User talk:Iluvalar

Welcome!

Hello, Iluvalar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ladyof Shalott 02:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Found"

hi! You are correct in changing from "Foundation" (=Stiftelse), but "Abel Found" makes no sense. Please change to "Fund". Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geschichte, afaik (and I don't know that much) "Abel Found" is the name of that particular found according to the Abel prize web site that I've given as source. I don't see why it "make no sense", but on another hand, I reconize that will not change nothing to the information in the page. So feel free to make that change if you think it's better; I won't complain. Iluvalar (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour

Voilà bien longtemps qu’on ne vous a pas vu sur wikibus… hein ! Je constate que malgré vos déboires, vous continuez de d’user des mêmes pratiques que vos collègues/ennemis. J’avoue que ce sont des attitudes qui pour moi sont incompréhensibles. Mais tout le monde sait que je ne comprends pas grand chose en général. Je me demande si Moyg ne devrait pas vous bannir aussi définitivement… ça vous ferait les pieds ainsi qu’à vos faux nez. En tout cas, ont ne peut pas dire ! faire régner la terreur pour éviter au gens de discuter, ça sent bon le monde du libre ! Surtout ne répondez pas à un troll, vous risqueriez de l’engager à revenir et en plus d’être bloqué ! Allez tchao ! étripez vous bien ! vous n’avez pas besoin de mes services pour foutre le bordel comme vous dites !

Altshift (talk)∞ —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COVID

Your statement "which may be deadlier then common cold outbreaks" was removed for various reasons: - Not at all relevant in the lead. The point of the lead is to provide a main concise summary of the event. - Further context relating the virus to common cold outbreaks is described later in the article. These details do not belong in the lead which is supposed to be a concise summary of the event. - Your statement is not certain and it is not objective. "Which may be" indicates a degree of unsureness - Not cited at all. Needs to be cited with universally accepted scientific research. - Even if it is factually cited & supported, it does not belong in the main lead as it does not contain - The addition of your statement makes the sentence run-on and too long. The lead has to be to the point. - The sentence does not even make sense as it contains a grammatical error: "then" vs "than" Yeungkahchun (talk)

Continued on Yeungkahchun's talk page

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

We at Wikiproject Medicine would like to thank you for your contribution now during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. We are far from out of the woods with regard to the pandemic and understand that your focus may lie on coronavirus efforts.
We would still like to shine a light on our active medical community, which you are more than welcome to join. As a participant you can ask questions and get help about best practices on editing any health or medical article — on our talk-page. We are a (mostly) collegial bunch, and I do hope you feel welcome to participate. Currently there are two active communities:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (talk — The general medical community)
Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (talk — A temporary COVID-19 community)

Please join up!

Best regards, Carl Fredrik^talk 22:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Carl Fredrik^talk 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CFCF. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Carl Fredrik^talk 21:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a source. I dropped 3 more in talk pages. "unknown cause first identified in Wuhan" --CCDC [1] Iluvalar (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID OR, this way

wikiversity:COVID-19/Iluvalar Iluvalar (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial addition

Please see the discussion here Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#IFR Opinions are mixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Done. Iluvalar (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why do you need a link to 'United States' [2]? EddieHugh (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To calculate the cases per capita. Since the population of USA is not provided in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Please let's keep going on your page. Iluvalar (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

Your characterisation of my admin actions at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 as "an admin applying guidelines blindly" is a personal attack and you need to strike it. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not attacking you. I'm a little grumpy about how you are handling this and I'm sure you can feel it. But I assure you, I'm not attacking you as a person. I kinda start to like you. Just remember that we are in a situation where thousands of deaths happens for any day of delay between the scientific consensus and the international response. And while, neither you or me nor Wikipedia are really responsible, we are in a situation that may move faster then our ideal peer review utopia. Wikipedia should reflect the state of the knowledge, not the letter of our guidelines. Iluvalar (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging constructively. I'm painfully aware that the current pandemic is costing lives – I'm in my late 60s and I have lost friends and acquaintances around my age to the disease already. I'm also the Chair of Wikimedia Medicine and I get personal accounts from colleagues around the world about the effect it has had on their health systems. So believe me, I take it seriously.

