User talk:Thepigdog

I am writing a page on inductive inference, which I have put on a sub page.

This is largely for my own benefit. It is an interest of mine.

There is an existing page on Inductive Inference which is fairly brief.

My page is more explanatory and covers roughly the first 3 paragraphs of that section.

Also I have done the maths as text, which works alright because the maths is not difficult.

However I dont have references (other than to other wiki pages). Honestly I find it difficult to read scholarly articles. I am not an academic.

So maybe my page is not useful to anyone else. Thats OK.

Originality

Hi. I feel you have something original to say. However, Wikipedia cannot accept original ideas. Not even too original presentation of well-known ideas. If you'll feel you do not fit here, maybe try a different place. Happy editing, --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. I agree. The wikki must be based on reliable referenced work.

Not every wiki must! But wikipedia must, indeed. --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curry's Paradox is a Paradox

Hi there,

People (me included) keep stumbling on that article and saying it is not a paradox, so please take a look at my comment to your opinion on the paradox. Thanks. JMCF125 (discussion • contribs) 15:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great work on Lambda calculus. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But all rolled back

:-(

Anyway I have no complaints. There were mistakes in what I did back then.

It is disappointing to me that the Lambda Calculus page is such a mess now. They haven't even tidied up the notation. I just wish someone would get in there and tidy it up.

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lambda lifting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lambda lifting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church encoding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Value (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message I will fix the problem. Thepigdog (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
- Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
- How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
- How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deductive lambda calculus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deductive lambda calculus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deductive lambda calculus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: eta reduction and Golfscript

Hello, Thepigdog. You have new messages at Destynova's talk page.
Message added 13:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Destynova (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Let expression may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narrowing of algebraic value sets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monads (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Narrowing of algebraic value sets page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Track roller assembly.png

Thanks for uploading File:Track roller assembly.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I've rolled-back your addition to religion. It was unsourced, and more a polemical point of view that encyclopedic information. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough. I took it as a fairly obvious statement that could be fairly easily sourced. I don't see it as even polemical. There is overwhelming evidence that religiosity increases with stress (fox hole syndrome etc). A proper investigation would uncover numerous references that would have said essentially the same thing. Terror management theory says much the same thing. I am not even sure that many religious people would disagree. I think we are all pretty much aware of our fears of death, meaningless, lack or power etc. I certainly was when I was religious, and was well aware of this being a driver for my religiosity. The tone could have been more neutral (somehow). There are numerous books that say essentially the same thing. It is hardly a deep insight. It is blindingly obvious that we are all going to die, and that dealing with this fact is very difficult to deal with. And after you get over dieing the meaninglessness of existence is even more difficult to deal with. I think sometimes writing down the obvious stuff brings it to consciousness and makes it easier to deal with and work through. Thepigdog (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our state of psychological stress is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it is there. Religion fairly universally offers a comforting message assuring immortality and meaning to our lives. So by inductive inference it is highly probable that religion is a response to psychological stress. Add to this the fox hole syndrome and there is immediately an overwhelming case for describing religion as a response to psychological stress. Further reading then expands and confirms this view.

By talking about the elephant in the room clearly and unambiguously, without soft pedaling of pussyfooting we allow people to say "yes I acknowledge there is an elephant in the room". People may then choose to retreat back to there comfort zones, which is alright. But they will have seen the elephant and consciously acknowledged its existence.

I think particularly for children it is helpful to have the obvious stuff stated in plain simple English. Understanding the source (or at least one of the sources) of religion allows children to make decisions in an informed manner.

I think there are other sources for religion also. The desire to control the population is a key use of institutionalized religion. I think we owe children the tools to understand the sources of religion.

Thepigdog (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inductive probability may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inductive probability may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The probability of an [[Event (probability)|event] may be interpreted as relative frequencies of [[Outcome (probability)|
: <math>L(H_i) + L(F|H_i) < L(F)</math>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inductive probability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boolean. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Relational programming may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s and 9 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deductive lambda calculus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inductive probability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vision. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thepigdog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thepigdog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COVID discretionary sanctions notification

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 and edits about COVID-19. 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.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions

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.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources in the context of medical subjects

Hello. I see you have already received the discretionary sanction alerts for both COVID and biographies on living people. You are aware that editors in this area are expected to be held to a higher standard when it comes to following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Those who do not meet these standards can be met with sanctions ranging from blocks to topic bans from the subject.

