User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper

& &
< > &lt; &gt;
' &apos;
" &quot;

Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω

[m.MagicHelpWorlds]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Alternative medicine, you may be blocked from editing. The text you removed was perfectly well sourced. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not vandalism. You should learn what vandalism is, and what constitutes a supported statement. Show me where that statement is supported. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just go our separate ways. You failed to refute my statement and gave up. I know where you stand. You know where I stand.

WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[21] [22] [23] [24]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.^[1]
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.^[2]
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.^[3]
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.^[4]
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.^[5]
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.^[6]
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.^[7]
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.^[8]
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.^[9]
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.^[10]
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.^[11]
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.^[12]
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.^[13]
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth creationism.^[14]
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.^[15]
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.^[16]
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.^[17]
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.^[18]
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.^[19]
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.^[20]
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: it includes bias against acupuncture. You have just defended acupuncture at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a solid point. I revise my statement to say I agree with 99% of that, but I am agnostic about accupuncture based on a consensus statement by the NIH. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I solidly agree with this very vibrant statement. Very enlightening.✌️ PASTOR11 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But a certain part with all due respect and all protocol reserved. I believe that people can change. We can change on being biased towards for example vaccination or medicine. With peace ✌️ PASTOR11 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to the Fixer article. Fantastic film. I was contemplating adding it myself but didn't know if it would be excessive since there's so many examples. What do you think about Ray Donovan, and The Wolf from Pulp Fiction? Incerto501 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I too was worried about overfilling the section, but I think fixers are arguably more prevalent in fiction than reality, from my experience, a big pop culture section doesn't seem redundant. I think Wolf would be a perfect addition, and I also think of Doug Stamper from House of Cards to be the quintessential fixer, and from a major modern TV series. Maybe the fixer archetype in fiction should even be its own article, at some point. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about the pop culture fixer needing it's own article. In the meantime I've added Winston Wolfe, Doug Stamper, and Ray Donovan. Cheers! Incerto501 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I've heard this phrase somewhere else before. Where did you find it? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's from an 80's movie called They Live. The original line was "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass…and I'm all out of bubblegum." I just swapped in "Wikipedia". I've heard variations in pop culture numerous times but never seen that movie. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some editors are just blind to inconsistencies in their logic. Even if an editor passionately hates "lunatic charlatans", Wikipedia should try to take a neutral tone. What are the articles you're hoping to create? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skeptic for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2021 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your well thought out contributions at WP:RS/N. ––FormalDude talk 09:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Thanks so much. This made my day. Thanks for your great contributions, too. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Pyrrho the Skeptic, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already created one biography of a women and look forward to many more. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and I will certainly look through that material. I appreciate the support and look forward to working on this project. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic, editors with a properly disclosed COI can contribute if they follow the proper guidelines. In this case, an undisclosed paid editor added unreferenced and highly promotional content to a biography of a living person at the behest of their boss. Every single thing about their edit was completely inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, Cullen. If you could humor me a bit more, was the user warned first? Secondly, was there in fact a username violation as stated in the edit summary? Thirdly, why was the record of the edit removed from the archives? I wanted to see it myself so I could understand what the violation is. Not that I would do anything, just out of curiosity. Thanks Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were not warned first and warnings are not necessary for spam accounts or other overt violators. The username "BRassistant" is a username violation as a role account. Assistants come and go, and accounts are for one person only. The account is an undeclared paid account. They posted unreferenced highly promotional content, which as an administrator I could read. The content also was a copyright violation which had to be suppressed for legal reasons. I have blocked thousands of spam accounts on sight without a warning. It is standard operating procedure in the world of fighting spam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that all makes sense. I appreciate the explanations Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(re BRassistant): Is it still a violation if the user disclosed their COI? I was under the impression that accounts could exist that are affiliated with an organazation or person, provided they disclose COI. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Pyrrho. So, the problem with this account name is not the COI per se. The problem is that it's a role account that implies shared use. Wikipedia accounts have to be owned by a signle person forever; "one person, one account" is the rule (with some exceptions, of course). They are not allowed to be owned by groups of people, or handed down from one person to another. The latter is the reason that "BRassistant" is a problem--it implies that this account is held, not by an individual, but by whoever happens to be Betsy Rosenberg's assistant at the time, and when the position changes hands, presumably so would the Wikipedia account, which is the problem. Usernames that declare a COI while still clearly identifying an individual do not break this rule: this is known as the "Mark at Alcoa" exception. But they have to identify a specific individual, not just a position.

