This is an archive of past discussions with User:CutePeach. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
No other accounts. I corrected typos when I was in college without an account. I saw this conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your brinkmanship on this topic. You should allow for competing for view points from scientists and experts reported in reliable sources. Did you see the article today in the Wall Street Journal? CutePeach (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh from twitter. If you've been roped-in to edit by others that's a WP:MEAT problem. Also be aware of WP:RGW. I generally do not read American newspapers, and Wikipedia prefers proper scientific publications for scientific topics, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
CutePeach, you are getting pretty close to a block per WP:NOTHERE, or at least a partial block on COVID-related articles--and/or a topic ban considering your edits in relation to the discretionary sanctions you were notified of. This kind of talk of censorship and "competing view points" suggests you think about Wikipedia as if it were a social media type of website: it is not. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, any new user who joins this conversation is immediately labeled as an "SPA", accused of being a "sock" and branded a conspiracy theorist. Just look at how Feynstein, RonnieSays and Fa suisse were treated and now they are gone. I saw that RandomCanadian made a comment about me on your talk page and I defended myself as you would expect of any new user facing such an accusation. If you can give me some specific pointers about how to engage more productively, I will surely comply. CutePeach (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Never mind lab leak controversies, lumping Ireland and Britain together as similar sends the needle off the scale! Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
CutePeach, I don't know those other editors. But RonnieSays starts with this edit, which is hardly an edit a newbie can make, and then they start edit-warring over it immediately, so yeah. I find it odd you'd know about them--y'all haven't interacted, you just got here, and they've been gone for a week. Feynstein also complained they're being singled out--a puzzling complaint, IMO. And Fa suisse comes into the COVID stuff with this edit--no wonder editors start asking questions.
I haven't said anything about socking in your case: I merely pointed out the aspects of your editing behavior that cause me concern, and I am serious about that. There are only two sides for Wikipedia in a field like this if there is another side that has serious scholarship to back it up; if not, it's FRINGE. This is not a debate club. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, that is right, I have never interacted with those editors and I selected them because they are recent. I saw this thread on Twitter a few weeks ago and I have been following the conversation here ever since. I respect your integrity as an administrator but I will be disappointed if you take the side of one group of editors who are polarizing a scientific controversy. I agree with you that we should reference serious scholarship. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Scientific controversy: There are reputable scientists and reliable sources on both sides. The WHO will release its full report later this week but some member states may not accept it as China has not released requested blood samples. Here are a few sources on the controversy:
This controversy is similar to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where the Russian government refused to cooperate so the Dutch government launched its own investigation and litigation [1]. There are also similarities with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 controversy where the Malaysian government didn't give its full cooperation and only much later revealed they knew more than they admitted to earlier [2]. Where COVID-19 possible lab origins and the Chinese government alleged coverup are concerned, the worst-case scenario is that the US government will file a formal complaint using Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention, or they will push for some big changes to the BWC in the Ninth Review Conference[3]. CutePeach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Global Virome Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/en/Viral_metagenomics. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ♠Vami_IV†♠09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello CutePeach! Your additions to Draft:Global Virome Project have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ♠Vami_IV†♠09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Viral metagenomics into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I will follow your guidence. CutePeach (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Philippine-based music groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Latino. 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.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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:Gabriella Stern 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:Gabriella Stern, 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.
Hello, CutePeach!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
JtbobwaysfJPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
JtbobwaysfJPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Gabriella Stern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://amecorg.com/summit-speaker/gabby-stern/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LionMans Account (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford 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 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:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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:Catharina Boehme 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:Catharina Boehme, 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.
Why are you insisting on creating a duplicate of existing material, base it on rather poor sources, and then decide to put it at the top to give it undue prominence of placement? If you continue with this kind of problematic editing, you're likely going to get sanctioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@CutePeach: FYI, Arbitration Enforcement has a very strict limit on word counts (500). You may want to trim or combine aspects of your comments to adhere to that. Here's the tool I use [4].--Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Shibbolethink. I use Evernote on my laptop which is my work station, and I add links in from my mobile, which is my personal device that I use for posting on Wikipedia. I was aware of the 500 word limit from watching other cases and I tried to keep it in the limit, but I think the links took me over the limit. I’ll try watch out for this in the future. CutePeach (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. dudhhrContribs 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dudhhr why did you delete my draft so quickly? I was just about to start translating it from our Chinese article in ZH:WP [5]. There are many good sources also in English [6]. CutePeach (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the soapboxing by you and Hyperion35. I strongly advise you to stop using talk pages to voice your opinions about China, etc. That page is about discussing changes to a guideline supplement. Even on a covid article talk page, you need to restrain your self by discussing article text in the context of what reliable sources say, rather than spending every day soapboxing about the subject and accusing your fellow editors of censorship. You found a bunch of good sources on the deletion story, so you do know how it works, but you need to bite your tongue on all the other stuff. There are DS hanging over those pages, and at some point an admin will tire of your abuse of talk pages. -- Colin°Talk20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Colin thanks for the note. I didn’t mean to sound litigious in my reply to you on the RFC page, but I did intend to be firm as there are some editors here advocating for administrators to ban editors who dare counter their POV on content and policy. I also didn’t mean to imply Bakkster Man is one of these editors, and I only linked to his post in the RFC discussion to show that he and other editors misunderstand WP:MEDRS’s application to COVID-19 origins. Bloom’s findings, as reported by RS, constitute evidence of a cover up, and he does not give it to add weight to the lab leak hypothesis directly, which is also misunderstood and subject of two long conversations on the page. If you read my vote in the RFC, you will know that my view isn’t very much different to yours or WhatamIdoing on changing the MEDRS and BMI policies, but I do think editors need to understand their application better. I have created a WP:POVDELETION shortcut for the benefit of editors who delete stuff in the name of NPOV, and I think we will need a similar shortcut for editors who delete stuff in the name of MEDRS. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if we agree (or don't) on a particular content question. The main problem is behavioral. A functional response to "please stop talking about your opinions about China" is not "Bloom's findings constitute evidence of China's misbehavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from China and weapons of mass destruction into Chinese biological weapons program. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Some of the comments/accusations you've made on the IITOOC19 talk page are POINTY and don't AGF. Particularly this: "Some editors here seem to be misremembering the paucity of data here, possibly in a bid to downplay Bloom’s findings."
