to see specific criticisms left out of the lead.  A general statement including a term like "controversy" or "controversial" would be better.  Although some have obviously disagreed with IAK, their positions have held up when looked into by independent agencies.  Extreme characterizations, like "anti-Semitic" and "flawed methodology" are mainly due to CAMERA.  To include these allegations in the lead without pointing to CAMERA's history of shady tactics would be doing a disservice to readers.StN (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought up to IronDuke about leaving out specifics, yet he said that wouldn't work for him. But we will see. How many editors are involved? Ltwin (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About a half dozen. Their usernames and viewpoints can be found, for example, in section 17 of the IAK talk page.  Some relevant information can also be found there.StN (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've read the archives and talk page, but you two are the only ones I've talked to. Just wondering if this is has become more or less confined to you two or is still very controversial? Ltwin (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that the others haven't been heard from for a while. In the past, IronDuke's edits to the lead elicited strong responses from one or two others.  Right now, IronDuke and I seem to be the only ones involved.  On the basis of my past attempts to reach a compromise it seems that IronDuke will not accept any formulation that (i) does not allege bias/anti-Semitism/flawed methodology in the lead, and (ii) does cite references impeaching the source of the allegations.StN (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see how things go. Ltwin (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

From If Americans Knew mediation
Just to let you know, an outside view was given. Ltwin (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor I am not aware of and believe to be a newly created account has made substantial edits to the IAK page. I would hope not, but this may cause controversy to boil up again and I hope that doesn't happen. I have left a message on this user Flawfixer's talk page. I have asked him to revert his edits and to discuss these changes on the talk page. I have not recieved a response. Just wanting everyone to remember to stay calm and civil. This may lead to nothing or it may cause problems. Thats why I'm asking for restraint from all sides and for discussion. Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. I agree that User:Flawfixer should have announced such a significant edit on the IAK talk page.  It seems to me, however, that the new material is relevant to the subject of the article and appears to be accurately documented..StN (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I thought I'd let you and IronDuke know and caution for restraint. I didn't know if those edits would or wouldn't cause problems, so I left Flawfixer a message asking him/her to wait until he gauged consensus because the edits might cause controversy. I didn't know if there might an edit war. But he/she has explained the edits on the talk page and as you said they are sourced. Good day. Ltwin (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies
I didn't realize that I should explain these on the IAK talk page here. I've just done this... and also on the mediation page. As you will see, I strongly disagree with Ltwin's suggestion that I revert the page to an inaccurate, biased, probably defamatory status. By the way, I'm not a newly created account.Flawfixer (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal has been made
Flawfixer has proposed a compromise on the talk page. Ltwin (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have requested alternative mediation
Per request of Flawfixer, I have contacted WP:Mediation Cabal requesting assistance and alternative mediation. To let everyone know, I am not going to stop assisting in finding consensus. I believe all my efforts here have been appropriate, however, I recognize that my efforts to maintain the integrity of the mediation process may have inadvertently compromised that mission. Ltwin (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Current status of mediation
As the requestor do you still think that mediation is still needed. I've been thinking about this and people seem to be focusing on other issues in the article then the lead at present. I know that yesterday there was a lot of reverting but it seems that things might have calmed down now, knock on wood. I'm not saying I think there aren't problems, but I'm just not sure where this is going where mediation is concerned. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, some editors are trying to consolidate demonstrably illegitimate allegations of anti-Semitism against Weir. In the past, they have reverted criticisms of the manipulation of quotations leading to the allegations, since technically no external source literally states "Weir is not an anti-Semite."  (See recent Talk page activity.)  My feeling, though I might be wrong, is that the allegations will eventually be placed in the lead once again, since there has been no suggestion of willigness to relinquish this option.StN (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I have noticed that just now. The thing is that all this is informal and if the parties don't want mediation then I can't force it on anyone, and there seems to be a lack of interest for mediation. I'm thinking of closing the case unresolved. Or you could seek mediation from someone else or help from some other avenue on wikipedia. At this time though I don't see what else I can contribute. Sorry. But let me know what you think. I haven't closed yet. Ltwin (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Transhumanism
Dear StN, I have been conducting social science research on genetic knowledge, reproductive technologies and disability politics (particularly looking at the ways in which these are discussed online) and I wondered whether you'd be so kind as to contribute by answering a few questions? I've been reading some of your contributions towards the transhuanism article and I am certain that you'll be able to make a valuable contribution. The research investigates the patterns of discourse employed online and the construction of knowledge in these areas. If appropriate, I'd like to ask you a few questions/interview you by email. These questions will be sent in stages and should not be too time-consuming. Please see my Wikipeda userpage for further information (including an external link to my University profile and contact details). If suitable, please email me and I'll be able to tell you more about the project and interview process. Yours faithfully, Nicholas (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Transhumanism article
Hello StN. There is a dispute brewing over content in the Transhumanism article. Could you intervene in the debate on the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've significantly changed and improved the lede section of the Transhumanism article in reaction to an Extropian's clumsly attempts to emphasize the role of Max More. --Loremaster (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Transhuman
For many years, there are have been minor disputes about the etymology of the word “transhuman”. The Transhumanist FAQ of the World Transhumanist Association has always argued it goes back to FM-2030 (1966). However, some people dispute this by arguing that it actually goes back to Julian Huxley (1957) or even Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1949). However, although Huxley and de Chardin used terms like “transhumanism”, “transhumanity” and “transhumanizing”, we need to confirm that they excplicitly used the word “transhuman”. So my question is: Does coining and defining the words “transhumanism”, “transhumanity” and “transhumanizing” automatically mean that one has coined and defined the word “transhuman” even when one have never explicitly used that word? --Loremaster (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. "Humanism," "humanity" and "humanizing" are all social concepts distinct from the biological concept "human." To go beyond ("trans") any of the former does not imply reconfiguring or transforming biological individuals or a species, as "transhuman" does.StN (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Designer baby
Hello StN. Could you improve and wacth over the Designer baby article. It keeps either being vandalized or simply expanded with content that is one-sided. --Loremaster (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism and Category:Ideologies
Hello StN. Could you please contribute your opinion to a dispute about whether or not Transhumanism is an ideology on the Talk:Transhumanism page? --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism (again)
Hello StN. Your opinion is requested on the Talk:Transhumanism page as well as the Fringe theories noticeboard. --Loremaster (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism
nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Transhumanism
Because of your extensive contributions to transhumanism in the past (thank you for that!), I would just like to let you know about the existence of WikiProject Transhumanism :) --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Erdős–Bacon number. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Erdős–Bacon number. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Stop reverting my sourced edits
The source you provide for the Erdos number has no mention of Metropolis whatsoever. Here's the link. Click and give us the exact quote that contains Metropolis' name. When you source it properly, I will not remove it. Until then, CEASE EDIT WARRING. In case you're not familiar, here is the standard warning about edit warring:>br> You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Erdős–Bacon number. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your submission at AfC Bel Borba was accepted
 Bel Borba, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-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! Zach Vega ( talk to me ) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (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.