Where you and I differ is you seem to think that Wikipedia's job is to keep up with fast-moving news and research about COVID-19. Whereas I think that Wikipedia's job is to tell people solely what is firmly accepted as the mainstream medical view on medical matters. I believe that in this community discussion, the community rejected the view that we can afford to present material that is poorly sourced – and that's because we have to get our information right. Please read the proposal and the comments there, and try to accept that the community doesn't want us to be a conduit for "breaking news".

I have to tell you bluntly that if you went to any community discussion board and proposed that editors should be free to add preprints as sources or to add biomedical claims sourced to primary studies (in clear breach of MEDRS) to the COVID-19 articles because we're in "a situation that may move faster then our ideal peer review utopia", then you'd be laughed out of the discussion. If you don't believe me, try it, and convince yourself. Consensus isn't on the side of making exceptions to MEDRS just because an editor thinks it stops fast-changing information from going into our articles. MEDRS is designed to do that and the community backs it.

I am going to tighten up on the sourcing in Coronavirus disease 2019. The first step will be to identify where we have biomedical claims supported by primary sources and mark them with {{medrs}}. Hopefullyth. responsible editors will look for better quality sources and remove the primary ones, adjusting content as appropriate. If that doesn't happen and editors continue to add content and sources that don't comply with MEDRS, then I'll consider imposing specific general sanctions to prohibit it. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be reading this talk page you're written some strong statements that appear to cross the line in commenting on editors instead of content. Strong feelings are fine, attacking other editors, even editors who in your view are acting in bad faith is not. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Averaging estimates

In the COVID-19 talk page discussion, you write that "preprints are averaged and in the chapter already". To be clear, you're just suggesting that WHO and CDC numbers are themselves averages (not that an editor manually averaged anything). Is that accurate?

WHO: The source and methodology for WHO's average is unknown. So I grant you not ideal but the source is trusted.
CDC: "It's crucial for us to understand that the new CDC's IFR is an average of pre-prints, because logically that mean we should not average it again". The CDC number is not an average. It uses the result of a preprint systematic review, which incorporated data from 26 studies (government reports, peer-reviewed studies, and some preprints). Again, not an average though. You can see their weighting methodology to confirm.

- Wikmoz (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read the preprint (well honestly not word for word, but close enough). "Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 using the metan command". I'm not sure how the weighting was perform, it's better then nothing. I'm not opposed to using it. But I still think this average is very inclusive and take studies that as far as I know are usually not considered anymore. I don't know how close you've been following all of the preprints, but Villa et al for example... They used a completely new method of estimation and their margin of error doesn't match current averages. It's curious to include it. You said meta-analysis are usually considered a step up in medecine, I just don't feel like this one is. We could as well average our own chapter (and that's not a serious suggestion). Iluvalar (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: About averages in the article, well they are now in the IFR section. Both the pre-print and the WHO mysterious average. *shrugs* Iluvalar (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I don't disagree with calling it the WHO mystery average. Hopefully, they'll publish something more substantial sooner than later. I'm not familiar with Villa. Was it this one presenting Italy's IFR at 1.1% and the global average at 1.6%? This pyramid illustration and this one do a good job of illustrating how medical researchers commonly view different types of reports in terms of reliability... with meta-analysis and systematic reviews at the top. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's this one. It's weighted 3.18% in the meta-analysis and I'm really not sure about that. When it first came out it was actually fairly well received, it at least pushed aside the 5%+ estimates that were still floating around a that moment. But since the serology tests started, as far as I know the estimations over 1% were pretty much removed from the equation. It was already the case in may 10, when I met RexxS. And Later on june 3, I squeezed the sources a bit more : [3]. I evaluated Villa et al with all the serious I could (even if it was a preprint) before doing this edit. And by evaluating, I'm not just saying doing a peer-review myself, but rather looking at what good reliable secondary source were doing with it. Anyway... nothing I'll do about it for now, just wait the next sources. Iluvalar (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvalar, I hope you don't mind a comment here. Without really wanting to continue this futher, can I just make one friendly suggestion for the future? Don't even mention preprints, pretend they don't exist. Does that sound like it might be a good idea? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, I just quoted a source used by the CDC that say black on white "during the pandemic it has been an important source of information". It's all it takes for the 2nd pillar. Wikipedia:Five pillars. Do I have to remind you the rules of Wikipedia ? I assure you I have a mad respect for all the Wikipedian who wrote WP:MEDRS. You won't see me going around and editing articles with new unreviewed papers. But warchanting "MEDRS MEDRS MEDRS!" and refusing to read the sources is the opposite of reason, it's the opposite of science, the opposite of knowledge. it's detrimental to Wikipedia. And I have sources from AUTHORITIES in the field to source this very statement. Iluvalar (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really wasn't expecting that kind of reaction - I just thought it might be an approach worth considering. Never mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll just add that I competely agree that ignoring preprints (or any other specific kinds of publications) is not good science. But at Wikipedia, we are absolutely not *doing* science. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No harm to try :) . We are not *doing* science, I'm not doing WP:OR, but the line is grey here. Thx for your comment btw, it helped more then you think. Iluvalar (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to a community sanction

