User talk:Biolitblue

The article on anti-semitism is biased, argumentative, self serving, and by definition, incorrect. My response was completely appropriate. It did not include references because the term defines itself. Also, references are not required on a talk page. Biolitblue (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have standing to make open-ended arguments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict on talk pages until you reach 500 edits and 30 days (and even then, this type of argumentation is discouraged per WP:NOTFORUM--suggestions about changes to articles should be short, to the point, and avoid personalizing the criticism). Feel free to reformulate an edit request by following the instructions here. You will be expected to provide references to reliable sources to support your arguments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was on anti-Semitism. The author of the article indicated that all other interpretations were wrong, which is strident. The tone of my comment mirrored that of the article, namely, the interpretation is not wrong.

I don't need references for a talk page; furthermore, I argued that the meaning of the term was self-evident and self-defining.

Next, I identified and explained the ramifications of the term being used to refer to discrimination to Jewish people only rather than to all Semitic people. The ramifications are serious, and such discussion cannot be avoided. The seriousness ought not be construed as being argumentative for the sake of it. I was as concise as possible, but since the ramifications are myriad, I tried the best I could.

If a consensus of Arab Semites agree that the term, anti-semitism refers only to Jewish people, I'll retract. Biolitblue (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue here is that your comment touched on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As an editor who does not yet have 500 edits and 30 days of experience, you are not allowed to participate in any discussions related to the topic on Wikipedia except to make obvious improvements through specifically-formatted edit requests. Persistent failure to follow this rule will result in a loss of editing privileges more broadly. Other concerns about your argumentation are secondary. Get some experience editing other topics and come back once you're 500/30 and have a strong understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would recommend that you seek further advice at the teahouse, our help center for new editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was not subterfuge to be able to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For what it is worth, I've registered my objection to the 500 edits rule, both for articles and talk. You could easily designate some monitors to stop vandalism and similar acts.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a community project. Most important articles are locked with heavy restrictions, which establishes an editorial hierarchy for precisely the articles which require the most insight and breadth of ken, i.e. community involvement. The platform, due to these rules and extensive padlocking, is written by a small minority of editors who often know each other on some level.

This isn't how it is supposed to work. Wikipedia should feel grateful to those who take their time to contribute, whatever the level of commitment, and try to avoid creating editorial cliques. Biolitblue (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some support for my assertion:

1) https://www.arabamerica.com/arabs-are-semites-too/

In pertinent part:

"Therefore, being antisemitic does not solely pertain to discrimination against Jews; it extends to hostility towards any Semitic group."

...

"In conclusion, the term “antisemitism” goes beyond its conventional definition, encompassing discrimination against any Semitic group. Its historical roots reveal a shared heritage between Jewish and Arab populations, challenging the narrow portrayal of antisemitism as solely directed at Jews."

2) https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/uni-melbourne-falsely-defames-anti-racist-jews-non-jews-critical-apartheid-israel

This implicit false defamation of anti-racist Jews is anti-Jewish antisemitic and this implicit false defamation of anti-racist Indigenous Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims is anti-Arab antisemitic. (emphasis in bold added)

...

This false defamation, anti-Jewish antisemitism and anti-Arab antisemitism soils the UM and damages all universities.(emphasis in bold added)

Author info: Dr Gideon Polya is a Melbourne scientist, humanitarian writer and activist. He taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia over 4 decades.

3) “Originally, a Semite was someone who spoke a Semitic language. A family of languages that come from areas that spanned from western Asia to Africa”, she explained. “This meaning includes a much broader range of people than the Jewish people.” Tammy Franks, Green MP

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/john-safran-semites-and-antisemitism/13967962 Author disagrees with Franks, but he is wrong.

Semitic people share more than a common language. They share similar culture (to Jews who remained in Palestine), food, and genetics. Some descended from Jews.

"The origin of the Palestinians, an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant, has been the focus of studies in history, linguistics and genetics, as well as nationalistic ideology. Historical records as well as genetic studies indicate that modern Palestinians mostly descend from local ancient levantines who converted from judaism and other levantine mythologies to christianity and later to islam.

Origin of the Palestinians

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-012-1235-6

"The closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish groups were the Palestinians, Israeli Bedouins, and Druze in addition to the Southern Europeans, including Cypriots."

"Palestinian and Druze populations made a similar observation by demonstrating the proximity of these two non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi and Iraqi Jews." Biolitblue (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandate for Palestine

Please keep your comments at Talk:Mandate for Palestine, not at a user's talk page. They are most easily addressed there. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Sorry in advance if I'm being pedantic, but technically I didn't research it. I simply watched the videos over the years and observed. Reading the article on recursion simply called to mind that these videos contain recursive features and themes.

