User talk:Unknown0124

Welcome!

Hello, Unknown0124! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Marques Brownlee in 2019.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Marques Brownlee in 2019.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3jtRAwJlM. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. BriefEdits (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jordan

Hey, why did you undo my edit to Jim Jordan? The image needs to be replaced. Jordan rarely wears a suitjacket, to the point of several news outlets commenting about that. He shouldn't be wearing a suitjacket in his main image. p b p 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Congressman Jordan almost never wears a suit-jacket to the point that news outlets comment about it, the prior image (before your edit) was his Congressional portrait (from the 114th Congress, 2015-17). Members of Congress have to wear it on the House floor to be in compliance with rules. All of the Congressional portraits I have seen have featured him wearing a suit-jacket. I am willing to add the image elsewhere in the article, because I feel there is just reasoning to add it back in. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken move

Your move of 2020 Summer Paralympics to 2021 Summer Paralympics has been reverted. The Games (and the Olympics) are still referred to as the 2020 Games. Please read Talk:2020 Summer Olympics/Archive 2#Requested move 24 March 2020. No such move should be made without discussion and agreement. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Received. I'm still new to this stuff. --Unknown0124 (talk)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Parler. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jorm (talk) 21:36, 10 January 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Doug Weller talk 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Greg Gutfeld. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Greg Gutfeld. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ted Cruz series

Template:Ted Cruz series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mr248 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving categories

Hello, Unknown0124,

Do not move categories! Categories are not moved like other pages. If you wish for a category to be renamed, make a proposal at Categories for Discussion and if the consensus is that the name should be changed, then a bot will move all of the contents to a new category page. Please do not ever do this again.

If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now proposed this category name change at CFD if you would like to weigh in on the discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 28#Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for that information. I did not know about that procedure at the time I made those changes. The next time I make changes of that gratitude, I will put it through the consensus process, because I feel that input from other editors and users is valuable. Unknown0124 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits that are likely to be contentious (adding/removing Category:Propaganda in the United States for example) without any summary or talk page discussion is particularly problematic. I see you are aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of recent American politics, and I urge you to approach the topic with more collaborative spirit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:12, 11 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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Woman? moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, What is a Woman?, 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. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of doing that. Will take this into future consideration. Unknown0124 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publish when reviews come out from notable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Being that it’s too new (my guess), I guess that’s why the reviews haven’t come in yet. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:What is a Woman?

Draft:What is a Woman?, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:What is a Woman? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:What is a Woman? during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less, there's an existing article about that topic. Had no idea that the draft and the published article were entirely separate. Unknown0124 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karine Jean-Pierre

Sorry, what? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you should stop and think. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit does not have to do with disagreements, politically or otherwise, it had to do with tweets, one thread after the 2016 election, and another tweet alleging the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen, both of which were posted before her tenure in the Biden administration. If you feel I am taking these tweets out of context, or if anything relating to them should be added to the article, let me know. I want to provide the best information to people as possible, free of bias and opinion. Unknown0124 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been here long enough to know that BLP information, and particularly categories, need secondary sourcing, not just a tweet from years ago from the subject. And if those two tweets are all there is, it's not likely you'll find much secondary sourcing confirming the categorization. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, I'm 25stargeneral. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Twitter, Inc., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deal closed hours ago, we don't have much information so I think it's best to wait for more. Unknown0124 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so don't be giving Musk titles that aren't in sources. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did that because I remember seeing somewhere on a Wikipedia article, whether it be Musk article, or either Twitter article, that said after he did his initial purging (Agrawal, Segal, Gadde, etc) that he assumed the position of CEO, which led me to do what I did. Obviously not a good choice. Unknown0124 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox

Hi, where was this discussed? [1]. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided to rename the article Mpox some weeks ago.Graham Beards (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And we may well need the admin (User:SilkTork) to shift it back and perhaps protect it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now move protected the article. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the names “monkeypox” and “mpox” used in conjunction? Or is one used more than the other? How many people refer to the disease as “mpox” instead of “monkeypox”? Understandably we want to alleviate the discrimination associated, but up until last year, a lot of people didn’t know this virus existed.