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580263764 your edit] to Out of the Furnace may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * no relation to Out of This Furnace, a 1941 historical novel by Thomas Bell, set in Braddock. {{Cite news |first=Louis A. |last=Corsaro |

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

GA process
Hi, thanks for taking on Alternatives to Darwinism as the GA reviewer. I am not sure if you have done one before, or indeed whether you actually intended to take on this role, given that your comment on the GA1 page sounded as if you wanted to discuss rather than review? If you're well aware of the process, then please ignore what follows.

Ok. If you do wish to go ahead with it, then be aware that the idea is to make a list of specific actionable suggestions for bringing the article into line with the (rather few) criteria for a Good Article; I'll respond with brief statements of what I have done about each one, e.g. added a ref. If you're happy with that, you can strike the item ( like this ) or otherwise indicate that it's completed. When all the items are done, the article is passed.

If you do not wish to go ahead (given that you are already an involved editor, for example), please say so now, and I can get the process closed, I won't hold it against you.

Hope this brief note is helpful to you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lenny Moss (December 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SK2242 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lenny Moss and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lenny Moss, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenny_Moss Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SK2242&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lenny_Moss reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SK2242 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lenny Moss
Hello, StN. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lenny Moss, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dekimasu よ! 07:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that, if several editors disagree with you and you keep adding the same thing back in the article, and you continue doing so despite warnings about edit-warring, then the problem might in fact be what you are doing and WP:NOTTHEM...? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was pointing to the existence of a public dispute in the the most prominent scientific journals and several widely discussed books. I documented this amply. You and other editors were insisting that the dispute didn't exist, I was making it all up, and that the virologist who signed on to the Science letter were negligible. I was not advocating an alternative POV. Do you deny any of this? Something can be true and documentable even if many interested parties don't want it discussed. I am doing what I believe to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and in the interest of its readers. StN (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for edit-warring for one week for your edit to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which added your POV to the article. Your edit comes immediately after expiration of your last block for edit-warring that involved the same dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lenny Moss


Hello, StN. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lenny Moss".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 9 June 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)