Of course, this is largely moot, as the biggest problem with that account is the editing itself; the username is secondary to the copyvio/spam. That's why I hardblocked, rather than just softblocking. In any event, hope this helps, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Writ Keeper: that's an enlightening explanation and makes perfect sense to me now. Much appreciated. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You forgot to add your signature to your response to a question on Teahouse. Don't worry, we all do it sometimes. 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope the poor trout's okay. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trout's fine. It's only slapped about 100 million people or so. It'll be fine! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I love this new function for mentors. I'm trying to get an article published however I would love to work with a japanese person to get sources. Is there any method for wikipedians to work across different nationalities to get articles published? --Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for reaching out. Glad to have you on Wikipedia and thanks for being a part of it! That's a great question. If you have not already, check out Project Japan, and you can add your name to the list of participants. From there, you should be able to communicate with other editors well-versed in the topic, as well as find articles and sources more easily. I will have a think and see if there might be other ways for you to get those sources and collaborate on those articles. Let me know if you have more questions, I'm always happy to help if I can. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has had a lot of accounts over the years, his most famous was his banned account called tumbleman. 82.132.229.72 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I see that some IP has tried to link me to sockpuppet accounts on the Naturopathy Talk Page. I can tell you that that is 100% false and I have no idea what they are referring to. @82.132.229.72: I literally have no idea what you are talking about, but I am prepared to take this to the admins if you continue. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the IP, though: have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the only account I use to edit. Why are you asking me this? Seems so out of left field. Again, I believe you mean well, but I'm very confused why you're coming to my Talk Page and asking me if I use other accounts without elaborating. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response that clears things up. It's a fairly routine query to ensure there are no WP:SCRUTINY issues. As I am sure you're aware, socking is a major problem on Wikipedia, particularly in fringe areas. It also puts the IP's aspersions to bed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I'm a bit concerned now about who this IP is and who they might be connected to. Very odd that a content dispute turns into an IP making very specific accusations about specific usernames. I'm a little unsettled by the whole thing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems you accidentally put your signature after my post, which creates a wrong impression it was written by you. If it was not your intention, can you please remove it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! Not sure how that happened. It's removed now. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Collaboration and communication on Wikipedia can be fun and I highly recommend it. Hope you stick around and keep editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello kindly help me in creating pages Bobor001 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Can You help me create a page Bobor001 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Bobor001:, what kind of help do you need? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* yeah, I created a Draft Article here @Draft:9jabased Wiki, which was recently decline stating that I should add more reliable source which I did now, so I strongly need you to help me move it to Article and protect it from vandalism. I will get more reliable source tommorow which I will add again thanks cheers.Bobor001 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[reply] 

