User talk:Gimiv

I'm sorry. Welcome back, Gimiv. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Gimiv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that at the time of the above notice, the COVID-19 topic was under general sanctions. It has since been updated to be covered by discretionary sanctions because of persistent problems in the area. —Paleo Neonate – 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for meatpuppetry or block evasion by a user banned from the COVID-19 topic area or the entire community (Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus).

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gimiv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a mistake. I am not a banned user and did not break any rules. I simply provided a list of sources to better inform the editors on the subject matter. ~~

Decline reason:

This doesn't seem plausible. Yamla (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox If I am prohibiting from placing this notice on a banned user's talk page, please delete it or let me know and I will delete it. Seems better to put it here since I am required to do so by the AN notice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gimiv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by ToBeFree based on the unfounded claim that I am a meat or sock puppet of two editors with whom I have NEVER had any contact or association! I am a regular donor to WIKIPEDIA which you can check in your records with my email. Please unblock my account.

Gimiv (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but we editors have nothing to do with requesting or collecting donations, that's all done by the Foundation and we do not have access to those records. It's not relevant anyway. To be unblocked, you will need to do more than just deny sockpuppetry, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so(since that is the whole point). If you aren't a sock, you will need to address why we think you are if you aren't. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Whether or not you have donated to wikipedia has no bearing on this request. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 05:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot how do I prove a negative? How should I know what you think?Gimiv (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, because you can't. I said that if you are not a sock, you will need to address why we might think that you are, if you aren't. It isn't just made up out of thin air. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Ok so after I address why you might think I am a sock, will you unblock me? I made a list of sources and sent it to other editors to help them show the naysayers this is a notable topic and should be included in Wikipedia. I first saw the list in the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis talk page which was mentioned on Bret Weinstein's YouTube channel. Here is the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5LdiLV0BZI. Gimiv (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unfair for me to review another request by you, but you may make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gimiv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock, I made a list of sources and shared with other editors to provide support on a notable topic after seeing the list in the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis talk page which was mentioned on Bret Weinstein's YouTube channel. Here is the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5LdiLV0BZI. I do not understand why I'm being blocked simply for sharing valuable information which serve as the basis for what Wikipedia is supposed to stands for: "To empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and disseminate it effectively and globally" ~~

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - user hasn't replied to the questions below in three weeks. Should they come back and make a reasonable go at answering them - at least enough to indicate good faith engagement in the process, they're welcome to resubmit an appeal application. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Gimiv, this does seem plausible. A few questions remain.

Please detailedly describe what you have exactly done, technically, to create the table and to publish it on Wikipedia.
Which criteria did you use for selecting a group of users to message about your creation?
After reading WP:Meatpuppetry, a section of the sockpuppetry policy, please describe why editing Wikipedia after watching the video was possibly a problematic idea.
In which areas, and how exactly, would you like to continue editing when unblocked?
Would you agree, as a voluntary unblock condition, to a topic ban from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until you have made at least 50 contributions to unrelated Wikipedia articles to demonstrate that you're actually interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just in joining a battle? If not, why is this not an option?

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, sorry I forgot about this. I just came back from holiday!

To describe the technical creation of the table I published, I started with the template I told you about and deleted the unnecessary GoF and Mojiang columns and created a Dates column, which IMO is more important to chronicle the sources.
The users I selected were those sympathetic to covering the story in Wikipedia
I read this policy and I must say I understand your concern but I don’t think Brett and Heather’s commentary was intended to enlist listeners into editing Wikipedia. I definitely created my account on my own volition. I no longer listen to their show.
I work in equities and travel industry (sob) and I’m interested in everything coffee, running and hi-fidelity audio, so I can make useful edits in these areas.
Yes.

Thank you! Gimiv (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Gimiv. I'm sorry, I must have missed this ping, or the ping has failed for whatever reason – usually a lack of a signature in the same edit, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. I didn't intend to let you wait either.