I wanted to make sure you were aware of the standards for sourcing that we apply in medical subjects. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and stick to those standards when sourcing medical claims. Take particular care when using sources to make statements about living people.

I also want to be sure you are aware of our biographies of living people policy which covers negative comments about living people anywhere on wikipedia. Your recent discussion at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 fell short of these standards and has been removed accordingly.

Further failures in regards to these standards may result in sanctions. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID 19

This is what I have heard.

SARS_COV-2 almost certainly came from the WIV.
It arose most likely from the serial passage of the virus through humanized mice at WIV.
This was Gain of Function research.
The work was funded and supported by the international scientific community.
The Chinese Government was involved in an initial coverup.
The Chinese Government exerted influence on many academics to stop the free discourse.
The WHO cooperated with the Chinese government in the coverup.
Under pressure from the Chinese government, the WHO delayed the proper steps that should have been taken to stop the virus from escaping China.
Self-interested parties in the scientific community performed their own massive cover-up.
The COVID vaccines can be fatal if they get into the bloodstream
The long term effects of the COVID 19 vaccines are unknown
There is little benefit for a young person to be vaccinated and there are both short-term and long-term risks.
Ivermectin has been shown in limited studies to be highly effective against SARS-COV-2, both as a prophylaxis and treatment.
Ivermectin is a demonstrably safe drug if properly prescribed.
There has been massive suppression of information carried out by multiple powerful parties.
There has been massive suppression of debate on the Lab Leak Hypothesis and on Ivermectin and on the dangers of the COVID vaccines.

I imagine this will all come out into the mainstream in the end. Perhaps too little, too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepigdog (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if you read my post at all? "I have heard" is nowhere near the standard set out in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill. This is not the place to repeat things that you have heard on the internet. You are welcome to your pet theories but they don't belong on Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Kristian G. Andersen to e-mail to Fauci, Friday, January 21st, 2020, 10:32 PM from Fauci's e-mails, released under freedom of information.

The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the features to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.
Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.

From The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Published: 17 March 2020. Authors Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry.

We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

So between the 21st of March and when the paper was submitted for publication, well before the 17th of March 2020 Kristian G. Andersen completely reverses his opinion.

Thepigdog (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize how contentious that page was. I still think it is pushing a discredited viewpoint. The viewpoint where the scientists are unbiased. Many have been demonstrated to be pushing their own interests instead of what they actually believe. It is sad.

Thepigdog (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments demanding that editors step away from a conbtentious topic to allow you to have ytour way are inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Ivermectin. It is not a good idea to soapbox about whether or not "a group of scientists worked together to create a paper they did not actually believe" on an article that has nothing to do with A) that paper, B) those scientists, and C) that controversy. It also may constitute a BLP violation, given that it was not referenced in support of a relevant content discussion. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources. Dispute them if you will.

From Kristian G. Andersen to e-mail to Fauci, Friday, January 21st, 2020, 10:32 PM from Fauci's e-mails, released under freedom of information.

The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the features to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.
Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.

From The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Published: 17 March 2020. Authors Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry.

We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

So between the 21st of March and when the paper was submitted for publication, well before the 17th of March 2020 Kristian G. Andersen completely reverses his opinion.

The relevance is that Alex only accepts evidence from reputable journals. In other words, only journals that support his viewpoint.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Alexbrn is (Redacted). THe only way to carry the discussion forward was by challenging him. We are in the midst of discussions on the Ivermectin talk page, and you show your cowardice by blocking me. Thepigdog (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Any further personal attacks will lead to your talk page access being revoked. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:55, 13 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.

I will be imposing a one-year topic ban from Covid-19 related topics when I get an opportunity to fill out the paperwork later tpoday. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. If you don't want to allow fair discussion, just say so. Thepigdog (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just admit that you lost the argument, and carry on your unjust ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepigdog (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from subjects related to Covid-19 for one year, interpreted broadly, including medications and procedures related to Covid treatment.

You have been sanctioned for personal attacks and violations of the medical subject sourcing policy.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Reference in the article Let expression

Hello! I sincerely thank you for your great contribution in Let expression.

Is there any reference or textbook that explains 10 rules in Let expression#Conversion from let to lambda expressions?

I really want to understand the logic behind those rules! (Especially rule 9). Sepiabrown (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]