Otaku00

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the statements again. 1) My cited source (Journal of Buddhist Ethics) is reliable and published. 2) There is no conclusion done, thus no "original research". The statement in the Wiki-article says: "Sister Chân Không ordained as a nun by Thich Nhat Hanh in 1988 on Vultures Peak, in India." It is, by the way, like 4 of 5 references in her entry, only cited from her own books (!) and thus violating the neutral viewpoint required for correct Wiki-entries.

My addition reads: "This ordination is invalid due to the Buddhist monastic code (Vinaya) which requires a bhikkhuni (nun) ordination to be done by a bhikkhuni community first if such a community exists; in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition a bhikkhuni community existed in 1988 e.g. in China." The source says what I have stated in the first part of the sentence:

"Together, these two rulings legislate for the two possible situations that could arise for bhikkhus in the matter of bhikkhunī ordination: 1.One possibility covered in the first prescription is that they have to carry out the higher ordination of females on their own, because no bhikkhunī community able to cooperate with them is in existence. 2.The other possibility covered in the second prescription is that they carry out such an ordination in cooperation with an existing bhikkhunī community, who will take care of the task of interrogating the candidate and ordain her first, as a precondition for her subsequent ordination by the bhikkhus."

As no ordination in the bhikkhuni community has been mentioned in Chan Khong's case - also such a community existed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhuni for the countries which have and had bhikkhuni - the only logical result is that her ordination by Thich Nhat Hanh is invalid due to the Vinaya.

But I am willing to rephrase it, as you should be willing to get reliable sources, which autobiographies alone are not, if you are responsible for the rest of the entry. I want to avoid a debate of where a conclusion starts and where not. It should in any case be appropiate to raise doubts in entries that read like marketing tools of religious sects, quoting from their own books almost solely. Otaku00 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Helpsome (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Chan Khong". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 29 November 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Please see my warning at the report you filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You failed to heed my warning and reverted again at Thích Nhất Hạnh. The fact that you added a different source is immaterial. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring. See WP:GAB for appeal rights and procedures.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Chan Khong, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Minor edits

I suggest you have a read of Help:Minor edit, as your use of the minor edit box for rather controversial edits will get you into trouble. And looking at your talk page, more trouble is probably not what you should be attracting. Schwede66 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Schwede66. I will consider any input besides typographical or "cosmetic" changes as a significant edit from now on, and sorry for this.119.76.99.245 (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, where is the source without the author's name that you still consider valid and have just put back in the article? A source that doesn't exist anymore is not a valid source. I think we will have to debate that.Otaku00 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist view of marriage

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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 edits about, and articles related to, 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.

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) 14:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is just another example of an admin [I correct: censoring user] using his bias to suppress information. He finds peer-reviewed meta-analysis to be "unreliable" and provides no medical credentials himself (see the talk on "Bret Weinstein" and his deletions on "Ivermectin". It is like anonymous persons put themselves before scientists and then simply rely on bureaucratic Wiki stuff in and endless cycle. This is a sad outcome of many incidents that are documented on my page.Otaku00 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read the words of Alex carefully, they are full of bias and attacks, I quoted him explicitly on the Ivermectin talk page. Please understand cause and effect. Otaku00 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop treating other editors who are advising you on WIkipedia policy as opponents - they are not adversaries to try to "trap." You'vebeen advised of the discretionary sanctions on this topic. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nor is editing a game where you can bounce from topic to topic to try to induce a reaction. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Ivermectin, you may be blocked from editing. Refrain from theorizing about what other editors will/will not do, no one can truly understand what thoughts exist in the minds of men (or women, but that is another matter :P). Instead, comment only on what relevant changes you might want made to the article in question. That is the purpose of article talk pages. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And read wp:v, a source must say it, it is not good enough to have another source claiming it said it (also read WP:SYNTHESIS). It is especially poor if you do this when claiming another user is being dishonest or hypocritical in some way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not "edit" anything. I was simply discussing biased viewpoints on the talk page, quoting the words that show bias and violate Wiki's demand for a neutral viewpoint. And pointing out relevant studies from a list given by someone else.

Did you leave the same comment on Alexbrn's page? If not, what have you overlooked here?

