User talk:Fatbatsat

...ENTR'ACTE...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi, you can (usually) reach me here!

I've got a wide variety of interests, from anthropology and geography to the physical sciences to art and music.

My specialty is finding important subjects that somehow haven't gotten worked on too much, and making those articles better, not usually starting new articles or fine-tuning on articles that are already really well developed. And, more recently, inadvertently pissing off the local censoring nazis who seem to think they own fact.

Thanks for visiting my Talk page!!!

Fatbatsat (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Hi, Self

Hi Self, this is how I prefer people to post things on my Talk page-- by creating a new section!

Wikipedia and the lab leak theory

The essay "There was no lab leak" is a personal opinion by one editor in their personal space: it is not a wikipedia article. However it does a very good job of explaining how very likely it is that the virus cross-infection came from the "wet market". And just to nail the lid on it, see Taylor, Amiah (February 28, 2022). "Trump's favorite COVID origin theory of a Wuhan lab leak just got crushed by new research". Fortune.

I recommend Why can’t some scientists just admit they were wrong about Covid? by Professor Devi Sridhar (Professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, I didn't realize that was an opinion piece; it wasn't clearly framed that way. I agree that the majority of scientific papers are in support of the market theory. But the evidence is rather scanty either way. Fundamentally, scientific majority and scientific consensus aren't the same thing, and in this particular case, they are very different things. Bringing up Trump in this discussion essentially evokes Godwin's law.Fatbatsat (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Hi, Fatbatsat. I've been pointed to this post of yours at Talk:Eskimo. No matter how hot a discussion becomes, it's outrageous to say stuff like "If you refuse to read the peer reviewed-research in linguistics ... [etc].. there's really not much that can be done for you besides eject you from the forum. Which, at this point is what I am advocating for: for all editors who will not accept the correct etymology of the word to be banned from editing this article" to a fellow editor who is obviously arguing seriously and in good faith. And then you added a more general attack — "Try that on for censorship, you liars." I'm not sure who you're calling liars, but the natural assumption is that it refers to editors who are disagreeing with you on the page. When you feel something like that coming on, please walk away from the keyboard for a while, because if it happens again, you're likely to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 19:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

>>>No matter how hot a discussion becomes, it's outrageous to say stuff like "If you refuse to read the peer reviewed-research in linguistics ... [etc].. there's really not much that can be done for you besides eject you from the forum. Which, at this point is what I am advocating for: for all editors who will not accept the correct etymology of the word to be banned from editing this article" to a fellow editor who is obviously arguing seriously and in good faith.<<<

Actually, it's outrageous to not do your homework, and come harass someone on their Talk page, quote what they say only partially, and then try to threaten bans which you have zero just authority to carry out, over someone making an accusation of censorship and dishonesty, both of which were pretty much simply accurate. I'll grant that "try that on" and "liars" are both clear examples inflammatory language which I should not have used, but you are in no position to judge me or make decisions about what is going on in this case. I have repeatedly complained to low-level Wikipedia administrators about how this article is being edited, hijacked, and administrated, and I have been ignored, and I do not appreciate it.

I can also assure you I wouldn't take being banned or even temporarily blocked over making an accusation of censorship lying down, and neither will a whooole lot of other Wikipedia editors think it's a good idea that that should happen to one of their number. Unless I read wrong, you are just a random administrator of Wikipedia, and I was obviously calling for that page to be partially protected from unknowledgable editors-- it is frustrating that Wikipedia has no efficient standard for that, but hardly my fault-- partly because a longtime administrator, CambridgeBayWeather, has been effectively censoring the page for quite some time, deliberately or not, without any remotely adequate explanation, from a standpoint of obvious and repeatedly admitted bias. I am not following up on that request, because I have realized it is without utility-- there simply are not enough interested, knowledgable editors on this subject. For the most part, it's better CambridgeBayWeather than the void. Still, I would say that this matter is quite "over your head". So dispense with the *outrageous* https://www.dictionary.com/browse/outrageous threats and otherwise kindly piss off. Or ban away, and see what happens.

Fatbatsat (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "block away", not "ban away". You have been blocked for 48 hours for making personal attacks and doubling down on them, including towards CambridgeBayWeather, and for battleground editing with persistent incivility. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Oh haha a 48-hour block. Very nice. I'm sorry that Wikipedia has been deprived of my wisdom for 48 hours because someone thought they had an appropriate way to make a point. Let the record show that, aside from on the points already stated, which relates more to hyperbole than incivility, I am completely unrepentant. Also, you have thoroughly lost this debate by appeal to force. Argumentum ad baculum. Good job.Fatbatsat (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]