This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Michael.C.Wright! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Martin Kulldorff several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Martin Kulldorff, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Llll5032 ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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. Llll5032 ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article Martin Kulldorff. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Llll5032 ( talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello Michael.C.Wright. You've been warned for edit warring per the complaint you filed at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Re this the question is simple enough: do you have any kind of COI for Kulldorff to WP:DISCLOSE? There is already an admin involved and it's a routine question with a simple enough answer. The reason you're being asked I guess is because of what looks like out-of-the-ordinary POV-pushing. Answering the question saves community time, which is helpful all round! Alexbrn ( talk) 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at User talk:Rebroad and read about how well the argument that your understanding of policy trumps consensus. If an overwhelming majority of editors disagree with you, especially after you have brought your concern to the pertinent noticeboard, you really should consider that your views are out of sync with the community consensus regarding the content you're arguing and the policy you're citing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.
Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions...
Hi Michael, and welcome back. Please consider this a non-template warning about edit warring. I'm not sure if you recall, but you were formally warned about it—specifically in regards to Martin Kulldorff—by an administrator. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael.C.Wright reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage ( talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
if, at any time, you revert again on this article without established prior consensus I shall report you
— User:Bon courage 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
You have been warned.
— User:Bon courage 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
there is not currently a consensus.I disgree. I think that there is a consensus, you just aren't part of it. MrOllie ( talk) 23:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a "This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area..." box at the top of this page. Before that appeared, a formal notification regarding WP:ARBCOVID was issued on 11 February 2022. In 2022, you have made 686 edits. 122 of those were to Martin Kulldorff, and 285 were to Talk:Martin Kulldorff. It appears that the vast majority of the other 279 edits also relate to disputes concerning Kulldorff. The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avoid situations like this where an editor is responsible for too much churning and wasting of time in a contentious topic. I will topic ban you from discussing Kulldorff on any page if the disruption continues. Feel free to continue participating in existing discussions but please do so in moderation. Perhaps everyone else is missing something, or maybe they are misguided, or whatever. Nevertheless, you will need to accept that consensus does not support your position and you will have to put your energy into another topic or be topic banned. You may like to start one RfC with a concrete proposal. I have not examined the situation but it appears a current issue regards "I propose the following to replace the statement" on article talk and an RfC asking whether that text should be used or not would be fine. However, if an RfC does not support your proposal, you would need to move on and not attempt to have another bite at the cherry. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned your user page violates Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE. Would you please make changes so it looks less like a biography to maximize SEO? Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz
I am reaching out to you after reading WP:CONTACTCU and seeing that you are a recently-active admin with CheckUser privileges.
The block ( block log) of User_talk:71.128.145.158 for “Block evasion; User:Michael.C.Wright” is erroneous, as that account is not associated with mine. As indicated by User_talk:71.128.145.158 [2], we are two different people.
The user IP is 71.128.145.158, which is an IP on a completely different Internet provider than mine and is geolocated in another state entirely. An admin with CheckUser privileges can see that I am not located in or near that state and my Internet provider is not the same as the one that owns that IP.
I don't see where it has been made explicit exactly which edit triggered suspicion of sock puppetry or block evasion and I have not been contacted by any admin to discuss or explain any edits related to that block.
Despite User_talk:71.128.145.158 requesting CheckUser assistance in relation to that block, I see that no request has been filed by any involved admin. Therefore I am reaching out to you for assistance.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello I received your email, and am not going to get involved in this at this time. Please note if you solicit many people about this by email that may be considered disruption and your wikimail access may be revoked. Blocks, even of an indefinite nature, are generally able to eventually be overcome - see Wikipedia:Appealing a block for information on this. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Michael.C.Wright! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Martin Kulldorff several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Martin Kulldorff, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Llll5032 ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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. Llll5032 ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the article Martin Kulldorff. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Llll5032 ( talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello Michael.C.Wright. You've been warned for edit warring per the complaint you filed at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Re this the question is simple enough: do you have any kind of COI for Kulldorff to WP:DISCLOSE? There is already an admin involved and it's a routine question with a simple enough answer. The reason you're being asked I guess is because of what looks like out-of-the-ordinary POV-pushing. Answering the question saves community time, which is helpful all round! Alexbrn ( talk) 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at User talk:Rebroad and read about how well the argument that your understanding of policy trumps consensus. If an overwhelming majority of editors disagree with you, especially after you have brought your concern to the pertinent noticeboard, you really should consider that your views are out of sync with the community consensus regarding the content you're arguing and the policy you're citing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.
Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions...
Hi Michael, and welcome back. Please consider this a non-template warning about edit warring. I'm not sure if you recall, but you were formally warned about it—specifically in regards to Martin Kulldorff—by an administrator. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael.C.Wright reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage ( talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
if, at any time, you revert again on this article without established prior consensus I shall report you
— User:Bon courage 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
You have been warned.
— User:Bon courage 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
there is not currently a consensus.I disgree. I think that there is a consensus, you just aren't part of it. MrOllie ( talk) 23:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a "This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area..." box at the top of this page. Before that appeared, a formal notification regarding WP:ARBCOVID was issued on 11 February 2022. In 2022, you have made 686 edits. 122 of those were to Martin Kulldorff, and 285 were to Talk:Martin Kulldorff. It appears that the vast majority of the other 279 edits also relate to disputes concerning Kulldorff. The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avoid situations like this where an editor is responsible for too much churning and wasting of time in a contentious topic. I will topic ban you from discussing Kulldorff on any page if the disruption continues. Feel free to continue participating in existing discussions but please do so in moderation. Perhaps everyone else is missing something, or maybe they are misguided, or whatever. Nevertheless, you will need to accept that consensus does not support your position and you will have to put your energy into another topic or be topic banned. You may like to start one RfC with a concrete proposal. I have not examined the situation but it appears a current issue regards "I propose the following to replace the statement" on article talk and an RfC asking whether that text should be used or not would be fine. However, if an RfC does not support your proposal, you would need to move on and not attempt to have another bite at the cherry. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned your user page violates Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE. Would you please make changes so it looks less like a biography to maximize SEO? Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz
I am reaching out to you after reading WP:CONTACTCU and seeing that you are a recently-active admin with CheckUser privileges.
The block ( block log) of User_talk:71.128.145.158 for “Block evasion; User:Michael.C.Wright” is erroneous, as that account is not associated with mine. As indicated by User_talk:71.128.145.158 [2], we are two different people.
The user IP is 71.128.145.158, which is an IP on a completely different Internet provider than mine and is geolocated in another state entirely. An admin with CheckUser privileges can see that I am not located in or near that state and my Internet provider is not the same as the one that owns that IP.
I don't see where it has been made explicit exactly which edit triggered suspicion of sock puppetry or block evasion and I have not been contacted by any admin to discuss or explain any edits related to that block.
Despite User_talk:71.128.145.158 requesting CheckUser assistance in relation to that block, I see that no request has been filed by any involved admin. Therefore I am reaching out to you for assistance.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello I received your email, and am not going to get involved in this at this time. Please note if you solicit many people about this by email that may be considered disruption and your wikimail access may be revoked. Blocks, even of an indefinite nature, are generally able to eventually be overcome - see Wikipedia:Appealing a block for information on this. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,