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

You are topic banned from all pages related to Covid-19, broadly construed. The ban is indefinite. It can be appealed as described below, but I suggest you do not appeal for at least six months.

You have been sanctioned because you have persistently been fighting against the community-mandated sourcing requirements in this topic area, and it is becoming chronically disruptive. You clearly will not stop until you are forced to.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus and COVID-19, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it had to come to this, as I really hoped it would not. But your latest appeal at WP:AN shows that you still have not really understood how our MEDRS sourcing requirements work, or you are refusing to accept them. The CDC document *can not* be used to validate the methods used in preprints such that we can now go back and cite them. We are not allowed to evaluate the various preprints' methods, not even by comparison with anything the CDC document says, and judge them to be acceptable - that is a clear violation of WP:OR. The presence of the CDC source means we can now cite the CDC source only. We can not cite any primary sources used by the CDC source, or any primary sources using similar methods to primary sources used by the CDC source. We were not waiting for a secondary source to validate the preprints so we could cite the preprints, we were waiting for a secondary source so we could cite the secondary source. If you do, in due course, appeal this ban, you really will need to show you understand all of this if you are to have any chance of succeeding. So before you think of an appeal, please take in what multiple people have been trying to explain to you for months, and be sure you fully understand it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my commenting here (If you'd prefer I didn't, just say so). Your appeal at AN has been closed, but I think your reply to me deserves a response. You appear to see that list of links I provided as supporting your approach, where I see it as a catalogue of your persistent pushback against MEDRS sourcing requirements and those who uphold them, and your continual agitation to put making Wikipedia as up-to-date as possible ahead of our actual priorities. Iridescent will have reviewed those exact same links (as he says he spent time reading through the back-story). His conclusion, after reviewing it all, is that the ban is a "a textbook example of sanctions being applied correctly". If you intend to make a future appeal, I suggest you might first want to reflect on how Iridescent, whose judgment is very widely respected, could have such a diametrically opposed opinion to you about the exact same discussions. Anyway, that's all I really have to say. I don't know if it will help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, it seems obvious to me that you are conflating 3 different things.

Yes I did once reverted a MEDRS application made by RexxS. Context is important here, because it was a second preprint correcting the first by 10%. It was not a peer review but it was certainly peers reviewing. Both results were coherent with our averages. and ABOVE ALL, JMV2009 did't change a single letter in the text of the article. So yeah I reintroduced a preprint once in that particular context.
I've been noisy in discussion page about those preprints. The CDC, the WHO and the ECDC all openly express how important those preprints are right now. Like officially in press conference. And we've been disagreeing in talk pages about whether or not we should apply the fine prints of WP:MEDRS in disregard with our actual sources opinion. And yes I've been a real pain about this in talk pages. On one side we have RexxS argumenting that rules are rules and on the other side I've been saying that there is WP:No firm rules. I'm fully aware that I've been pushing this as far as it gets and I'm out of karma to keep going, but we are all adults in talk pages. And you said youself, I have science on my side. This said, we go to number #3 and #3 is not linked to all of this so far.
Since July 21, this source exists. It's an uncontested authority supporting a near anonymous POV. The infection amount all around USA is at least 10x higher then the confirmed cases. It's a huge bomb that all our articles need to reflect correctly. Forget about preprints. 2 days after the source, seeing that the source don't get use enough, I went to the WP:AN to ask for help. We have for the first time a MEDRS source that tell the amount of people infected in the pandemic. It MUST be used. Independently of if we could have been more fluid with our sourcing rules before to stay up to date with science.

