User talk:Jtbobwaysf

This is Jtbobwaysf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uma medalha para você!

	A Medalha Surreal
	Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML ^{talk - me at pt} 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rebecca jones Sincerely, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a civil human being!

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MicahZoltu thanks! Please keep editing, you will get into the flow of the nuance over time. Sometimes you cant influece some articles much, others you can. All depends on the dynamics of each article. Julian Assange and other "AP2" (American politics) articles are examples, there are a lot of very political editors that will stonewall anything. As for crypto articles, it is quite easy to make changes as long as you have good sources. Some articles had more content in the past but got stripped back when people started to remove the non high-quality sources, and I would say in general the shape of the crypto articles have improved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

meow

Jung008292 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice for Imelda Marcos

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos|Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos]]. The discussion is about the topic Imelda Marcos. Thank you. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Imelda Marcos article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imelda Marcos; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing valid external links. -Object404 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Marcos -> "don't do that" edit removal

Don't do what? -Object404 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with saying stuff edit summaries that is highly misleading

I mostly ignored the end of your response at ANI until now as angered as I was about what you said in the earlier part. Having reading it, while I still find what you've done seriously wrong, I'll try to put that aside as much as possible and implore you directly to change. I have no real opinions about the article. As a BLPN regular I do agree no matter how distasteful someone is, we still need to comply with BLP although I also know such compliance could still mean an article is overwhelming negative but even that being the case, we still need to be on the lookout for problems.

But none of this excuses you using misleading summaries, which yes are basically lies. Such lies actually harm any attempts to comply with BLP and our other policies and guidelines. Instead of talking about stuff we should be, e.g. 'is this source good enough for a BLP', 'is what we say supported by the sources', 'are there enough other sources with a different view we are excluding?'; we instead waste time on silly things. I'm replying so late because I ignored that thread as I'd already spent a lot of time on it and although it's something that is important it's also completely silly.

It's silly because there was absolutely no reason you had to lie in your edit summary if you're here for the right reasons and I'm still assuming you are (hence this message). You could have simply used an accurate edit summary as I've tried to explain 3 times now. If you had done so, perhaps there would be discussion over actual issues with the article. But even if for some reason in a fit of madness you did leave that misleading edit summary, once challenged you could have quickly acknowledged, yes I was wrong. I should never have said the info "failed verification". Here's what the actual problem is... If that had happened the moment you were challenged on the Imelda Marcos talk page, again it's likely that things would be different. With either case, I'm not saying you wouldn't be facing a topic ban, there are other concerns with your editing. But who knows? At the very least it would have allowed discussion on these concerns to take place.

It sounds like your unsure if those 3 sources are sufficient for making the claim, especially in a BLP. That's a reasonable discussion even if some of the reasons you've given why you feel that way are perhaps not that well supported by our policies and guidelines. Yet the only way such discussion can happen, is if you actually articulate the problem. If you instead say "failed verification" and then persistently evade the question "did you actually read the sources?" which also means you can't properly explain what your concerns are, there is no way for this to happen. I myself hate to admit fault, but when you said something "failed verification" when you've never read any of the 3 sources, there's no two ways about it. You've made a major error.

"Failed verification" means I checked the source and it doesn't say that AFAICT. It doesn't mean whatever you meant by it, which actually after all this time, I'm still not sure. (As always, you can come up with edge cases like that I gave at ANI. Or even something like where the topic is the wealth of Imelda Marcos and the source is a biology text book. Although again it's still likely to be better to provide a more detailed explanation e.g. 'this a biology textbook, even if it mentions the wealth of Imelda Marcos, I don't think it's an RS for that'. Still I wouldn't care if it was such an edge case, and think few would.)

As I said at ANI, people should be able to trust what you say (within reason). Yet now every time I see an edit summary from you I'm going to have doubt. Every time I see you say something on the talk page, I'm going to wonder, is this really the truth? That makes editing with you very difficult.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification means the content is not verifiable. You will note there was already a section on the talk page relating to this billionaire POV. Next, I dont think my talk page is the correct venue to discuss sources. We will do that on the article or better yet on the ANI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with bitcoin cash

Can you share with me the reason for the split between BCH and BSV? I've googled and the answer seems political and vague, which isn't helpful. Surely there are a few concrete reasons for the split that we can give on the bitcoin cash article, right? I'm just lost in all this but want to improve the article. Any help/advice? LaceyUF (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaceyUF: I dont want to discuss why on my talk page as that would be WP:NOTFORUM. However, if you can find some good WP:RS that say the reason, we should for sure add it. Good RS are things like fortune, wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. We cannot use blog type articles (such as forbes contributor articles). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this suffice? LaceyUF (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaceyUF:No, bitcoin.com is not an RS. It is a cryptocurrency news source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaceyUF:Hi Lacey, Here's an article from the NYTimes detailing the BCH-BSV split. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/technology/cryptocurrency-price-drop.html Mazdamiata200 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely a WP:RS, good suggestion Mazdamiata200 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

