User talk:Hvalborg

May 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever cited reliable sources, so why mention that. When you are going over an article, discussions will seem like a forum; that's the way we all communicate. In any case, I do notice Wikipedia is no longer a reliable site (obviously captured by biased sychophants), will no longer cite it, will avoid it, and will make efforts to demote it online. Hvalborg (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A rather cryptic message some could read it as a veiled threat. I've only asked things in the Talk section about Ivermectin and a related topic. So I do not understand why you say I made edits related to COVID-19, I imagine using the talk section is not considered an edit. Furthermore, any important subject will and should be a contentious issue and should offer broad space for conversation and debate. I've only seen burnt out editors who feel they know everything and cut off conversation with snarky remarks. Hvalborg (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your pushing of unscientific conspiracy theories is forbidden advocacy of fringe POV and not welcome here. We base our content on mainstream reliable sources. If you continue to do this, you risk being blocked or topic banned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think you can call things conspiracy theories and then it's all over. There is no conspiracy in science and the scientific process, it's just a matter of inquiry, studies, tests, observations, hypothesis and an iterative process. Nothing is discarded a priori because nothing is a conspiracy, that's just when people mix up politics and ideology in things that don't require it. Is there a scientist here somewhere? Or are you all captured? Hvalborg (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "nothing is a conspiracy, that's just when people mix up politics and ideology in things that don't require it". That does happen, so there are conspiracy theories related to science and medicine. You seem to have bought into disinformation related to Ivermectin. There is more about the disinformation on that topic here Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation_and_advocacy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bought in", once again, non-scientific talk bad-mouthing. You seem to not notice your bias and close-mindedness. Hvalborg (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are for specific suggestions for article improvement based on reliable sources, in this case according to WP:MEDRS. They are not fora for your views on the pharmaceutical industry, anti-vaccination activism,or advocacy of fringe treatments and views. Still less are they fora for accusations that Wikipedia or editors are compromised by outside forces. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are all beyond reproach and criticism? You are all perfect and all-knowing? I know that attitude, lived in Pinochet's Chile for many years. I am talking about science pure and simple, not any of your suppositions (you don't read minds, btw) nor your political/ideological views.

And on the last part of your reply: Where then can I accuse editors of being biased and unreliable? Hvalborg (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN or WP:ANI However, if you behave like you did here,[1] the most likely outcome would be that you would be blocked for personal attacks. That argument typically gets no sympathy. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say "behave"... hmmm. I can see things only go one way. The language you all use is unscientific; you a priori have biases and publish or do not publish material based on that bias. You think you are qualified to do that based, I am guessing, mostly on hubris. You do not show scientific humility, scientific knowledge, or a scientific attitude to act as gatekeepers. You absurdly believe yourselves to be the source of the truth or outsource the act of thinking independently to some "higher" authority.

As a trained biologist, it's sad to see unqualified people (prideful, close-minded, and biased, as key telltales) standing in the way of what science actually is: A dynamic view of the world and its phenomena that requires constant revision based on the scientific method (observation, testing, experimentation, and analysis) that, in turn, requires an honest and stringent search to disprove (nullifying) the current suppositions, the current accepted models.

Anyway, as they say in the Bible: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet." (and I am not religious, by the way, but it's a relevant quote. I am not calling you dogs or swine, by the way,;it's just that I feel writing to you guys is a waste of time :-). Hvalborg (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and for medical topics WP:MEDRS. If you just want to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your own views against those policies, you're in the wrong place. That's not how the encyclopedia works, and you're right - you're wasting your time and ours. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promote my own views, not at all. I promote, if anything, a wide, open view of the facts and information available, without the biases and hubris you obviously have. But, yes, you are a waste of time. It's shameful. A captured, useless, and unreliable Wikipedia is totally the fault of individuals like you. You should all be thrown out. Hopefully, AI or a better system based on ethics and science will replace you all. Hasta nunca. Hvalborg (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hi Hvalborg! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

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 ~~~~}}.

Edits such as these [2] [3] [4] [5] clearly demonstrate that you editing is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but that you have a single purpose to enforce what you perceive to be the truth. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is not lost on me. Good riddance. Wikipedia deserves its bad reputation. Hvalborg (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]