Please understand that while I'm taking the break you give me gladly about #2, #3 is unsolved and MUST due to WP:NPOV. Keeping the entire POV of science silent any longer is against all our core values. Iluvalar (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I won't engage with any of these specific points while your topic ban is in effect. I'll just point out that the Covid-19 sanctions apply to all related pages, and cover disruption on talk pages too. And I considered your being "a real pain" (to use your words) on talk pages disruptive. And with that, I don't think I have anything useful to say until such time as you make an appeal against your topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think giving a topic ban to someone allows you to pause the application of WP:NPOV on that given topic. I said all I needed to, have a nice time. Iluvalar (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please consider this a formal warning from an administrator. You will receive a lengthy block the next time you discuss the COVID-19 pandemic anywhere on Wikipedia, except in a formal appeal of your topic ban in a reasonable period of time. Ineptly appealing a topic ban the day following the imposition of the ban is disruptive editing. I recommend that you wait six months. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I said on the noticeboard, that's my intention for at least 2 months anyway. If you don't mind, I just intend to end this exchange with boing here. There is wikimoz on the talk page who might wait for an answer. Would be nice to inform him. Iluvalar (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for one month for your latest breach of your Covid-19 sanctions. You are not allowed to address the subject on any page in Wikipedia unless and until you successfully appeal your sanction. If, when this block expires or is lifted, you again breach your sanction without first successfully appealing it, you will be blocked for longer. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then use the following text: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it clearly. So I'm banned a month for sharing a source from CDC.gov which happen to say exactly the same thing that the source from WHO they are discussing. I quote MartinezMD "Many areas below 10% (implying very low) with other peaks much higher - 20/25%.". So I shared a graph from the CDC showing New-york state moving from under 10% to over 20% from march to july. And now I'm banned for not understanding WP:MEDRS. Is that right ?

I'll take the block, I don't mind. Mostly because I see my participation to Wikipedia as a duty more than a privilege. And you, in essence, just gave me vacation. Speaking of duty, I really don't think you are allowed to withhold a source like this one. At my return, I might have you explain your interpretation of WP:NPOV to the WP:ARBCOM. Iluvalar (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't involve me in this. I have nothing to do with your block. MartinezMD (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the topic ban violation and not the sourcing that violates the sanctions. Which you continue to do. You are not to edit about COVID-19 at all. Don't think the ArbCom will object to blocking you for violating a sanction authorized by the community, but don't let me stop you. I know they don't care about content disputes. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Covid-19 sources even here on your talk page is prohibited by your topic ban, and if you continue I will remove your ability to edit this page too. Look, it is very simple, and I really cannot understand why you still fail to grasp it, but I'll say it one more time: You are prohibited from saying anything at all about Covid-19 (including about the virus, the pandemic, Wikipedia articles about it, sources) and engaging in any discussions about it, on any Wikipedia page. That prohibition will remain until you make a successful appeal at WP:AN. (You have already made an unsuccessful appeal to me, on my talk page, so WP:AN is the next venue.) You are blocked for multiple breaches of that ban - it's not anything to do with any specific source, it's because you are not allowed to discuss anything at all about the subject.
If, when this block is over, you wish an appeal to be successful, I suggest it would help if you work on other areas for a couple of months first to show that you can contribute successfully and cooperatively - I note that you have made no edits anywhere outside this subject area since your topic ban was imposed in July. In fact, if you make a commitment here to cease editing about Covid-19 totally until you successfully appeal your ban, I'll be happy to lift this block so you can edit in other areas.
Finally, as for referring my actions to the Arbitration Committee, you are welcome to do that even now, without waiting for this block to expire - I'm sure you are capable of finding the email address to use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no mention of any blocking in that ArbCom whatsoever. Since June 21, Boing! have access to perfectly valid estimates conjointly from the CDC and the WHO saying something something I'm forbidden to talk about today. But he is intentionally holding the information back. It's sufficient for an ArbCom around WP:NPOV.

Boing! said Zebedee, I'm fine with taking the month, First and foremost because I'm waiting for this hellish and unending RFC that cost me 2/3 of my karma to end. Secondly, because I've been coming to Wikipedia specifically because of my experience in epidemiology stemming from my participations in H1N1 articles in 2009. And finally It gives you another month to help MartinezMD with something something. Who knows, we might solve this soon...

For the rest, I really appreciate your offer to unban me from the other articles, maybe I've been too stubborn with you in the past months. Maybe, I'm just paying for my bad temper and the articles haven been suffering by my fault. Iluvalar (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please ?

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).

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

Request reason:

'I would like to head to the admin noticeboard for the appeal about the topic ban.'