• Thanks for explaining. That's great that you're creating your own Wiki encyclopedia. Please note that being in article space will not prevent it from being vandalized. However, right now, your sources do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Your website needs to show significant coverage from independent, third-party, reliable sources. Your sources are mostly self-published and primary. I hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello, how can I add my photos --Lilwhya (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lilwhya:, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you own the rights to use the photo? You can use this page, and submit a request to add a photo by clicking "Make a new request". Or, you can read through this guide. I hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you were interested in volunteering at the Signpost. The best way to help is to just jump in and go for it. You can start small, and check with Smallbones, our editor in chief, if you're unsure about something. I mention this now because the next issue is 5 days away, so the articles will need copyediting, and that's a great place to start. You can use Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom to coordinate what you do with everyone else, but every article will need a copyedit before publication, so there'll be plenty to do! Good luck and happy editing. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: thanks so much for your help. That clears up a lot of my confusion, and I appreciate the heads up about the new issue. I'll check it out and see what I can do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to put profile picture? --Javed hsb (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Javed hsb: do you own the photograph and is this for your user page? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add this logo to a page i just created? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carlsbad_kickboxing_club_PLAIN.jpg --Carlsbadkickboxingclub (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Carlsbadkickboxingclub: thanks for reaching out. Please note that you're currently violating user name and user page policies. You cannot use a user name or a user page to promote a particular business. If you want to create an article for the boxing club, you, or preferably someone that's not you, must first create a user name without the business name in it, disclose your or their conflict of interest on your or their user page, then an article draft can be created and submitted for review. The business must have reliable, significant, third-party coverage to be considered for an article. In that draft you can potentially add that logo, providing you have the right to use it. I hope that helps! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I wanted to know if theres some way o can draw the line so i don't overlink! --Tetchywaif (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! Do you mean Wikilinks? That's a good question. Not everyone agrees on where to draw the line, but I think reading through this thoroughly will help. Also, reading through good articles to see how it's done there. I used to want to add Wikilinks as much as I could, but over time, I feel like I've become more stingy, simply because they serve a purpose, which is to help readers contextualize the content, and learn new things. If I don't think the link will do either of those, I won't add one. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a new article? --Jerryzanga (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerryzanga:Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the question. Please read Your First Article. Feel free to come back and ask further questions along the way. Happy editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skeptic. I think I came across some of your edits while going over Quetstar's abysmal COI request reviewing, which I believe you discussed with them so thank you for that. Concerning the sentence I removed from the Petco article, I believe my rationale was that given the request added the following: "In 2005, after pressure from PETA, Petco agreed to stop selling parrots and other large birds", the previous line remained a bit out of place. I will continue with the review in the coming days. Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650:Thanks for reaching out and for your hard work in going over over those requests. Although I'm not adamant about it, it did feel a bit like corporate spin to remove the verb "criticized" in favor of what Petco did in response. I think it's fair and accurate to say that they were criticized for it. But if you disagree, I'm not going to fight it. Thanks again and happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said ‘currently’ is because the scholarly view always changes. Now I will admit it is a bit odd of me to do so but in the last few decades a ziggurat has been found in the Old Babylonian Kingdom, so I’m predicting that scholars are going to change there view soon. That’s why I put currently. If you want to discuss more I am more than willing. Teertrevo (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Teertrevo:Thanks for explaining. "The scholarly view always changes" is a statement by you that I've seen no evidence for anywhere. I'd say the fact that scholars think Genesis is myth and not fact is a consensus that needs no qualifier of "currently". Unless you can provide evidence that scholars are likely to change their mind frequently about this, which seems very unlikely. I encourage you to start a conversation on the Talk Page of the article, though. That way you can can get some additional opinions. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice on restoring a neutral point of view to the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation page.

So what would be the appropriate next step here to fix the page and resolve this dispute? I have written at length on the talk page previously and I know others not affiliated with the organization have also tried to fix the page's currently non-neutral POV, but everything has been consistently dismissed by the editor who made the changes in the first place.

Any help on how to go about restoring a neutral POV and accuracy to the page would be appreciated. DVillageP11 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the edit to the lead now, and if it is reverted, I will call for a Third Opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Village.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Bring on the cheer!
	Hi Pyrrho the Skipper, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season and a happy and healthy 2022! Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thank you, kindly. And I wish the same to you and those important to you. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a new account here. I will like to learn something new. I am new here, and I will like to contribute something based on my interests and something, and trying to keep Wikipedia a better place for all. Is there some rules or guidelines I have to obey? --SReader65 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! So glad you're here and want to contribute. You should start here: The Wikipedia Adventure. That might be helpful! If not, come back here and I will help you with more resources. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also got a question but that was a bit bothering, but based on the reading of vandalism on one of my favorite articles (because I do not condone that and then there were this), may I know what is a sockpuppet? I just worry because that I am making a fresh new account to start something etc., and is it safe to log in on the affected ISP or something? --SReader65 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet is an account that is one of multiple accounts that one user has, to try to influence Wikipedia by looking like multiple individuals. Does that make sense? You should use just one account, the one you commented here with. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