The relevant changes are obvious. Wiki should describe both sides in the main article without labelling one viewpoint as "misinformation". Otaku00 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Has he claimed a source said something it did not?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Neutral Point of View on wikipedia does not mean "presenting both sides equally." It means "presenting all sides in proportional weight to the existence of those viewpoints in the highest quality sources." The highest quality sources support the view that ivermectin has no proof of benefit in the treatment of COVID-19. They do not support the FRINGE viewpoint that ivermectin has benefit or should be given to patients outside of clinical trials. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not treat editors as Oponents, in my mind, but you, Acroterion, are of this opinion. Alexbrn uses arrogant phrases in communication. You can't demand from others what you are not willing to provide yourself. Otaku00 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I won the Quercetin bet already. Otaku00 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And don't tell me how much I can see through someone. I am not you. Otaku00 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What? You made a false claim, end of story. You claimed a source said something it did don't and you (in effect) used that claim to attack another editor's integrity. That was dishonest of you, grossly dishonest.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And read wp:indent as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't even find my quote that proves you wring. Otaku00 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And shouldn't it be wrOng to make ad personam comments ("dishonest") here on my page? I let the readers decide. Otaku00 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You response to this [[1]] was this [[2]] So if you were not claiming that source two was saying this, why did you think it was a rebuttal to my pointing out it did not support your claims?Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This [[3]] is where you play source two as some kind of gotcha, which is why pointed out it does not support your case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And when I asked for clarification you posted this [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

One can simply copy my quote into Google search and find it. Otaku00 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A "proportional weight" with those topics - alternative treatments as an addition to vaccination etc. - would be a Criticism passage that reflect critics of the "highest quality sources", as it is obvious that they are countless and often have a good reputation as scientists or practicians. Instead they are simply defamed. And this goes on on the talk page. Otaku00 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You see, you have still not said "you are right source 2 does not support my edit, I was wrong". You are still (in effect) claiming a source that says its not a valid treatment is a source that says it is a valid treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What "edit"? This page is blocked from editing, as far as I know. I said that you read what you want in this study, and I read e.g.: "Ivermectin showed a significant effect in achieving viral clearance" because that is exactly what can save you in the early stage. Otaku00 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits, to the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Which study?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hill et al.,corrected 2021 Otaku00 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So what has this to do with you claiming that this source https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 supported your claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait. I understand what you mean now. No, this source supports Alexbrn's claims ... but he called it unreliable himself. Otaku00 (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Another lie. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, rephrasing. You called it "Low-quality journal". Otaku00 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating.But I will go to sleep now.

"If you need a meta analysis, Hill et al. was corrected (70 percent reduction in mild cases): https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214 Otaku00 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Low-quality journal - see the statement at the top of this page ..." (Alexbrn)

Otaku00 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Clinical Infectious Diseases," and "Open Forum Infectious Diseases" are not the same publications.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I know. Otaku00 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why are you claiming that Alexbrn called one a "Low-quality journal" mean he was calling the other one too?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be fairly clear what is going on now. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be time for you to take these accusations to ani.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I really can't be arsed with ANI for a run-of-the-mill case like this. It takes an age to put the evidence together with explanation, then there's probable drama. If they go on like this, an admin will probably do the necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

To my mind he called this source low quality out of a reflex, a source which pretty much says what is stated in the main article which is supported by the editor. Whereas a source like the WHO which has repeatedly erred in judging the danger of viruses is defined as a main reliable source when it is in fact often doing just the same as the sources called primary, if at all. Another such main source like the FDA is quoted with standard phrases like "has not approved soandso for suchandsuch" whereas many drugs are commonly used off-label ("mainstream"). This differentiation of sources makes no sense but to serve the purpose of diminishing the effect of medicines like Ivermectin, Quercetin etc in the main articles. If as a reader you find that a certain editor is involved in that process whenever this topic comes up (even at "Bret Weinstein"), the censorship is obvious. Someone has an interest not to reflect certain studies in the article where with a neutral viewpoint the criticism of what he considers to be "mainstream" would at least be reflected in one way or the other.

