Hi DarrellWinkler! I noticed your contributions to Shooting of Jacob Blake and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Jorm ( talk) 02:20, 5 November 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 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.
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.
Jorm ( talk) 02:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting. 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. See
WP:BDP
EvergreenFir
(talk) 03:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Ill add a source. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Revert agian and you'll be blocked. See
WP:BDP.
- For what exactly? I already told you I can add a source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 03:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The source meets the bare minimum so I'm leaving it. But adding unsourced info like that is a severe breach of
WP:BLP. Please be careful to avoid posting unsourced statements about committing heinous crimes.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 04:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but all you had to do was ask. Theres no need to be so aggressive for something which is pretty widely known at this point.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are lucky that you received a warning, other admins would have immediately blocked you for these
BLP infractions. EvergreenFir gave you a break by alerting you before issuing a block.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @ Liz:, I dont see how BPD applied. The two individuals had been dead for over a year now and the material was sourced to what is considered a reliable source. Jorms behavior here was very immature. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are lucky that you received a warning, other admins would have immediately blocked you for these
BLP infractions. EvergreenFir gave you a break by alerting you before issuing a block.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but all you had to do was ask. Theres no need to be so aggressive for something which is pretty widely known at this point.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The source meets the bare minimum so I'm leaving it. But adding unsourced info like that is a severe breach of
WP:BLP. Please be careful to avoid posting unsourced statements about committing heinous crimes.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 04:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir and Liz:, I can understand DW's actions here. I think BITE was probably the issue here. While the question as asked violated BLP, it was still a legitimate good faith question. Jorm may have been right to remove the content but given that DW is a new user it would have been helpful to explain why. For example, noting that BLP is a policy that is meant to protect both living and recently deceased people and in a case like this we err on the side of leaving out controversial claims (reliably sourced or not) unless it's directly relevant to the article. I believe some/all of this material has come up in the trial but I think only when the jury is out of the room in context of evidence/testimony that cannot be presented. I've only seen it mentioned by the legal wonks vs the mainstream press. Thus in my view it shouldn't be in the article. As for talk page discussions, removing the specific BLP violation and then noting why or suggesting compliant way to ask the legitimate question would help here. Springee ( talk) 13:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Eggishorn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Eggishorn:, please see the article talk page. I am removing original research from the article. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, you're not. Your wholesale white-washing the article. There are cites for every thing you are removing. Discuss them on the talk page and not in bulk. For example, notability does not work that way.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn: everything I am removing is material cited only to a primary source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not automatically unacceptable. They are, in face, allowed. See the actual
WP:PRIMARY policy:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
These sources have been previously discussed for this article and there is a current consensus that they have been used in accordance with that policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)- @ Eggishorn:, where in the primary source cited (the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's journal) does it state their view as being controversial and why is this view notable? DarrellWinkler ( talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not automatically unacceptable. They are, in face, allowed. See the actual
WP:PRIMARY policy:
- @
Eggishorn: everything I am removing is material cited only to a primary source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Isaiah 7:14.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 09:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You did not WP:CITE any WP:RS (meaning mainstream Bible scholarship) that almah means "virgin". So, it fails WP:NOR policy. You have been warned about that. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 01:39, 4 December 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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
If I find you falsifying a quote again as you did at Leo Frank
Expect to be blocked. I see you are keen to make sure people know the janitor was black. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- How many reliable sources do you need to demonstrate that other people find this notable?
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 20:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- It was already in the article. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Post Script - what quote did I falsify? ... Oh, I see, I edited the wrong text, my mistake. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 20:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned disruptive editing, including but by no means limited to [1]. With that kind of agenda, you have no business in this topic area.
This sanction 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 contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Courcelles ( talk) 15:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saw your appeal. Just thought I'd comment about why you were likely sanctioned, and why your appeal is unlikely to succeed. The issue is indeed with a diff like this [2]. It suggests some sort of broad conspiracy to "lock down" the article to a particular point of view. It is true that different users have vastly different points of view and opinions about the topic. It is also true that there is an advantage to arguing for status quo. But you can't suggest some sort of broad conspiracy to keep things a certain way. See WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE, both of which you didn't follow there. Mechanisms do exist for different opinions to be heard, i.e. WP:RFC. If one wants to challenge the status quo, one can do so. Everyone will have a chance to express their opinion, and a decision will eventually be made. It's not quick or easy, but it can be done. Adoring nanny ( talk) 19:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Good morning. Let me introduce myself to you. I am Brazilian graduated in computing, with a master's degree in computing and a doctorate in molecular and cellular biology. I also have a BA in Theology and am currently pursuing a latu-sensu graduate degree in Biblical Hebrew. I included Rico's book in the bibliography for the article Isaiah 7:14, but it was reversed. I posted some thoughts about not including the book and just saw that there has been a discussion about the book in the past. Reading this thread, I agree with your comments. So I'm inviting you to read what I wrote and, if you want, contribute there on the discussion page.