Oh, so in the case, I have a shared network at home but because the IP address is temporarily blocked from anon or something, is it alright that I can log in on that IP address, just to prevent suspicion? Other than that, thanks. SReader65 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the IP address blocked from editing Wikipedia? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but now it is lifted. So can I use on different devices using that different IP address, is that OK? SReader65 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you edit Wikipedia with the account you're using, SReader65, I think you'll be okay. but you may want to ask at the Teahouse. I'm not an expert at the technical details. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am new to wikipedia. Could you please reinstate the links, properly, as I do not know how to? Thank you. Knowledge1253 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. What was the purpose of those links? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the links was to cite existence of the parks. Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

مرحبا اكيفية تهكير حسابات انستكرام --Yousif basim (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't speak Arabic, sorry. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computers can translate for you, nowadays.

Knowledge1253 (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello. Why did you remove the government links for McGarry Township Forest Conservtion Reserve? Knowledge1253 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because you are spamming the article with links. If you want to improve the article, stop adding links and add useful content with sources. Do not add any more external links. Thank you! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel I am spamming with links. I am adding external links for citation and reference.

Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Please tell me what the inappropriate link was, and why it was inappropriate, so I do not do it again. Tks! Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge1253: Before you edit again, please go to the article Talk Page and suggest the edits you'd like to make. Then myself or another editor will review them and help you implement them correctly. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother, thanks! Knowledge1253 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Period. Stop deleting content. Knowledge1253 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I demand you restore the paragraph on their land claim, with cited source from ontario.ca. Knowledge1253 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaverhouse First Nation Community (Treaty 9)

Location: Northeast of Kirkland Lake Claim type: Reserve Land

Beaverhouse First Nation Community submitted a claim to Ontario on July 5, 2018, asserting the community is a distinct First Nation and did not sign Treaty 9, or any other treaty. On April 18, 2019, Ontario advised Beaverhouse First Nation Community that it will complete an assessment of the claim submission within three years. ^[1][2]