Decline reason:

You totally ignored the topic ban, and continued to blatantly flout it in July, in October, and in November. Eventually you were blocked for just one month because of your violations of the topic ban. You still continued to ignore the ban and flout it on this page. You are lucky that you haven't had talk page access removed and the block length increased, never mind removing the block. JBW (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2020 (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.

The RFC regarding the video of trump in COVID-19 pandemic ended in my favor. One can compare this edit summary in May 16 with this closure in November 19. This removed a 7 Months old edit war off my back. I will try to explain my case better at the noticeboard, but the Suspected cases appeared in the info box COVID-19 pandemic recently. 10% of the world, which is 13x more then the confirmed case. It checks out pretty well with my request to the admin saying we now have enough source to say there is about ~10x more cases than confirmed in USA and the serology tests are taken seriously. source again and another. Iluvalar (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the troll the day of my block broke the "unblock" model for me ? Guess I'll be blocked until the 10 then. Can't be bothered to fill an Email or anything. It's fine. Iluvalar (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvalar, can I give you some advice? If, when you make an appeal against your ban, you do as you suggest here and argue about suspected cases, confirmed cases, or whatever, you will have zero chance of success. The ban was strongly supported at AN very soon after it was imposed, confirming that it was warranted by your behaviour. What you will need to do to appeal your ban is address your behaviour that led to the ban. Not argue about sources. Not argue about what content is supported now. No, you need to address the problem with the way you approached the subject at the time. All you have done since the ban was imposed, at AN, in your appeal to me, here on your talk page, and in your unblock request, is argue about the content and the sources themselves. That will not succeed. Address what was wrong with your behaviour and only your behaviour, and make a convincing case for how and why your behaviour will change. I don't think I can possibly make it any clearer than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Boing for the pointers, I will do my best to stay calm and collected during my appeal. My behavior is to try my best to illustrate correctly the conjoined POV of the WHO and the CDC and the rest of the scientific community. Not as WP:truth but rather in WP:DUE weight and attributed when appropriate. In the past months, I did not hesitate to ignore the fine prints of WP:MEDRS in order to get it done Faster and I profoundly respect my fellow wikipedians who mistook the later as bad manner. However, new sources (which I will still provide despite your advice ([4],[5] amongst others)) allow me to achieve my primary goal to illustrate the authority view point while still being compliant with WP:MEDRS. Whether or not I was worthy of a warning for ignoring it is a moot point in which I have no desire to elaborate on. On this, let me wish you a very merry beginning of December.

JBW, thanks for hearing me out, I'm not sure you fully factored the fact that I request this unban only to go straight at WP:AN for an appeal of my case. But I do agree that I'm lucky enough for this ban to last only 1 month. And to you to have a great day. Iluvalar (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you make an appeal, I urge you to reflect further on "I did not hesitate to ignore the fine prints of WP:MEDRS in order to get it done Faster and I profoundly respect my fellow wikipedians who mistook the later as bad manner." It was nothing to do with bad manners or anybody else's mistaken interpretation. But it was all to do with your persistence in your IAR pursuit of getting things done faster in opposition to very clear community consensus on the use of sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a war against WP:V at all, you are still completely ignoring the very specific context. And you topic banned me AFTER I had a WP:MEDRS compliant source. Iluvalar (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further suggestions to offer to you, then, and I'll leave you to make your appeal however you wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee I'm on mind altering pills at the moment, so I postponed my request for an appeal. However, they moved my modification in an historic section "COVID-19#Earlier estimates of IFR". Now that the section don't have the pretention to reflect the current estimations, I would like to revert a change I did in that sentence and switch the 2 sources priority. To increase the incertitude on the estimation to reflect better the historic part of it. One change please ? I hate being the origin of an inexactitude. Iluvalar (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torske, Kramatorsk Raion moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Torske, Kramatorsk Raion, 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. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormalDude, I'm only bound by the NPOV pillar to attempt at writting everything relevant and reliable, I have no obligation to fight with you over it. So I guess this settle it. Iluvalar (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone follow this, but we now have Torske, Lyman urban hromada, Kramatorsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast since January 2023. Looks like It's holding this time. Thanks to Pietadè. Turns out my article was verifiable after all. Iluvalar (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Torske, Kramatorsk Raion

Hello, Iluvalar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Torske, Kramatorsk Raion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]