User talk:Inoculatedcities

Vandal

Hey, I did not actually block that vandal. I warned them with warnings templates by typing {{subst:test1-n|articlename}} through {{subst:test4-n|articlename}}. Once they have recieved a final warning and continue to vandalize, you then report them on the WP:AIV page by adding {{IPvandal|ipaddresshere}} to the list. an admin will eventually get to them and block them! Hope this helped. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Thanks for your good work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Vandal

I see you found out how to report a vandal! Have you found out how to revert pages yet? If ya need any help with vandal fighting, or anything for that matter, let me know! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP Vandal

I saw you removed an IP vandal I reported to WP:AIV, citing "209.173.24.7 removed, blocked by CSCWEM, NOT empty)". Forgive my ignorance but what does this mean? It looks as if the user has been blocked repeatedly and has continued to vandalize after the final warning. Are they blocked permanently? What is meant by "NOT empty"? Again, forgive my ignorance. Inoculatedcities 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ip from the list because they had already been blocked by the admin Can't Sleep, clown will eat me (hence the CSCWEM). The "NOT empty" means there is still complaints waiting, indicating to any admin that has the page on their watchlist that there is work to be done. Viridae ^Talk 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: "creation scientist"

Re: "creation scientist" Just wanted to say thanks for the edit about "creation scientist" Ken Ham you made on the Liberty University page. Glad to see vigilance against that sort of nonsense. Inoculatedcities 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Really I just saw it as an innacuracy, intentional or not. --Holdek ^(talk) 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players

In case it's not on your watchlist, I've replied on the talkpage for Players.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty University

Just wanted to thank you for your efforts with Liberty University. It's very much an uphill battle, I know. Tim Ross (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi Inoculatedcities. Could you please wait until there's both affirmative talk page consensus and a solid set of reliable sources before you restore that content at Alina Chan. It wouldn't surprise me if such sources exist, but a brief search did not turn up any. I prefer not to post template warnings on the pages of experienced users, but please be wary of violating either WP:BLP or WP:EW. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want sources that confirm...what? That she published a book alleging a conspiracy to cover-up a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2? Did she not do that? Are you having difficulty finding it?

The best current consensus among qualified experts (which she is not) is that the virus had a natural origin. I'm not talking about the best consensus on Twitter or Wikipedia, I mean the best consensus of actually qualified experts on zoonosis.

Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-suggests-pandemic-came-nature-not-lab-panel-says Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that at all. There's a difference between disagreeing with the consensus of the most qualified experts and promoting conspiracy theories. More importantly, if we're going to call her a conspiracy theorist in wiki-voice, we need multiple reliable sources doing so in their own voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because her *authoring a book hypothesizing this conspiracy* isn't sufficient?

I'll be sure to add it back with reference to Lindsay Beyerstein's article article for The New Republic, "This Terrible Book Shows Why the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Won’t Die" from 12/10/21. An excerpt: "The second is that, despite spending an exhausting amount of time reassuring the reader that the book is not promoting conspiracy theories, most of the scenarios Ridley and Chan entertain would require improbably large and durable conspiracies to hide all solid evidence of a lab leak for at least two years."

But I'm guessing you won't find that sufficient either and will revert it again. Inoculatedcities (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]