Knowledge1253 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

You should request this edit on the article's Talk Page, not here. However, I recommend apologizing to the other editors for your behavior and being polite in your requests. That's the best way to move forward. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I demand you revert the deletion of the newly elected mayor of McGarry!!!!!¡! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:34A:BC69:3E87:18EA:9862:D8E9 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to make an apology for my behaviour. Here it is, and one last thing, sorry you got offended. Knowledge1253 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you consider contributing to Wikipedia in a more collaborative way in the future. It's a very rewarding endeavor! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how can i edit --Madzunye (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madzunye: Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like, I can walk you through your first edit. What article would you like to work on? Or check out the Task Center, and pick a task! Otherwise, you should consider the fun Wikipedia Adventure. What do you think? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Knowledge1253 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Big Narrows were mentioned on the article. The Big Narrows is where Pearl Beach is. And where the "erratics" are. Knowledge1253 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inline citation appeared to be sourcing the Tom Pearl thing, which I couldn't find in the source. There is no reason to insert that link in the middle of that sentence like that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ask one question; if I want to report a group of IP addresses for sockpuppet for an IP address in related, how would I do? And I also have someone who have been blocked for sockpuppet and how would I advise my someone to do appeal after it was unsuccessful? --SReader65 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SReader65: Hi and welcome. There are different ways to open a sockpuppet investigation. To do it manually, you will need to know which is the oldest IP address of the group making edits. You will then need some evidence (in the form of diffs). Then go to Sockpuppet Investigations and scroll down to "How to open an investigation". There, you will enter the oldest IP address of the group. Let me know if you need help doing this. As for appealing blocks, I recommend reading about on this page. If you want an opinion on that particular case, feel free to share the details and perhaps I can help. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyrrho! With regard to the evidence you submitted here: I don't believe that one editor breaking the canvassing rules once is relevant enough to consider in an arbitration case, which will base remedies only on long-term patterns of disruption. Moreover, the editor in question was warned for the behavior, so unless the behavior has been repeated since it seems an inappropriate case of non bis in idem to report it like this. Such evidence serves only as a distraction to the arbitrators, and as such will not help any case you may want to make. I would like to ask you to consider retracting the evidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that and I understand. I acted in error (and apologize to the parties mentioned). I will remove. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Apaugasma you did no better, posting in your evidence diffs of mine which purport to show I was "ignoring the POV of academic expert" (by which you mean the esteemed E. Ernst) - when they show no such thing, my points were orthogonal to his views. I suggest you retract this dishonesty. If not I will have to submit my own evidence showing your falsity for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexbrn: I do believe that Ernst's POV was ignored. In the work (Ernst 2013, also linked in the evidence) that we were discussing at the time, Ernst argues that qi has no place in science because it is not empirically verifiable, explicitly comparing it with God. His view is that, like the existence of God, the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. The idea that anything that is not empirically verifiable does not exist or is merely imaginary is a specific philosophical position associated with positivism and scientific skepticism. That is why a skeptic like Harriet Hall will tend to speak of it as nonexistent or imaginary rather than unverifiable. Ernst, on the other hand, does not speak of it like that, because he realizes that positively affirming that Qi does not exist belongs to the realm of opinion just as much as affirming that God does not exist. Though his personal (positivist/skeptic and atheist) opinion clearly shines through, as a scholar he treats the subject in a disinterested way. We should follow this academic, scholarly treatment of the subject, not the positivist/skeptic treatment as published on a blog (Science-Based Medicine).

  You and others (I do not at all wish to single you out, just to point to the wider phenomenon) were arguing on that talk page that SBM would somehow not be WP:PARTISAN and that we should follow the POV represented there, meanwhile ignoring the repeated pointers to Ernst 2013. It's a clear-cut case of breaching NPOV to promote the skeptic (in this case more specifically, positivist) POV on Wikipedia. In the end that part came out okay (the article currently says that neither qi nor meridians exist as observable phenomena, citing and quoting Ernst 2013, which is perfect), but the amount of non-policy based resistance to this really was problematic. You may of course submit your own evidence if you wish. Do mind though that it should relate to what was happening with regard to policy in the discussion at the time. We should not discuss the content itself on the ArbCom page. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no wish to revisit your (wrong) argument: that was settled by good consensus. I am simply pointing out your diffs are dishonest as they do not demonstrate what you say they do. Alexbrn (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apaugasma I see another editor has picked-up your problem evidence. It is really not a good idea to submit evidence to arbcom which is transparently false. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to the evidence does not make it "problem evidence" or "transparently false". The diffs are provided and arbcom can make those judgments. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the "objection" which makes it false; it is false because it's false. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not even the objecting editor called any of that "false". I'm not sure what you think is false about pointing out obvious incivility. But you're welcome to share an example. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? I'm not objecting to anything to do with "incivility". Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you're referring to Ernst thing only. In that case, it looks like there was a lengthy discussion on that and no firm consensus, nor did the objecting editor call it "false", but encouraged more nuance and context. That's a big leap to go from that to "transparently false". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re it is false because it's false: see proof by assertion. Please don't do that. I explained my reasoning, so either engage with that in good faith, or just agree to disagree –which would be more than fine by me! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editors are meant to be presenting evidence not the result of flawed "reasoning" (Any "analysis" you might want to attempt, must be done on the /Workshop page). Anyway, your assertions have been called out by another editor so too late to withdraw (but amendment is possible). Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because you assert that my reasoning is flawed does not make it so. I just asked you not to do that. Since this ventures into WP:PA territory, I will ask you clearly: please don't make any more unsubstantiated comments about the quality of my reasoning. I would certainly be willing to withdraw my evidence (I could strike it) if you would demonstrate that it is false. You have not even attempted to do that. Repeatedly calling it "wrong", "dishonest", "transparantly false" does not make it so. If you're not willing to make an argument, that's fine, really! Perhaps the Arbs will see that it's wrong without anyone making any argument. I very much respect you as an editor, so please let's just keep this constructive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your so-called "reasoning" is wrong, and pointing that out is not a PA. Asserting that I "ignored" a source is false, because I know it to be false from my own recollection. It is also provably false: you claim your diff is evidence that I was "again ignoring Ernst's POV". But the diff shows nothing of the sort, and indeed I was discussing that very source, and Ernst's very POV, in the discussion above; not "ignoring" it. You're twisting things, and I find that deplorable. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first diff shows me making an argument literally quoting Ernst's POV multiple times, and you replying to that without one word about Ernst's POV. The second diff shows you saying "so long as we also have something like "qi/meridians do not exist" we'll be good", as if you didn't read the Ernst source nor my repeated quotes (like the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven) from it. Now you may believe that Ernst really somehow means to say that qi does not exist, but you did not try to argue that either. You did not engage with my interpretation of Ernst, you did not argue against it, you just ignored Ernst. As far as I can see, the closest you come to discussing Ernst's POV is here, where you seem to have inferred from Ernst's saying that concepts such as qi are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths that we should state in wiki-voice that qi does not exist, despite what Ernst says just a few sentences later about its nonexistence being unprovable, and despite the fact that we would never state such things in wiki-voice about religious or mythical concepts. Of course, I go on to point out all these things in my later comment, but from there on (the diffs above) you just start to ignore anything said about Ernst.