Please keep discussions to content not conduct on article talk. Thank you. Pound the sources, pound the policies, don't pound the table.Shibbolethink(♔♕)07:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks KristinaLu! Where are you from? I wouldn't argue so much about the WHO as a source as we already discussed it here [7]. Jtbobwaysf says that sometimes things need to go to an RFC. This may be one of those things, and the right venue would be WP:RS/N. CutePeach (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Thepigdog#Reliable sources in the context of medical subjects where I describe our standards for reliable sources for medical claims and claims against living people. In short it is not okay to accuse a living person of a coverup regarding a global pandemic with weak sources. This is exactly the sort of thing that will get an editor a topic ban from the subjects of BLP and COVID under the current discretionary sanctions.
I see you were notified of the discretionary sanctions in those areas last March. Now that I have given you the link to the conversation I had at User talk:Thepigdog and links to the standards for MEDRS and BLP I am going to assume you have read it. Please be careful to hold to the standards laid out by the community for BLP and medical topics. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
HighInBC, thanks for your reply. I was aware of the discretionary sanctions in the areas of COVID-19 but thanks for the reminder. I am also familiar with BLP guidelines, but only on a basic level. As I mentioned in my query, Fauci has faced criticism from fellow academics on Gain of Function Research of Concern, and I do not see why this can’t be covered neutrally in non BLP pages like COVID-19 investigations. We already say that Peter Daszak was seen by some as a conflict of interest, which is WP:DUE there and cites good WP:RSs. The topics of GoFRoC and COVID-19 origins have political and societal aspects, which are covered not by WP:MEDRSs, but regular RSs. Please note, I do not especially agree with Thepigdog’s choice of sources, or the particular edits they may have been suggesting. CutePeach (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
HighInBC, the argument cn be made using only Fauci's emails and a published paper. Quoting the popular press is not required. Also the GOP hearings are a matter of public record. Thepigdog (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia we should not be making an argument for anything. We should be only stating what relevant reliable secondary sources are saying, and again the standard for this is much higher for medical articles and articles on living people. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
and, HighinBC, these excellent principles have in practice sometimes been used in a manner favorable to particular POVs. As I am sure you're aware every word in "relevant reliable secondary" is subjective, as are the BLP guidelines, while the full rigor of MEDRS is applied selectively. Based on my 15 yrs experience here, one can if skilled enough in our style and jargon, argue in such a way as to use WP policy to support almost any position. WP is very much a NPOV zone, more than any other publication has ever been. NPOV does not mean, interpret the rules to support the conventional POV. We shouldn't use our rules to do the equivalent of what the classic EB did, to support the British Empire, or Diderot's Encyclopédie, to subvert the Roman Catholic Church Neither as Fox, to support the extreme conservatives, nor as the WPost does, to support the liberal establishment--I'd add a major left-wing publication, but there unfortunately aren't any in the US. But for my own views in more detail, i'd be glad to discuss them with you or anyone privately. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes I of course agree in regards to interpretation. This however seems to a clear enough case. I am not saying the claims made cannot be sourced to our standards but the youtube links surely do not come close. I don't have a stake in this content dispute but I do want to be sure those involved are aware of the relevant policies. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Blocked by Drmies
Block will expire in a month
See details
Reason
Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in.
Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.
Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.