There has been a long discussion at WP:AE and WT:AE regarding my actions in this topic area, and I have decided to take a kind of vacation from it. Too much drama, and I can't even rule out having been a source of it.

You are unblocked unconditionally and with apologies; I'm not sure if the block was ever needed. I'll restore the deleted page as well. I'm sorry that this took so long, and that you had to argue your way through this instead of receiving a fair treatment from the very beginning – which would have been letting you edit without such hindrance, and welcoming you to the encyclopedia.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gimiv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a meat or sock puppet. I am a regular donor to Wikipedia and wish to share my knowledge with the community. Please unblock my account. Gimiv (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

see above ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gimiv! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox restored

As the deletion was based on my incorrect block, I have now restored User:Gimiv/sandbox. It should probably not have been deleted in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This has been a hot topic in the last year, resulting in a special situation in the area (you have received a tag with more related information above by Novem Linguae). You were previously blocked as a swarm of activists and sockpuppets were flooding WP. Since after your block you decided to still edit in the area when close to a topic ban, I thought this might be useful.

I noticed that you called editors "anti-leak", which is never a good idea, since the scientific consensus is that it simply originates from nature (something WP has to reflect by policy). Categorizing editors in two camps is divisive and unnecessary. Building sources lists and citing the best recent sources at relevant talk pages is consistent with policy and collaborative editing and I suggest to do that instead. Article talk pages are also not general forums to discuss the topic, so I also suggest focusing comments directly in relation to the article and sources (WP:NOTFORUM, WP:FOC).

For medicine related topics, a higher standard also exists for sources (WP:MEDRS) and when such are available, if they also contradict non-official or non-expert sources (news articles, blogs, etc), the latter are unlikely to be considered credible to counter them. Also important are WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV (i.e. unlike in journalism, WP articles are not in the style: "foo says this but according to bar" or "proponents believe: <long list without analysis>"). When a position has strong consensus it is rarely "balanced" with "but" claims. Journalistic statements like "cannot be ruled out" and "more research is needed" are also not considered very meaningful. It is of course possible to document beliefs and notable opinions, when reliable sources put them in context and that context/analysis should be the focus, instead of the claims. Since you have been working on a list of sources, I also suggest looking at another collection at WP:NOLEAK.

Finally, since user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article talk pages to chat, I'll add that while lab leaks sometimes occur around the world, they don't result in pandemics, partly because of their standard procedures like tracing and records. In the event where a confirmed leak happened and is widely reported by the best sources, we could expect an article of the style: "<year> <location> laboratory leak incident" and we'd have enough details for an article, instead of reporting about the speculation of some people in more general articles. It is also well understood how pathogens from nature constantly enter populations sometimes resulting in epidemics or pandemics. Even if years are needed to fully understand the exact history of this particular virus (and it may never be satisfactory), it doesn't automatically validate extraordinary claims.

I hope this helps, —Paleo Neonate – 03:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm RandomCanadian. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:TPO explicitly allows removing obvious attacks like yours RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." from WP:TPO. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you before about WP:FOC. Considering that your sole activity on WP has been to promote (since May), you are close to being reported as not being here to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE). Please carefully read your talk page again, it has tips on why the hypothesis is considered unlikely by the scientific community, as well as how to behave on Wikipedia, that is not your personal blog. —Paleo Neonate – 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 lab leak theory

I see there is a bit of a battle at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory concerning your comment which pinged me. That comment is not a personal attack but listing what another editor has done on article talk is not good procedure. That's because article talk pages should focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources—if people start exchanging opinions on each other, discussions rapidly go off track. For example, if a previous RfC related to the current discussion had a problem, you might mention that problem (although you would want more than an assertion of a problem). However, I can't see an immediate purpose of pointing to an RfC closed as no consensus apart from expressing irritation about another editor. Of course everyone in a contentious topic is irritated about other editors, but that has to be suppressed. I'm not going to be drawn into the topic at the moment but please try to focus on a concrete proposal and its sources. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard message

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.