No big deal because you didn't know, but don't ever modify threads in the archive. E Eng 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: ok, thank you for the info. didnt know that. should i revert, or just leave it as it is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you don't modify or add to an archived thread is that it's a "frozen" record of a discussion. Once the thread goes to archive, no one's watching it so (a) no one's going to see what you wrote anyway, and (b) it looks like you said those things and everyone ignored it. As it happens, in this case someone wanted to continue the thread so I retrieved it from the archive and moved it back to WP:ANI, so everyone is, after all, seeing your added bits right now; so by good luck it's no harm, no foul. In normal cases the right thing to do would have been, as you said, to revert out your changes as if you'd never made them. E Eng 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for the clarification. Now I know. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

I was encouraged by your admission at ANI. I agree that a RFC is probably the best way to go. Suggest you start one ASAP and we may just be able to avoid the topic ban for now, but with the clear understanding that it can be imposed should you revert to your previous editing methods. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do so. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are now subject to a topic ban

Per Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos, you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. There was some support for a broader topic ban, so I suggest that you be careful in the broader topic of Philippine politics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: can you please define what broadly construed means in this case (what articles does it include and what does it not include). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A page ban would prohibit you from editing one page and might include a partial block. A topic ban, however, is broader and depends on your own judgment to identify the pages in that topic. When people say "broadly construed", it generally means that they don't want to hear any wikilawyering about how a page doesn't really fall under that topic. If it can be reasonably construed to fall under the topic, it's included. Brazilian thrash metal could not reasonably fall under this topic ban. However, History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos might be reasonably construed – or, at least, the parts that mention Imelda Marcos. Of course, you can't mention Imelda Marcos on any talk pages, nor can you discuss articles about her – this applies to the entirety of English Wikipedia. You have to move on to a completely different topic. You can appeal the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It's best if you wait several months (six months is standard) and point out that you've made constructive edits either here or at a sister project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: cool thank you for clarification. I didn't edit much related to the Marcos family anyhow. I pointed that out in the ANI, but nobody was too interested. The purpose of my edits were to cleanup some lack of NPOV/BLP stuff on the article (something I do on lots of BLPs), no particular interest in the article's subject so it should be easy to stay away. Thanks again! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this covers the "subject" and applies to all of Wikipedia, including your own talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Ah, ok. But I can ask questions about the ban here on my talk page right? Am I not allowed to mention the family's name on my talk page? What is the protocol here? I have struck the name of the family above, is that sufficient, or something else I need to do to comply? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can mention the subject in connection with an appeal of your ban (so no need for the strike above), but not in other types of discussions about the subject. The subject is off-limits. That leaves you free to edit the vast number of other topics we have here. -- Valjean (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Yes, plenty of topics around. I will also remove the strike. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. You still have skills which are useful here. BTW, do you have some relation to the Philippines? I lived there (on Mindanao) as a child (1st and 2nd grades). -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have edited a lot of topics over the years, I dont recall what caused me to end up on the banned page, but sometimes I will read something and click on it. I dont have any relation to Philippines, but have visited a couple of times for work. I mostly live in Asia Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalik Buterin

How is this edit^[1] promotional? They are facts, cited by RS's and explains why Buterin is notable. There's nothing in this edit that runs afoul of WP:PROMO that I can see. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalik_Buterin&diff=997444178&oldid=997440948. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Welcome to wikipedia. Here is a notice since you are interested in cryptocurrency articles. You have done nothing wrong.

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 blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

Template:Z33

Thanks! Mazdamiata200 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazdamiata200: I have already been given this notice, we do not give the notice to users multiple times, you would have received a warning message when you posted this message telling you to look at if I have received this message in the past. Please exercise caution when using this template. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision/Crypto Sources

Revision

What are contributor sources?

I'm new to contributing to this article/crypto in-general.

Other questions:

Where can I find a list/documentation on acceptable sources for crypto? I tried looking on Wikiproject Cryptocurrency but there wasn't any documentation.
Are we allows to directly reference sites like Coindesk for price milestones since their price charts can act as a historical resource?
I also wanted to rename the Early 2021 Bitcoin boom section of the article to Early 2021 boom and divide it into Bitcoin and Dogecoin subheadings since there isn't any current references about the current Dogecoin boom. Do you think this would be appropriate or should I reconfigure the section another way?