You do not appear to be blocked. Could it be that you are looking at the commons without being logged in and seeing your IP is blocked? HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.06:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, HighInBC, like you I don't see a block. Things have been checked by Jpgordon and NinjaRobotPirate, and maybe they have something to offer and, as usual, I will gladly defer to them if they think this or that block is no longer necessary or whatever. I checked months ago but found nothing concerning about this particular account. I do know that there's a couple of range blocks in the Philippines, and I placed some of them ("drastic times" sounds like me, but there are quite a number of heavy disruptors there). But I don't think I've had anything to do with this user specifically recently. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
HighInBC I was definitely logged in when I saved that block message on Saturday. I just got blocked again a few hours ago with the same message and it keeps on happening evening times. I use Globe Telecom but sometimes I have to switch to my Smart Communications SIM, and sometimes I get blocked on that too. Maybe using two SIMs triggers a block, but you should know Dual SIM phones are very common in the Philippines, unlike the US. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If I understand the situation correctly, there are two possible solutions: IP block exemption on your account, or making that block anon-only. There seems to be an agreement above that you are not the intended target. {{checkuser needed}} for implementation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Checkuser already done. There are actually two rangeblocks affecting this account; the wider one is anon-only, but this narrower one ("drastic times") is all users. I'm going to loosen the block to anon-only and see what happens. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, CutePeach. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Source bias
Hello! You used a source in the above article that is only a month old, published on arxiv. It is a somewhat ironic question, but do you have a connection to the authors of that paper?--- Possibly (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Possibly, I do not have any connection to the authors of that paper. The term "source bias" has come up a lot in the scientific controversy on COVID-19 origins [10]. If you think that source isn’t credible, you can remove it, but I think it's ok. CutePeach (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. We see authors trying to plug their papers now and then, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for your kind reply. --- Possibly (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi CutePeach. I am very active on Twitter. I had a look at those links. Wow! Or rather, yikes, regarding the emollick thread. Good find, and thank you for surfacing that! A friend of mine said this in the same conversation. Sadly, it is neither released via pre-print server let alone peer review. He succinctly phrased what I failed to express on the GOF talk page recently. Sorry for barging in here. I like your user name (it is friendly!) so I stopped by.--FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Rephrase
You might want to reconsider how you explain your view here. You seem to have accidentally claimed that the field of Epidemiology, which did work on microbes in the 16th century, is impossible unless you are using 20th-century technology such as serological tests and DNA sequencing. I suspect that's not quite what you meant.
WhatamIdoing I think an uninvolved editor without a strong POV would be perfectly capable of dispassionately reading the RFC and understanding that the votes and discussions there were not just about the application of the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS policies to disease and pandemic originsin the general, but also to COVID-19 originsin specific - and close it accordingly. If we were 17th century Wikipedians, I'd be here advocating for the inclusion of reliable sources reporting on the demands of the people for the Church of England to investigate the Epidemiology of the Great Plague of London using whatever information and technology they had available to them. If they weren’t doing that, then obviously the bishops, priests and deacons would have nothing substantive to write about, and we’d have to question whether WP:ANGLICANRS and WP:BMI are the applicable policies for us to be covering the event and its aftermath. I would be etching my draft on the flea hypothesis into whatever stone, wood or parchment I could find.
Regarding forensic investigations, scientists have said since the beginning that only forensic evidence can determine the origins of the virus [12][13][14][15][16][17]. A science editor with your level of experience and expertise should be able to comprehend this point and help resolve the content dispute without much effort. CutePeach (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
You said "there is no raw serological data from the earliest patients, or verifiable phylogenetic data about the virus itself, and without those datas, one can’t do epidemiology". This is not true. This is not what any reputable sources say. There is more to "doing epidemiology" than identifying previous strains of a virus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, are you saying that the WHO’s investigation should go ahead with pre-1901 science and that Wikipedia’s MEDRS policy should block any reputable sources reporting on the abnormality of China refusing to share raw data and blood samples? Are you seriously unaware of these reputable sources? Here is one of many [18]. CutePeach (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Since contact tracing is "pre-1901 science", and epidemiologists around the world are doing it, and the WHO is recommending it, then I believe that we should use some "pre-1901 science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I am sure the closer of the RFC will realise my comment does not imply that serological or phylogenetic analysis should constitute the entirety of an epidemiological investigation. I in turn realise that your comment here isn't implying that contact tracing alone constitutes everything that is epidemiology. Where we would agree - I hope - is if a government were to restrict contact tracing from a WHO convened epidemiological investigation, then it would possibly be considered by RSs to be compromised, and we on Wikipedia wouldn’t apply the MEDRS standard for every aspect of our coverage of the controversy. CutePeach (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again. I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read that article a few weeks ago. It is very frustrating how Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge how much information China continues to obfuscate about the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in light of it being repeatedly referenced in the real world, with real facts and data etc. Okay, I will go now, sorry. By the way, I am not an idiot nor uninformed about epidemiology. You never said I was. I worked for the State of Arizona Department of Health Services as a non-infectious disease epidemiologist for three years, doing mostly statistical analysis (I don't have an MPH). You are NOT being unreasonable, in my opinion.--FeralOink (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
An article you recently created, Alina Chan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
GermanKity, you moved Alina Chan to draftspace literally seconds before I added some more sources to it, and now it's been stuck there for nearly a month, collecting even more sources. Please can you undo your move? CutePeach (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