Otaku00 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he did, but your claim he was contradicting himslef is not true. They are not the same srouyce, so there is no issue with him accepting one and jecting the other, you need to say you accept this.12:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Further disruptive behavior in this topic area may be met with an arbitration enforcement sanction. Editors who demand conformance with MEDRS are not "censors." Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Readers who are fluent in German can see how it can be done better on the German Wiki sites for Ivermectin and Quercetin e.g. Otaku00 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

They have their policies we have ours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least you share their Covid death records in a way. Otaku00 (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I showed that he supports primary sources like the WHO that are redefined as the most important on Wiki - although the WHO has erred in previous virus incidents - and that he does deny sources as of low quality although they state what is the gist of the main article (which also means that that gist is the stuff you find in low quality research as well). And I quoted some sentences that are important about viral clearance from the newer version of Hill et al. Thus I have made my point. An entry on Ivermectin that does not reflect the input of real physicians at least in the way German Wiki does or include Quercetin research etc. is not reflecting the facts. As I stated before,those who are not presenting prophylactic successes in the fight against COVID in an adequate way (i.e. more prominently) are in my mind ethically wrong. I could go on and on, I just found Hydroxychloroquine in the intervention guidelines of Thai hospitals but read what English wiki says here. It seems to me like some editors create their own fantasy world here. Otaku00 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to correct that. It's even Chloroquine. Ok, let's see what happens when I try to add that fact and government paper after my block has ended

Could be funny. Otaku00 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No you did not, you claimed he rejected a source you tried to use that is already used by others, that is false. The fact you refuse to admit or accept that is a serious issue. Moreover we go with the medical consensus, not a few doctors here and there. I am going to suggest you do not die on this hill.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Also you might need to read wp:point, I do not think that is what you are doing, but an uncharitable interpretation of some of your comments might lead to that conclusion. I suggest you change your tone, and not make this into some kind of test or challenge.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a helix on my site. I let the readers decide. There is NO consensus, neither here nor on the topic of COVID. Otaku00 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What? "your site"? what are you referring to, as to consensus no consensus for what?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw on your profile page that you want to help save lives in the COVID crisis. So do I. Otaku00 (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What has that to do with my question? What has anything here to do with your website, and what lack of consensus are you referring to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to write a thesis? How many examples do you need? Chloroquine is given to serious cases, Ivermectin in more countries than Wiki says, Famotidine is used as prophylaxis by medical stuff ( last time I looked that wasn't even mentioned on the talk page). There is NO consensus about those COVID related topics, nor is there a consensus about biased editors. The only consensus here might be that we both want to help to save lives. To me that is better done by reflecting an ongoing discussion in the public on main pages. You can stand by the WHO as you wish but should include the obvious contrary opinions as factual parts of an ongoing dispute, without discrediting them from the beginning. It's enough to say "The FDA states" or "The Who recommends" and let people think for themselves. It's better e.g. to discuss Ivermectin as a widespread off-label use so that patients can ask doctors about it instead of self medicating and perhaps overdosing. Otaku00 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The stuff should read staff, of course. Otaku00 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus. Ivermectin has no good evidence of benefit. OTOH there is lots of evidence of it being pushed by quacks. If you're pushing it, you're more likely to harm people (especially if it's part of an antivaxx schtick) and have no chance to help. Luckily Wikipedia has defenses against your kind of scummy claptrap. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you doing here? I asked you months ago not to write here, as you asked me on your page. I respected your wish. What about your ethics? No need to answer. Otaku00 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As i know people who were cured through Ivermectin, I don't have to say what I think of Alexbrn again. Otaku00 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Whooaahh, you "know people who were cured through Ivermectin", I think with that I am out of here, and I suggest you stop editing in the Covid area, as it is now clear you are WP:NOTHERE and want to push outright covid misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.

Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You are in my opinion trapped in Wiki links that create a circular reasoning. I really hope a lot of people find this site to see that not even first hand experience counts for Wiki editors. What a life you must lead. Otaku00 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That's funny. Some NOTHERE requirements are fulfilled even by you, dear reader. Otaku00 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is a copyright infringement with the photo, delete it. Otaku00 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"First hand experience" is what medicine has spent the last fifty years getting away from, because it is not a reliable guide to anything. That's why blood letting isn't a thing anymore, despite the fact that doctors everywhere "knew" it worked. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