              So I have explained myself once more. I suspect that you object to my claiming you 'ignored' Ernst's POV because you disagree with me about what Ernst's POV really is. It's the kind of thing that makes content issues so intractable, and the reason why admins as well as Arbs tend to not assign much weight to them. I cited it in my evidence as part of a larger phenomenon of misidentifying the skeptic POV as by definition equal to the POV of reliable sources. Of course you disagree, that's to be expected. But I do see an issue, and I reported it. I think that's fair. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              • More slime. By selectively quoting me to omit the "Wikipedia can say other things ..." and ignoring the fact that I was taking issue with plagiarism of Ernst's exact words (which shows I must have read it), you yet again twist things. You have shown your colours. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need more people to help me editing as I have too much to do myself. I see that you responded to me on the teahouse page. Could you please make infoboxes for these articles Betty Lalam and Duan Weihong. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222 Online events: New: Black women | Hong Kong and Macau | Women in sport Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skipper for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skipper for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE January 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki: Thank you! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, sorry for the late reply, but circumstances are beyond my control.

From the reply in the past, I like to ask for some help on helping to unblock some users from block as they have clearly prove innocent but then the administrators refuse to lift them concerning safety. Apparently, there has been some evidence but then they could not be proofed. I not only need some assistance, but to other as well as we can support the case, and fearing that I will be accused of using sockpuppet account from other previously blocked accounts, there is something that there needs to be done, and particularly, a user in conflict needs to be settled. I will not go into detail until the time is right, but right now, I asking some questions first.

I am new to Wikipedia but I do not know where to begin, but to learn the rules and not to commit the mistake again from other friends or accounts, learning has been an experience.

Thank you. SReader65 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SReader65: I'm open to discussing this in more detail, but if this dispute involves other editors, you might consider simply moving on. Since you are a new editor, as you say, then getting involved in disputes where editors are being blocked might not be the most fruitful use of your time. If you truly want to help the encyclopedia, there are many, many articles that need your help. Let me know if you'd like me to point you to those. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was intending on helping that someone a senior to clear their name from the dispute and want to tell that the user that is against it was at wrong and wishes to be served justice, the user was not a sockpuppet and in fact there was another user who was manipulating it and that the system checked that it was sockpuppet but the user wasn't framed for.