The thread is in /info/en/?search=Talk:Isaiah_7:14 section New book in bibliography has been reverted
Best regards, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira ( talk) 14:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I apologize for any mistakes in English, as I am not fluent in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ive chimed in. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Read wp:blp and wp:crime, we canot say something was illegal unless an RS uses the word illegal. Even then we can only say it is an allegation. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your comments in Talk:Luis Elizondo#Work for AATIP. I have personally been interested in trying to correct the record for those people which the UAP community believes have had evidence, events, or their own work being selectively ignored.
I am new to the process of editing, though at least for Luis Elizondo's page I would love to lend a hand in correcting the record however I can. The edits required may require some coordination to have them stick. Atreon ( talk) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ive brought it over to the BLPN, it should be resolved there.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that.
- Apologies if this isn't the correct place to discuss this, I'm learning the unique Wikipedia etiquette: Are you familiar with the UAP topic at all? There is a trend that has been picked up by those following the topic that the prominent journalists and those with direct knowledge or work in the field, such as Luis Elizondo and David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims (who has had his personal article removed), have had groups of editors "selectively ignore" evidence which aims to diminish their credibility. Do you believe this would be worth mentioning on that noticeboard?
- I may bring more people affected by this to the attention of those on the BLPN after I look more into the etiquette of that board. If you are interested in those other journalists or military personnel which have also been affected by this, I'd be happy to provide their names.
Atreon (
talk) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I followed the recent congressional hearings on the UAP subject and listen to some podcasts on it. As for the other people involved, one day at a time. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The general article on breathwork is conscious breathing. I've moved the old page to Breathwork (New Age) to clarify the intended scope of that article. Skyerise ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thats actually a pretty good solution. Thanks. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi DarrellWinkler! I noticed your contributions to Shooting of Jacob Blake and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Jorm ( talk) 02:20, 5 November 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 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.
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.
Jorm ( talk) 02:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting. 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. See
WP:BDP
EvergreenFir
(talk) 03:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Ill add a source. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Revert agian and you'll be blocked. See
WP:BDP.
- For what exactly? I already told you I can add a source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 03:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The source meets the bare minimum so I'm leaving it. But adding unsourced info like that is a severe breach of
WP:BLP. Please be careful to avoid posting unsourced statements about committing heinous crimes.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 04:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but all you had to do was ask. Theres no need to be so aggressive for something which is pretty widely known at this point.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are lucky that you received a warning, other admins would have immediately blocked you for these
BLP infractions. EvergreenFir gave you a break by alerting you before issuing a block.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @ Liz:, I dont see how BPD applied. The two individuals had been dead for over a year now and the material was sourced to what is considered a reliable source. Jorms behavior here was very immature. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are lucky that you received a warning, other admins would have immediately blocked you for these
BLP infractions. EvergreenFir gave you a break by alerting you before issuing a block.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but all you had to do was ask. Theres no need to be so aggressive for something which is pretty widely known at this point.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The source meets the bare minimum so I'm leaving it. But adding unsourced info like that is a severe breach of
WP:BLP. Please be careful to avoid posting unsourced statements about committing heinous crimes.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 04:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir and Liz:, I can understand DW's actions here. I think BITE was probably the issue here. While the question as asked violated BLP, it was still a legitimate good faith question. Jorm may have been right to remove the content but given that DW is a new user it would have been helpful to explain why. For example, noting that BLP is a policy that is meant to protect both living and recently deceased people and in a case like this we err on the side of leaving out controversial claims (reliably sourced or not) unless it's directly relevant to the article. I believe some/all of this material has come up in the trial but I think only when the jury is out of the room in context of evidence/testimony that cannot be presented. I've only seen it mentioned by the legal wonks vs the mainstream press. Thus in my view it shouldn't be in the article. As for talk page discussions, removing the specific BLP violation and then noting why or suggesting compliant way to ask the legitimate question would help here. Springee ( talk) 13:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Eggishorn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Eggishorn:, please see the article talk page. I am removing original research from the article. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, you're not. Your wholesale white-washing the article. There are cites for every thing you are removing. Discuss them on the talk page and not in bulk. For example, notability does not work that way.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn: everything I am removing is material cited only to a primary source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not automatically unacceptable. They are, in face, allowed. See the actual
WP:PRIMARY policy:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
These sources have been previously discussed for this article and there is a current consensus that they have been used in accordance with that policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)- @ Eggishorn:, where in the primary source cited (the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's journal) does it state their view as being controversial and why is this view notable? DarrellWinkler ( talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not automatically unacceptable. They are, in face, allowed. See the actual
WP:PRIMARY policy:
- @
Eggishorn: everything I am removing is material cited only to a primary source.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Isaiah 7:14.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 09:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You did not WP:CITE any WP:RS (meaning mainstream Bible scholarship) that almah means "virgin". So, it fails WP:NOR policy. You have been warned about that. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 01:39, 4 December 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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
If I find you falsifying a quote again as you did at Leo Frank
Expect to be blocked. I see you are keen to make sure people know the janitor was black. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- How many reliable sources do you need to demonstrate that other people find this notable?