We are on "my" wiki page, not on a talk page for Ivermectin. I say I know what Ivermectin can do, you obviously don't from first hand experience. I say that I know it can save lives and you don't know it. This argument has nothing to do with including those topics as described in another, separate argument above or with any agenda. I would not want to exclude the WHO's position either just because it does not confirm my own. The personal argument was just given to say there can't be a consensus with you. Otaku00 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The basic problem then is that you don't understand what medical knowledge is. That's not uncommon, but if you insist on mistaking your ignorance for "being right" and that results in WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY on Wikipedia, you can expect to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This by the way is a topic that shows how you use your partial knowledge. ”After six weeks, patients in the bloodletting group saw their systolic blood pressure drop by an average of 18 mmHg, from 148.5 mmHg to 130.5 mmHg. Systolic blood pressure (the "top" blood pressure number) is considered to be high if it is above 140 mmHg, and moderately high if it is between 120 and 140 mmHg." It's like with off-label medicine, it would take you probably less than 3 visits to find a doc who recommends blood donations as one part of your therapy against high blood pressure (if you are otherwise okay). Otaku00 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that blood letting is not blood donation, this is - ironically - a classic case[5] of where appearances can be deceiving. You seem to be more interesting in trying to win arguments than understanding stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to avoid citing the Iron Overload article on Wiki where bloodletting is mentioned as a therapy, in fear you may edit that info.

Otaku00 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's true there are some specific conditions for which blood letting is still used today. But it used to thought useful for pretty much everything, based on the observations of doctors of the time. Modern evidence-based medicine doesn't proceed by the (inevitably biased) observations of physicians, but by established methods for determining the worth of treatments. That is why modern medicine mostly works, when before it mostly didn't. A lot of this ivermectin stuff is a return to long-discredited ways of seeking knowledge. (Actually much of it is smart people making money off ignorant people). Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What? Ivermectin is cheap. All doctors who report giving it successfully do it for free on social media - and risk their jobs or actually lose them. Compare that to the prices of rather ineffective antivirals that are still in use. Otaku00 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

To single out Ivermectin makes no sense. There is Quercetin, Black Seed Oil, Chinese Ginger - I haven't checked all entries but all are studied because promising prophylactic results are there already. A common practice could at least be to mention that fact like in the entry for Andrographis Paniculata: "Claims as to its efficacy as a COVID therapeutic are contentious and in dispute." That sentence can later be updated when more results are available. Otaku00 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No money in it? Yeah, right. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, in that respect there are others who make more money right now. That can't be a good argument per se. If you suggest that those who recommend Ivermectin are paid by it's producers, you use the same argument that is brought up against PCR-test and antiviral promoters, to name a few. I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated. Otaku00 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with making money; unfortunately though that many of the ivermectin-credulous have been suckered in by the "there's no money involved, so you can trust me" crap. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article is well done until the end where it speaks of anti-vaxers promoting Ivermectin. That's simply biased. A lot of the physician's who claim it is effective are basically pro vaccine which simply doesn't exclude other means for them. The same goes for me. Why would I solely rely on a vaccine when it is obviously not enough? Otaku00 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm going to follow Slatersteven's example now and bow out, as there is probably nothing more to be gained by further discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Campaign

You are not obliged to answer, but when I look at your editing history, I have the obvious questions:

1. Are you the same person/account holder, who used to edit about Buddhism and Shintoism?
2. What prompted you to suddenly embark on an Ivermectin promotion campaign? Were you contacted or hired to do it? Were you mislead by some news media, or perhaps social media campaigns, then came to believe that it is a miracle cure, that for some nefarious purposes great authorities are suppressing this vital information, hence the concern that Wikipedia must also promote it as a valid cure?
3. Did you use other accounts to edit Wikipedia?