The videos themselves are self-verifying. As an example, I wouldn't need a citation to claim that the moon is in the sky. Citations are available for that claim, but if there were none, I don't think it would violate the spirit of the rules to claim it.

Although the examples in this situation are not as clear as that, I believe no citation is required because it is obvious that recursive elements are present. If you disagree, I won't challenge a decision to delete it. Biolitblue (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply watched the videos over the years and observed. Writing based on your personal observations is exactly what WP:NOR prohibits. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

However, if you were to abide by it, a huge chunk of Wikipedia would also need to be deleted because it is not cited, and indeed, not self-evident.

Such content has sometimes been flagged with a banner, tagged with a "citation needed," but has not been deleted.

So if you'd like to undertake that endeavor, please have at it. Biolitblue (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is about publishing the truth. The content can be verified by other editors, the author of the article, or whomever you choose.

If the content and assertions made are wrong, then it ought to be deleted.

I understand that Wikipedia has rules. However, rules applied doctrinally often result in the deletion of content that enhances the quality of the article.

Additionally, if you believe that the rules must be applied doctrinally, you must be consistent across the board throughout every single Wikipedia page. If applied as such, much of the content in Wikipedia would need to be deleted. Biolitblue (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These comments fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it is written. I suggest a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. But apply that to all articles. Biolitblue (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found what appears to be a major error in the medical literature that affects the safety of a particular drug. Are you saying that I cannot publish that too? Biolitblue (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia is actually written. The site contains a significant amount of content that is not cited, and not self-evident.

Please proceed to review the site in its entirety and delete all uncited content. Biolitblue (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't take orders. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you're hypocritical. Biolitblue (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot publish that without a reliable source, no. That is how Wikipedia works. Feel free to get additional opinions at WP:TEAHOUSE, but they will tell you the same. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that this is the policy and will abide by it, as I said in my original response. However, you still conveniently ignore your duty, and the duty of all other editors, to delete uncited material on the site to put it into compliance. This action is a top priority and must be effectuated without delay or excuse. Biolitblue (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the drug, am I permitted to identify the issue in the talk page instead of the article? Biolitblue (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original research on enWiki, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an explanation of how shoddy content cannot be justifed by the existence of shoddy content elsewhere (the page refers to page deletion not individual statements, but the point is valid nonetheless).

Regarding the drug, if you raise the inconsistency on the talk page and someone is able to find a prior publication detailing the error, the info can likely be added to the article. If you'd like, I can try to help since I have experience working in biotech and access to several paywalled journals via WP:TWL and my academic instiution. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 21:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to attack my position by mischaracterizing it.

I asserted that the other content was uncited, not "shoddy." A fortiori, I asserted that a significant amount of a high quality content could not be included in articles because often there is not a published paper or reference to support the content, thereby implicating the verifiability rule that disqualifies inclusion of the content in the article.

I also asserted that: 1) content with a citation is not necessarily, and is often not, verified by the citation; and 2) content that is cited can be, and often is, in your words, "shoddy." Biolitblue (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quibble on a technicality. I can argue that my point was correct, but let's not. It would just be a waste of time for both of us. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 18:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was right, but wasn't on point. Biolitblue (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will cite to any and all claims that are not cited. I have raised my concerns already.

You reverted an entry regarding a drug to which I made important edits. You claimed that they content was not WP:MERS. Which content are you referring to?

If you are referring to Pubchem, please be advised that it is MERS compliant.

Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider

Are the sources above reliable? Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PubChem (US NCBI) and ChemSpider (UK RSC) are reliable. Sigma Aldrich is a private corporation (owned by Merck), so it depends on the context. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other citations were from medical literature.

If you have a bona fide reason to revert, that's ok with me. However, you should then briefly discuss on the talk page what the reasons were for reverting and what specific citations you thought were not MERS compliant. I can then decide whether I want (or can) find citations to bring the article into compliance. Simply reverting and making claims underneath the reversion, without more, doesn't come across as acting in good faith.

The goal here is to improve the articles.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Biolitblue (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the drug?

Enough with the suspense. What is the drug? What is the evidence? David notMD (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? I don't need no stinkin' evidence! Biolitblue (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to cooperate with editors on this site. I don't know you, so I apologize in advance if you are a decent person. Biolitblue (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is rather sensitive in nature. It is not the article that the other editor reverted.

I'll edit it in due course and you'll see what the issue is. In the meantime, I do not think you or others can further assist until I make the edits.

I appreciate your interest. Biolitblue (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

No legal threats is policy. Your legal threat has been removed and your talk page access has been revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a further point, Biolitblue, the law you were referring to is currently blocked pending appeal. Meaning, it cannot be enforced until the appeals process runs its course, so any suit you filed would be thrown out anyway. Plus, the law is blatantly unconstitutional on its face and will likely be struck down, rendering this entire situation moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]