Regarding your edits to Alina Chan. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I wouldn't. You appear to be new around here. ANI is for spanking people when they've been bad. One problem with that is that it can backfire. There are ways to review bad decisions without trying to spank anyone. That's what we need here. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the board. I didn't request any sanctions. I only requested a review of the MR and AfD. Gimiv (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, the boards can be a bit Byzantine. ANI is not the place to review a move outcome, regardless off what may appear to be the case by reading and attempting to understand what is written. As you're new, I assume you just didn't realize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Adoring nanny's warning, whether you requested sanctions or not doesn't change whether admin attention might be drawn your direction. From WP:BOOMERANG: Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Not intending to discourage you from an earnest attempt to make things better, just urging caution lest you come across as engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior instead of getting the improvements you're hoping for. I've found it best to err on the side of WP:AGF, even when you think it shouldn't be necessary. It helps avoid being misinterpreted. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Manny’s Deli

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Manny’s Deli requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walk away?

Are you willing to walk away from the topic of COVID-19 and China? There have been frequent problems with your edits in that venue and if agree to do something else that is productive, it would probably save you from being blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Try working in some less heated pages of the encyclopedia. As you get more experience you’ll be better able to wade into the hot zones. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I sent you something by email. Please can you reread my request in AN and answer it properly. I have donated significant sums of money to the project over the years because I believe in the cause but I do not agree with the way administrators have acted in this topic area.Gimiv (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a base understanding that we can’t verify your donations nor can we even take them into consideration. Every editor is treated the same way, based upon their editing history only, without regard to financial contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this as a warning. I've noted your activism in this area since you started and an AE report may be close, to request a topic ban. Your very first edits also consisted of canvassing and considering the few other edits a WP:NOTHERE ban is also a possibility. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Donations are not bribes and do not end up in the pockets of other editors. The foundation does not decide the content of articles, except if there is a pressing legal reason to revert some material, like for copyright reasons. —Paleo Neonate – 18:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, in your experience as an admin, is it normal for a cloer to close an RM with a WP:SUPERVOTE, nominate the article for deletion with its improper title, and then try to stymie efforts for a WP:MR? This is exactly what is happening. LondonIP (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never got any meaningful response from Jehochman. I think they don't really understand the problem or know of any solution. If the MR is stymied, then I can open an ArbCom case but I'm not sure exactly how. Gimiv (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What problem or question are you talking about? You sent me a meaningless email and you’ve been talking about your irrelevant financial contributions. What help are you seeking that is germane? Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What did you send? It shouldn't be so secret if its as meaningless as Jehochman says it is. LondonIP (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasize -- it is always best to take everything calmly. Just slow down. Multiple users have been topic banned from this area for failing to do that, i.e. Normchou, ScrupulousScribe, and CutePeach. I am deliberately not pinging the users here, as that would be rude. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adoring nanny I agree it should be taken calmly, but the way this went from an RM to an AfD overnight is beyond the pale, and the way BradV voted in the AfD is just bewildering. LondonIP, this is what I shared with Jehochman, but obviously he didn't understand it, or anything else. Gimiv (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Garden Chicago moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, AIDS Garden Chicago, 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you claimed File:Aids_Garden.jpg to be your own work? nableezy - 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AIDS Garden Chicago has been accepted

AIDS Garden Chicago, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section

Hi Gimiv, it looks like you posted this in the wrong section. Greetings, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alert message

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

starship .paint (exalt) 06:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please note that you have received this warning at WP:ANI, issued by User:RickinBaltimore. Gimiv is hereby formally warned that continued uncivil behavior and a continued battleground mentality will result in harsher penalties issued open them. Gimiv is also warned of their editing in an area with discretionary sanctions and further disruption in this area will also result in harsher penalties. I am forwarding this to you in case you have missed it. starship .paint (exalt) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]