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 20:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- It was already in the article. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Post Script - what quote did I falsify? ... Oh, I see, I edited the wrong text, my mistake. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 20:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned disruptive editing, including but by no means limited to [1]. With that kind of agenda, you have no business in this topic area.
This sanction 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 contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Courcelles ( talk) 15:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saw your appeal. Just thought I'd comment about why you were likely sanctioned, and why your appeal is unlikely to succeed. The issue is indeed with a diff like this [2]. It suggests some sort of broad conspiracy to "lock down" the article to a particular point of view. It is true that different users have vastly different points of view and opinions about the topic. It is also true that there is an advantage to arguing for status quo. But you can't suggest some sort of broad conspiracy to keep things a certain way. See WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE, both of which you didn't follow there. Mechanisms do exist for different opinions to be heard, i.e. WP:RFC. If one wants to challenge the status quo, one can do so. Everyone will have a chance to express their opinion, and a decision will eventually be made. It's not quick or easy, but it can be done. Adoring nanny ( talk) 19:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Good morning. Let me introduce myself to you. I am Brazilian graduated in computing, with a master's degree in computing and a doctorate in molecular and cellular biology. I also have a BA in Theology and am currently pursuing a latu-sensu graduate degree in Biblical Hebrew. I included Rico's book in the bibliography for the article Isaiah 7:14, but it was reversed. I posted some thoughts about not including the book and just saw that there has been a discussion about the book in the past. Reading this thread, I agree with your comments. So I'm inviting you to read what I wrote and, if you want, contribute there on the discussion page.
The thread is in /info/en/?search=Talk:Isaiah_7:14 section New book in bibliography has been reverted
Best regards, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira ( talk) 14:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I apologize for any mistakes in English, as I am not fluent in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ive chimed in. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Read wp:blp and wp:crime, we canot say something was illegal unless an RS uses the word illegal. Even then we can only say it is an allegation. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your comments in Talk:Luis Elizondo#Work for AATIP. I have personally been interested in trying to correct the record for those people which the UAP community believes have had evidence, events, or their own work being selectively ignored.
I am new to the process of editing, though at least for Luis Elizondo's page I would love to lend a hand in correcting the record however I can. The edits required may require some coordination to have them stick. Atreon ( talk) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ive brought it over to the BLPN, it should be resolved there.
DarrellWinkler (
talk) 16:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that.
- Apologies if this isn't the correct place to discuss this, I'm learning the unique Wikipedia etiquette: Are you familiar with the UAP topic at all? There is a trend that has been picked up by those following the topic that the prominent journalists and those with direct knowledge or work in the field, such as Luis Elizondo and David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims (who has had his personal article removed), have had groups of editors "selectively ignore" evidence which aims to diminish their credibility. Do you believe this would be worth mentioning on that noticeboard?
- I may bring more people affected by this to the attention of those on the BLPN after I look more into the etiquette of that board. If you are interested in those other journalists or military personnel which have also been affected by this, I'd be happy to provide their names.
Atreon (
talk) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I followed the recent congressional hearings on the UAP subject and listen to some podcasts on it. As for the other people involved, one day at a time. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The general article on breathwork is conscious breathing. I've moved the old page to Breathwork (New Age) to clarify the intended scope of that article. Skyerise ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thats actually a pretty good solution. Thanks. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)