Hi YorickJenkins. I see you have been editing a number of articles and changing references to the Nazi Party and Nazis to other, accurate but less commonly used terms. These edits have been reverted because they are contrary to wikipedia's policy WP:COMMONNAME to use the name most commonly used and understood. Many people are unfamiliar with the "NSDAP" or even the phrase "national socialist" while the term "Nazi" is much more widely used in both common and academic discourse. Please refrain from making these edits in the future without some consensus on the page. This debate has been had before many times and the consensus of editors is well-established. See e.g. [1]. Best, InspectorTiger ( talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, for most victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death and not a secondary factor. Abstain from making edits based solely on your personal opinions, thanks. -- Pesqara ( talk) 08:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Hello Pesqara. I disagree with your comment. Doctors are legally obliged to issue death certificates and each certificate must include a cause of death. "Death from old age" is not acceptable on a death certiifcate. Medical professionals will name Covid as cause of death even in cases where it is a contributory factor and not the primary cause of death. Death certificates do not allow for an indication of proportional contributory factors. Nearly everyone close to ninety years of age is within a few years of death with or without Covid. It is in my opinion very misleading to list Covid without qualificationas as the cause of death in Wikepedia with the inevitable inference that someone died from covid as a misfortune in the same manner as they might die in a car accident or from dhengi fever. Unless you are able to demonstrate that all death certificates indicated as death by covid 19 are primary death causes (and how can anyone do this?) my amendment should be allowed to stay. In simply noting that some not all causes of death were primarily caused by covid, I am simply pleading for common sense. Neither you nor I presumably have access to all the medical histories behind the deaths listed here and therefore neither you nor I are in a position to state to what extent covid was a primary or contributory factor to death. Even you write (which is only your opinion) that MOST victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death thereby conceding that it would be misleading to imply that ALL people listed here died directly from covid, yet that in fact is what the original statement states. For the reason I have given, this statement is misleading. However, I have moderated my amendment and hope the compromise is acceptable to both of us.-- YorickJenkins ( talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
FDW777 ( talk) 14:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 11:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
making a political statement- although refusing to do so might make such a statement. In any event, your apparent POV that the nations that emerged from the former USSR in the 1990s are
breakaway states and therefore in some sense illegitimate is a WP:FRINGE POV, one that will not be reflected on Wikipedia (except for documentation in Russian irredentism) unless the reliable sources change.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chemtrails conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It is sad that wikipedia seems to have abandoned its earlier policy of neutrality. I do NOT personally believe in the chem trail theory, it is wrong of you to state that I do. Chem Trails are a conspiracy theory, some people believe in it, most do not. If Wikipedia were objective, Wikipedia aritcles would acknowledge the fact that some people beleive in it and that the matter is not settled. I did NOT introduce my own personal analysis, that is on the contrary what your wikpedia entry does by stating as a matter of fact that the chem trail theory is false. My additions are indisputable, namely that some people believe that the chem trail theory is a fake. A truly objective account would include the statement "the majority of people believe". Why don't you allow the inclusion of such a statement? Presumably because you do not allow even the remotest possibility that there is anything to be said in favour of an alternative argument.
I once donated money to Wikpedia and am begining to regret that I did so for I am increasingly gaining the opinion that Wikpedia supports a pro West pro liberal pro globalist narrative and is not neutral.
Hi YorickJenkins. I see you have been editing a number of articles and changing references to the Nazi Party and Nazis to other, accurate but less commonly used terms. These edits have been reverted because they are contrary to wikipedia's policy WP:COMMONNAME to use the name most commonly used and understood. Many people are unfamiliar with the "NSDAP" or even the phrase "national socialist" while the term "Nazi" is much more widely used in both common and academic discourse. Please refrain from making these edits in the future without some consensus on the page. This debate has been had before many times and the consensus of editors is well-established. See e.g. [1]. Best, InspectorTiger ( talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, for most victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death and not a secondary factor. Abstain from making edits based solely on your personal opinions, thanks. -- Pesqara ( talk) 08:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Hello Pesqara. I disagree with your comment. Doctors are legally obliged to issue death certificates and each certificate must include a cause of death. "Death from old age" is not acceptable on a death certiifcate. Medical professionals will name Covid as cause of death even in cases where it is a contributory factor and not the primary cause of death. Death certificates do not allow for an indication of proportional contributory factors. Nearly everyone close to ninety years of age is within a few years of death with or without Covid. It is in my opinion very misleading to list Covid without qualificationas as the cause of death in Wikepedia with the inevitable inference that someone died from covid as a misfortune in the same manner as they might die in a car accident or from dhengi fever. Unless you are able to demonstrate that all death certificates indicated as death by covid 19 are primary death causes (and how can anyone do this?) my amendment should be allowed to stay. In simply noting that some not all causes of death were primarily caused by covid, I am simply pleading for common sense. Neither you nor I presumably have access to all the medical histories behind the deaths listed here and therefore neither you nor I are in a position to state to what extent covid was a primary or contributory factor to death. Even you write (which is only your opinion) that MOST victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death thereby conceding that it would be misleading to imply that ALL people listed here died directly from covid, yet that in fact is what the original statement states. For the reason I have given, this statement is misleading. However, I have moderated my amendment and hope the compromise is acceptable to both of us.-- YorickJenkins ( talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
FDW777 ( talk) 14:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 11:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
making a political statement- although refusing to do so might make such a statement. In any event, your apparent POV that the nations that emerged from the former USSR in the 1990s are
breakaway states and therefore in some sense illegitimate is a WP:FRINGE POV, one that will not be reflected on Wikipedia (except for documentation in Russian irredentism) unless the reliable sources change.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chemtrails conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
It is sad that wikipedia seems to have abandoned its earlier policy of neutrality. I do NOT personally believe in the chem trail theory, it is wrong of you to state that I do. Chem Trails are a conspiracy theory, some people believe in it, most do not. If Wikipedia were objective, Wikipedia aritcles would acknowledge the fact that some people beleive in it and that the matter is not settled. I did NOT introduce my own personal analysis, that is on the contrary what your wikpedia entry does by stating as a matter of fact that the chem trail theory is false. My additions are indisputable, namely that some people believe that the chem trail theory is a fake. A truly objective account would include the statement "the majority of people believe". Why don't you allow the inclusion of such a statement? Presumably because you do not allow even the remotest possibility that there is anything to be said in favour of an alternative argument.
I once donated money to Wikpedia and am begining to regret that I did so for I am increasingly gaining the opinion that Wikpedia supports a pro West pro liberal pro globalist narrative and is not neutral.