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a question, too, and you are not obliged to answer: Are you a conspiracy theorist? Otaku00 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just aware of the obvious promotion campaigns, including on Wikipedia, —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean WHO promotion? Otaku00 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn actively suppresses the reflection of different opinions WP is indeed not for the promotion of opinions or for free speech (WP:NOT, WP:FREESPEECH). Official statements from the WHO and other large medical bodies are not considered opinions however (WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS). —PaleoNeonate – 14:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If you call information of Paul Marik "erroneous" while he is suing his hospital, you have pre- judged and given an opinion. Otaku00 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It is also an opinion to say The Lancet should be weighed much less than Cochrane, or vice versa. Otaku00 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, WP:COVIDDS disruption coupled with seemingly no concept of WP:MEDRS. The accompanying WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR deficiencies are too much at this point, sorry.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You just confirmed what Wiki's co-founder criticised. Some editors are not even capable of understanding what I pointed out (e.g. ad personam attacks) and that editor Alexbrn is by definition "not interested in building an encyclopedia" - if you know what that is. Otaku00 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that response (as unresponsive as I might find it) is to be expected, but the rules are what they are. You do have appeal options, but since you seem to place little faith in the project, at least for this topic area, it'll probably be for naught. But I'll leave that to your discretion. El_C 13:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} While that is true, Larry Sanger also criticized Wikipedia for not including pseudoscience (And this was Pre-Covid, so you could be 100% sure it was bullshit) ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. You link to rules of conduct (WP:Battleground) that Alexbrn has violated, and I gave you the proof. So if you think I violated them, why don't you see that he violated them? Do you even read what you link to? Otaku00 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Otaku00, I have no idea what proof you refer to —I like my evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs— but from looking at your contributions, you seem to the problem, not everyone else. Wikipedia has steep learning curve and a Dunning–Kruger -like approach usually fails. Especially, when the editor in question advances WP:FRINGE views in the COVID topic area that aren't backed by genuine WP:MEDRS. Again, it is what it is. El_C 14:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You obviously do NOT read what you link to. Alexbrn is not giving ANY weight (see FRINGE) to scholarship that does provide alternatives to the interest of vaccination narratives. The proof I had quoted was for violation of your so called "Battleground" rules that don't seem to apply to certain editors. Again, you too take refuge in rhetorics,this was not about "everyone else" but a non-physician who is allergic to giving adequate weight to what is going on, scholarship wise. Just check the talk pages. WP:MEDRS e.g. doesn't prohibit mentioning ongoing studies, as it could be clearly stated that there is research in a, b, c until there are the peer-reviewed studies in Cochrane etc that you are looking for. This balanced mirroring of what's going on is working well on German Wiki, so it's strange to see that English Wiki pages are so biased. Otaku00 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Except, Wikipedia does mention the "ongoing studies" (chiefly, PRINCIPLE), and the Cochrane review (executive summary: ivermectin useless for COVID-19). Your problem is with reality, not Wikipedia I think. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the block, but just the above comment is more evidence of WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. If you would like to eventually return to build the encyclopedia on other topics: you should probably specify which topic and mention that you accept a topic ban in the area of medicine and COVID. WP:NOTTHEM and WP:STANDARDOFFER may also be helpful, —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So no link/diff for context, then? Gotcha. But if it pretrains to your quote at ANI ("crankery", etc.), then, no, that is not a violation. Calling a WP:SPADE a spade is not a violation. Larry Sanger's espousal of fringe opinions (in WP:AP2 as well as WP:COVIDDS) is well documented, including on his Wikipedia bio itself. Wikipedia isn't a touchy-feely place where we coddle fringe views, most especially when these are advanced aggressively (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and incompetently (WP:CIR). Sorry to be so blunt, but it's probably for the best. El_C 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's true, my reference to QAnon might be rather cryptic for those who haven't been following the story, but there's some background reading here. The point is, invoking Larry as though that's some kind of compelling argument for anything (let alone what should happen on Wikipedia) is a big mistake. Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just another opinion. Otaku00 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Otaku00, that response is too terse to be useful. El_C 14:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read the article. So Alexbrn is again not accepting a criticism because it comes from a person that is characterized in a certain way. That's all ad personam thinking and not neutral. Otaku00 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, Larry Sanger's of espousal of fringe views is well documented. You can't wish it away through these sort of mental gymnastics. El_C 14:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Otaku00: you were trying to invoke him as an authority. The reason why Wikipedia won't go Larry Sanger's way is because it's antithetical to the established WP:PAGs. What you're exhibiting is that you're (really) WP:NOTHERE, but would rather be somewhere else with more tolerance of, shall we say, "alternative facts". Plenty of places on the web for that kind of thing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can't wish away that (English) Wiki calls him a co-founder of Wiki itself and Alexbrn again takes refuge in character deformation. That's cheap. Otaku00 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he is the co-founder, but that gives no credence to fringe views when he (or anyone else) promotes these. El_C 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• And, inevitably.[6] Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was only referring to his Wiki criticism, not other views, that criticism is confirmed as valid here with this discussion and your edits.

