User talk:Clemper
July 2021
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Operation Northwoods have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Operation Northwoods was changed by Clemper (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.968424 on 2021-07-17T22:05:48+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Please be mindful
[edit]I haven't done a real inventory, but please be mindful of WP:3RR; although many of your changes wouldn't be called "reverts" in common parlance, they very well might be considered such on Wikipedia. This is just a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK, will do. Just so you know, the reverts were restoring non-consensus changes to existing content pending a talk discussion, so the other party was actually the one reverting. Clemper (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, and I haven't reported you, or anything of the like, but there are people who very well might--and 3RR is a "bright line rule." Other than very obvious vandalism, there's basically no excuse for violating it. Just trying to save you a headache. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dumuzid I'm going to ask that you please restore the content you removed. The source I added there (Becker's Hospital Review) documents the bans in detail. The prior source didn't, but the 20-state fact was established and sourced elsewhere in the article. Thanks. Clemper (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, having had a closer look, I am standing by my undo, and I will explain why. While 20 states are mentioned, the characterization that "lawmakers" have "passed legislation" is not an accurate blanket assessment: several of the 'bans' mentioned were issued as executive orders by governors. Furthermore, the 'bans' significantly vary in their impact and effect. Some purport to ban any such "vaccine passport," some prohibit state agencies and boards from using them, and so on. If you'd like to try to rework the info, it certainly might be usable, but the way it was previously included strikes me as overgeneralized. Again, sorry about that. I don't undo lightly and I know it can be frustrating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dumuzid I'm going to ask that you please restore the content you removed. The source I added there (Becker's Hospital Review) documents the bans in detail. The prior source didn't, but the 20-state fact was established and sourced elsewhere in the article. Thanks. Clemper (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, and I haven't reported you, or anything of the like, but there are people who very well might--and 3RR is a "bright line rule." Other than very obvious vandalism, there's basically no excuse for violating it. Just trying to save you a headache. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK, will do. Just so you know, the reverts were restoring non-consensus changes to existing content pending a talk discussion, so the other party was actually the one reverting. Clemper (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dumuzid, in case you are skeptical of the repeated references to MIT Technology Review, here are corroborations for those states:
- https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bills-banning-vaccine-requirements/91-cd7bc31f-1237-4931-87c8-ad1fa91c290d
- https://apnews.com/article/al-state-wire-alabama-coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-aa34e75ca887513d6bb09525cdd6d627
- https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-04-07/idaho-governor-bans-mandated-covid-19-vaccine-passports
- https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/20/iowa-gov-kim-reynolds-vaccine-passports-law-limiting-use-prove-covid-vaccination/5074442001/
- https://wgntv.com/news/what-does-indianas-new-vaccine-passport-law-do/
- https://www.kake.com/story/43848046/kansas-bans-use-of-vaccine-passports-for-government-buildings-services
- https://news.mt.gov/Governors-Office/gov-gianforte-issues-executive-order-prohibiting-vaccine-passports#:~:text=The%20executive%20order%20prohibits%20the,of%20a%20vaccine%20passport%20program.
- https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/07/25/new-hampshire-covid-medical-freedom-bill/
- I can keep going but so far they've all checked out exactly as reported.Clemper (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dumuzid, by that logic though, vaccine passports don't exist anywhere then, since almost all the implementation was done via bureaucratic or executive fiat at various levels of government, not by legislation. Whether by lawful order or law, it's accurate to say they are banned. Since you know your original claim (that only one state had a ban) and basis for undoing is wrong, can you reinstate the content with qualifying language? (e.g. 'banned in the private and/or public sector' 'banned in some private and/or public sector contexts' etc) Clemper (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not saying bans don't exist, I am saying "lawmakers passing legislation" is not an accurate description in many cases. In addition, as I said, the bans vary in effect and application in many ways. I may try to add something back in, but I am not going to undo at this time. You can always seek a consensus to the contrary on the talk page; that would be over my head. And I am often wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)"
- OK Dumuzid, but I am struggling to understand why not just change it to easily conform to your understanding of the sources, after going to the trouble to revert it? E.g. "Twenty states . . . banned vaccine passports in some public and/or private sector contexts . . . by legislation or executive order." Clemper (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Largely because I think that is so overgeneralized as to be unhelpful, but you can certainly take it to the talk page where others might agree with you. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's over-generalized, but can easily be made accurate. Obviously can't make you do anything though. Clemper (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Largely because I think that is so overgeneralized as to be unhelpful, but you can certainly take it to the talk page where others might agree with you. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK Dumuzid, but I am struggling to understand why not just change it to easily conform to your understanding of the sources, after going to the trouble to revert it? E.g. "Twenty states . . . banned vaccine passports in some public and/or private sector contexts . . . by legislation or executive order." Clemper (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not saying bans don't exist, I am saying "lawmakers passing legislation" is not an accurate description in many cases. In addition, as I said, the bans vary in effect and application in many ways. I may try to add something back in, but I am not going to undo at this time. You can always seek a consensus to the contrary on the talk page; that would be over my head. And I am often wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)"
- Dumuzid, by that logic though, vaccine passports don't exist anywhere then, since almost all the implementation was done via bureaucratic or executive fiat at various levels of government, not by legislation. Whether by lawful order or law, it's accurate to say they are banned. Since you know your original claim (that only one state had a ban) and basis for undoing is wrong, can you reinstate the content with qualifying language? (e.g. 'banned in the private and/or public sector' 'banned in some private and/or public sector contexts' etc) Clemper (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Tired of your warnings - it is you who has attempted to bully in your new, non-consensus material via repeated threats on this page and your false ANI report, which construed your day-old edits as existing, consensus content. Clemper (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
[edit]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)- I blocked your account from editing Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic since you clearly continued many times to add disputed piece to the lede instead of achieving consensus at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021
[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)