As for the renaming to prevent or alleviate any discrimination: the Ebola virus—named after the Ebola River in DRC—was identified in 1976, and as we all know there was an outbreak between 2013 and 2016. As for Monkeypox, there has been a long history of white people comparing black people to monkeys or apes, and yes, it’s racist. Also, obviously, the disease is not exclusively transmitted by monkeys, you would have to be dumb to think that. Unknown0124 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was thoroughly discussed before the page was moved from "Monkeypox" to "Mpox". Why didn't you initiate a discussion before reverting? I think the Ebola analogy is a red herring. You can't discriminate against rivers otherwise we would have to rename West Nile virus among others. Graham Beards (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regaarding Ebola, the only connection really is that it and Monkeypox were first identified in African countries. As for the discussions in the talk page, I should have read that before actually moving the article… Unknown0124 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Tucker Carlson

May I ask you to explain this edit of yours to Tucker Carlson? You did not provide an edit summary, and without one, it looks politically motivated. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not providing an edit summary has been a habit I have been trying to break. I added the category "People with dyslexia", as it states in the personal life section of the article that he is dyslexic. As for the other stuff, you could argue that the removal of that appears to be politically motivated. I removed Trumpism from the movement section of the infobox because other conservative journalists don't have that on there, so far as I'm aware, and even his former colleagues Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, both of whom also host opinion shows on Fox News, don't have that on there. As for Carlson and COVID-19, he did talk about it before it became a serious issue (pandemic-level), though I'm assuming he changed his tune about it sometime during or after March 2020. Unknown0124 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed a category because you assumed it no longer applied? MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant when I explained his history with COVID-19 before it reached pandemic levels, but I don't know when he actually changed his tune, that's why I said I was assuming it was during or after March 2020. The removal of the category was driven by confusion as to why it was there in the first place unless it was his touting of ivermectin as being beneficial for treating and preventing it. I guess I need to do some more reading! Unknown0124 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Lyndon B. Johnson, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. LBJ was a human, not a cigarette. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many cigarettes have you come across named Lyndon Baines Johnson or have served as President of the United States? None! Only a human can fulfill that position. I added the categories relating to smoking and cigarettes because he was a chain smoker. In fact, it states in the very article about him that he would smoke up to 60 cigarettes a day. Those same categories were added to the article about Walt Disney for literally the same reason: he was a chain smoker, and you can’t not find a picture of him despite Disney’s best efforts to remove the cigarette from said photo. I don’t know much about Barack Obama’s smoking other than he was a smoker. Unknown0124 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Twitter, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to say this: the reason why that category was removed was because I've been on Twitter/X, especially after Elon Musk bought it, and I haven't seen any far-right or neo-Nazi material anywhere, and that was despite the fact that it was promoting Joe Biden, Fox News, and Matt Walsh on my mom's account while she had one. Second, should I want to consider the removal of a category, I will go about the talk pages, and if the opinions favor removal, I will provide a valid explanation for the removal (which is something I historically haven't done). Unknown0124 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Just a quick Google search revealed eight reliable sources that state Twitter has had a notable increase in far-right content since Musk purchased it. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there (and I would also argue this line of thinking falls under original research). Feel free to make a new topic regarding the matter at Talk:Twitter, but I will personally vote to oppose removal of the category based on these sources. GSK (talk • edits) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edits in question, and while I made similar edits last week, the edits made today weren't made by me. Perhaps someone else in my house felt the need to do that, though I have no idea why. Unknown0124 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m working to break the habit. Unknown0124 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evangelical COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

Hello, Unknown0124,

Why did you remove all of the contents of this category? This is called "emptying categories out of process" and is highly discouraged. If you believe a category should be deleted, merged or renamed, make a proposal at WP:CFD do not simply remove articles without leaving an edit summary on why this was an inappropriate categorization.

If you have questions about this, please bring them the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my personal thought process, but I feel as though articles whose subjects are people, and in this case, evangelical ministers or people of evangelical faith, could be labeled under the category “COVID-19 conspiracy theorists”, instead of “Evangelical COVID-19 conspiracy theorists”. Why, you might ask? I feel this way because the latter is labeling the subjects based on their faith.

At the time I emptied the category, there were six articles in the category, and half of them made no mention of Covid or conspiracy theories (one of them promoted ivermectin, but I think that would fall under the category “COVID-19 misinformation”). Unknown0124 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]