User talk:SmithBlue

Welcome.

If you wish to leave me a message, please use the "New section tab" above to add your new message on the bottom. Please also remember to sign your name with four consecutive tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. I will attempt to respond to your message on your discusion page.

/Archive 1 User talk:SmithBlue/Archive 1

MINIMAL editing activity occuring

WIki-life is very reduced at preent - hopwe to have time again in near-medium term Please feel free to leave a message - I'll get round to it eventually. It could be years before I read it though.SmithBlue (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP - blah

The less time I spend here the happier I am. Good luck to you all and get out as soon as you can. Go dancing. Or play music. Meditate. Agitate. SmithBlue (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

On BLP violations

If you can show verifiable content from RS that Person B, whether pro or anti whatever, is an ice addict psychopath who owns a pedophile brothel and is a ISIS supporter, then go ahead and write the article. Just ask and I'll support you.

If you have strong feelings around the subject and you have to misrepresent sources, use non-RS ranting blogs and OR to create an attack piece that matches your view of the subject then either you are supported by WP community standards or you not.

I do wish that it was obvious to everyone whether you are supported by WP community standards. So far you have been supported by WP community inaction. Especially the on-going inaction of administrators. After many weeks of inaction things did get fixed up. But many people will have been put off WP by then. And much time and energy wasted. And the naive readers of the BLP misled. And the Disruptive Editing that produced the attack piece is still unaddressed. As is the training that co-editor-activists recieved in DE. And the disruption to relationships between editors goes on. SmithBlue (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your edits, few as they are, show a worrying tendency towards promoting fringe views, notably the refuted OPV-AIDS hypothesis. You need to be aware that this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As stated already my edits do not show any such tendency. There is one single recent edit that shows my attempts to have OPV-AIDS presented inline with WP community standards. If you are convinced otherwise please initiate whatever mechanism is in place to prevent, what you mistypify as, me disrupting WP. SmithBlue (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Having stumbled across your edit at OPV-AIDS I can now understand the source of your error. I do not present Dildine's article "http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/what-really-caused-aids-epidemic", as a RS. Rather I present it as a catalyse for checking of WP:OPV-AIDS for inadvertent errors. I apologise if my intention was not clear. I have edited to make my intentions explicit on WP:OPV-AIDS/Talk. (Though the discovery of "Tools for Critical Thinking about Biology" and the variances between it and current WP:OPV-AIDS probably should be dealt with first.) Please be clearer about exactly which edits concern you in future comms - vague claims of "tendency" are not helpful. SmithBlue (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• - Note to uninvolved admins -

Below is the single (OPV related) post that User:JzG interpreted as "a worrying tendency towards promoting fringe views" and then posted the Arb Con warning template here and disrupted an article talk page section here[1]. SmithBlue (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That is disingenuous, since your history includes discussion of this at the Hooper article and elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Any interested person would want to check that Guy's statement was true for the time at which I made my statement. Unless of course Guy is reefering to posts I made pre-2009 (actually July 2011) that were supported by WP policy and guidlines. All the while steadfastly ignoring his own Disruptive Editing around some Uni Prof who had an anti-vaccine PhD student, and the ongoing disruption flowing from that.

Here is a rhyme. "Blame me, get off scot-free" See ANI: "WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me." SmithBlue (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OPV AIDS hypothesis:Talk:Outside review of article lede

Some editors here might be interested in an outside review of the first 2 paragraphs of this article's lede.

Short version "Many factual errors are squeezed into these few words."

Find the long version 1/3 the way down the page at Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)