Concerning reality, I on the other hand have the impression that you, Alexbrn, have a problem with it, having been vaccinated twice and then gotten the virus. Shouldn't that ring a bell? Anyway,Ivermectin research reality is different, just google recent findings, it is working well with and enhancing the effect of Favipiravir. Otaku00 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OMG, here he is again, suppressing VAERS findings. Otaku00 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know what bell you think should be rung. Vaccination does not make one 100% immune from COVID you know. Looking again, Wikipedia reports correctly on the research scene for both ivermectin and favipiravir (which shows some promise). I think Wikipedia editors can give themselves a big pat on the back! Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added Thailand myself there. But Ivermectin's synergetic in vitro effect is not mentioned, so it does not report correctly but biased, Otaku00 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report primary research, only accepted knowledge. That's because it's an WP:ENC. So: a feature not a bug. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It explicitly says that primary sources can be acceptable in certain cases and it's a problem of weighing and thus the one who weighs brings in his personal views. E.g. VAERS. You rather link to an article explaining it's misuse than to a conclusion by scientists. Thus you say that you do not want significant findings of side effects known as much as a journalist's analysis of possible misinterpretations. That is a red flag to me, as you could include both. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/covidwho-1445837 Otaku00 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and please add the health warnings that are given in Japan now to the vaccines: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20211204_12/ Otaku00 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you're an anti-vaxxer and a True Believer. Time to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Once again, ad personam wishful thinking. That was denied already. I am perfectly vaxxed. And here is Wiki's own definition of an encyclopedia: "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information", and on facts: "facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion." Otaku00 (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The primary source in the case of VAERS is by the way logically VAERS. An analysis of VAERS - multiple subjective medical reports - must thus become a secondary source already. As you will see in the case of NHL as a source reporting about the (primary) decision of the Japanese health ministry, it will most probably not be included as it might raise doubts in the vaccine narrative. Otaku00 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The admin who blocked me gave as the reason disruptive editing. As anyone can read there it is defined as editing articles. Which articles (and not talk pages) have been disruptively edited by me before the blocking? Otaku00 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Otaku00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see any ARTICLES that I have disruptively edited in the past weeks that could justify a block, I just participated on talk pages and on the contrary added some info that was not debated yet and is still there (on Favipiravir and Famotidine). On the talk pages I have stated why medical information that reflects factual knowledge or behaviour but isn't mainstream should be included, if only with a sentence, to give adequate weighing of what is actually going on. But that was - after a 72 hours block a while ago - just on talk pages. I have also repeatedly said that I was attacked ad personam first by an editor but was the only one reprimanded. Otaku00 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Disruption extending from any area of Wikipedia, whether it be articles, talk pages or user space, that impedes collaboration on article improvement is blockable. Your defense that your disruption wasn't in article space so the block is invalid is a non-starter as far as an appeal goes. Please read WP:GAB. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did NOT say that I disruptively edited talk pages either but I believe I collaborated on article improvement. Otaku00 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You may believe that, but it's hard to see anyone else shares that viewpoint. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How would you know as Wiki by definition "is not a democracy"? Otaku00 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's do it like this. As everyone knows, it would be easier to reappear under a different name than to become a Wiki nerd linking from one WP page to the next to justify moral or immoral behavior. I hardly feel an urge to do so. My pleasure will be in the "Time will tell" effect. I have a grin on my face already. Otaku00 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

[7]^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 21:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Otaku00, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Yeah, time will tell, who knows. Believe it or not, I'm actually one of the least strict admins when it comes to the COVID topic area. And as one of two admins who were parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19, I think my statement in that proceeding (link) reflects that. That said, the community has chosen to apply WP:MEDRS to COVID topics on the project without loosening it even a tad, as I've argued for.

But you being so inexperienced, obviously you wouldn't know about any of that. Just as you wouldn't be able to get a good sense of what can actually be accomplished in that regard versus what simply serves as WP:BLUDGEONING of editorial processes. And all for naught, because without clear consensus, it's pretty much a dead end anyway. Again, sorry, blunt, et cetera etc. El_C 22:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This time you give "inexperienced" and 5 other links to Wikipedia/WP, but still you don't get that an analysis of a primary source should not be less included than a journalist's article on that source (VAERS). You are trapped in your linking logic. Thus you can't see when some editor is promoting the interests of certain pharma companies. I also registered his handwriting in the Paxlovid article where without necessity - the drug isn't even approved widely - something is already given as conspiracy theory that was actually explained quite well, namely how comparable it is with Ivermectin's mechanism: youtu.be/ufy2AweXRkc (see all the links in the description).

All that could lead someone with open instead of "WP eyes" to uncover the biased censorship here. Paxlovid is of course recommended as an early treatment with the same effectivity given in most Ivermectin studies (that you bury under certain findings of one meta study) and will cost around 700 USD per course. Otaku00 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Otaku00, it still doesn't really feel like you're responding substantively to what I said. Oh well, if I wasted my words, so be it. El_C 00:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)