Well, since there are many articles that needs help, I go for random ones first or those with interest. Thanks for the advice. SReader65 (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225 Online events: New: Women's History Month Art+Activism | Feminism and Folklore | Dutch Caribbean Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Women in sport (Feb/Mar) Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

I grew up in a family of vegetarians and was a vegan for many years. We used "home remedies" and had various alternative medical beliefs. We used homeopathy and dietary supplements, juicing, wheat grass, etc. My mother, who was a nurse, got breast cancer and tried to treat herself rather than going to a doctor. I remember when we drove her to Mexico to a cancer quack clinic (we didn't think of it that way at the time). She received a dietary regimen, dietary supplements, enemas, and electrical treatments, likely some type of Rife device. She died a horrible death and left an impoverished family. My wife's family suffered a very similar fate when her mother-in-law (father's second marriage) got breast cancer and followed a similar route. He later died poor.

I have two mainstream medical educations and my wife has three, but our Physician Assistant education bears special mention. My wife and I both took a Physician Assistant course (the profession was in its infancy at the time) at a health care center operated by a small team of physicians. The doctors at this place were vegetarians and believed in lots of alternative medicine ideas, including limiting the use of normal medications as much as possible. We treated the patients with diet, exercise, meditation, herbs, hydrotherapy, enemas and high colonics, fever therapy, electrical zapper devices, etc. When all else failed, we "trusted in God." For some people, this was actually an improvement on their normal (typical American diet and lifestyle, which is horrible) lives, and it helped them. For others, it was the thing that literally killed them and deprived them of the chance to get some of the radical help they really needed. Many cancers, when caught early enough, are often curable, but we blocked that route by offering them false hope. The people who worked there were well-meaning, but ignorant, true believers.

The center was an IM place, long before AM and IM were terms in common use. Some of our patients needed lifestyle changes, and we did help many of them, but most of our patients had exhausted the mainstream options and were desperate for hope. This place offered them that hope, and took the rest of the money their families had. One could say I've "been there and done that." I have seen all this from the inside and have a very different perspective now that I have had more scientific and medical education. I was ignorant of the issues at the time, and now know the science-based side of the question. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing that. Clearly, you are well-equipped to understand the full scope of these debates. That's what's needed, I think. An understanding of how all these things fit together. It's horribly sad to see people needlessly suffer and/or die because they refuse modern medicine. I also find it sad to see people needlessly suffer from anxiety because they refuse to try some kind of simple mindfulness meditation type of thing that might help them. Ultimately, I've never encountered more thoughtful, curious, and level-headed community of people than I have on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I like to answer some questions that pertain to Sockpuppet and want to help that someone who previously blocked from edit to reinstate the rights as the user wants to clear their name from it, and that instead want to block that another user because of the kind of abuse and selfishness. However, to avoid possible conflicts, the names or anything will have to be given privately, if that is possible. I also need the help of some other people as well. --SReader65 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've asked me this before. I don't understand what kind of help you need. Could you just say "I need someone to do X for me"? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but because I can't find the question since it was previously archived, I had to redo the question. I need someone to do report one particular user and at the same time, unblock another user for me. I also need assistance from some Singaporean editors since the affected user was also a Singaporean (from what I heard). SReader65 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay a few follow-up questions/comments:

What did the user you want to report do wrong?

I am not an admin so I cannot unblock anyone

What difference does it make if the users helping are Singaporean? You could visit Project Singapore.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, I was just asking this question because I do not know. Understand the question from here, the user that was blocked want to report the user who did wrong by reverting most of, if not all, the edits as it claimed to be less relevant by the user views, and the user also was into dispute so easily. I do not want to interfere, but asking for advice.

I also had asked Project Singapore, but I try again. Thank you. SReader65 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]