Thank you, Lectrician1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1: Sorry, there is no list. You can read about it here Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#BRD_on_recent_deletion and just below it here Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#RfC:_acceptability_of_a_source_&_should_an_edit_be_made?. Sometimes people are unaware of the policy, and others people complain and don't like it, but there is widespread consensus for it. There is no list of sources, but I will give you a rundown here:

1. contributor WP:UGC is not allowed. this means no reddit, twitter, contributor, blogs, etc. Also means no company websites, ethereum corporate blogs, etc.

2. we also do not allow crypto news sites, such as coindesk, coinmarketcap, decrypt, theblock, etc. ledger journal is sometimes allowed, if it has been peer reviewed.

3. You can rename the section. But you need to find sources for the dogecoin boom, such as wsj, fortune, bloomberg. Normally those publications do cover it.

4. only high quality independent sources are allowed, think very very mainstream. such as fortune, wsj, bloomberg, nyt, etc. If it looks questionable, then you can generally assume it is not allowed. Even WP:IBTIMES is not allowed. You can also check on WP:RSP to see if a particular one is banned, but even if not located there, the above consensus is in place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Financial markets content project

Hello,

My name is Tijana and I am managing a newly established non-profit project called Wikinvesting. Generally, it concerns a knowledge base creation, where everyone will be able to share their knowledge, experience and information related to financial markets. I saw you expressed interest in topics related to it on Wikipedia and I’d love to discuss the project with you further.

If you are interested, please let me know how can I contact you? Cheers,

TijanaRistic (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TijanaRistic: feel free to ask me questions here. I dont take discussions off this platform. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations: Explanation required

Referring to me, you state "The comments of this bloodofox user appear to be politically motivated (red-pill, etc)". Kindly explain what on earth you're referring to here, particularly the "red-pill, etc" part. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does red pill mean? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an explanation for your comment, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on that explanation. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

red pilled seems to be a political term. Or what did you mean by inserting the red-pilled content? If it was not meant to be political, or it was something else, then apologies. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't play dumb here. Go ahead and answer the question. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dont understand your question now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than retreating from your original comment ("The comments of this bloodofox user appear to be politically motivated (red-pill, etc)") and then playing dumb when called on it, you're going to need to explain what you were attempting to communicate to others about me. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted content about Red-Pilled to a non political article (or at least I thought at the time it was now non-political (comedian based). As I said above if your edits were not political and I misunderstood the red-pilled comment (you still haven't said that btw) then I apologize. Thats the end of it. Please dont edit my talk page anymore, i dont appreciate being called dumb and I have now answered your question (and apologized). Dont bring your WP:BATTLE here to my talk page, I am not interested. I don't often edit AP2 articles, just because of this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem?

What's your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say actually, what is this in reference to? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This: curprev 05:07, 10 March 2021‎ Jtbobwaysf talk contribs‎ 4,544 bytes −937‎ Undid revision 1011214883 by 91.105.10.200 (talk) if you revert again we will lock the article. take your concerns to the talk page undo Tag: Undo

You have some reason why you revert the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are referring to this revert on Blockchain.com? I have already pinged you at Talk:Blockchain.com#Sourcing. It is generally suggested (and I prefer) if you discuss article content on the respective talk page, rather than on my personal talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would prefer that you would not delete stuff from the article you know nothing about, and I will discuss it on your page, since you're the who who deleted it. Also on the page you told me too look on, there's no explanation about the edit you made. So perhaps you could answer the question? What's the problem?

Please do not leave me any more questions on my talk page about this issue. You can respond at Talk:Blockchain.com#Sourcing as I have previously stated. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer original question and stop messing around! A I said before there's no explanation about the edit you made here Talk:Blockchain.com#Sourcing So what's the problem?

Please do not edit my talk page anymore. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop whining and answer my question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.14.216 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

To avoid violating WP:1RR, please self revert this edit. You already removed this content once and I restored it. Therefore this is a second revert. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Done. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I unintentionally did the same due to edit conflicts, please feel free to let me know and I will also self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we did or not, no worries. I think we were both editing the same content at the same time :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. closed AE thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I looked at this and it appears there is nothing I need to add, correct? It appears it was moving of an existing discussion and at at mention of me, and I was not the subject of the ANI. Is that correct? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

Template:Z33 —Paleo Neonate – 03:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian

I wouldn't disclose it without their authorization, but I believe to know the address they used to edit before. If you suspect a relation with another particular account, WP:SPI would be the place to request an investigation. —Paleo Neonate – 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I dont have any idea about address they used before. I dont have these admin tools. Do you consider the editor to have violated rules and policies, or this is just a message to say you know the IP address and you dont see anything amiss? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf I advise against WP:SPI as venue. PaleoNeonate, we would all like to know that, and more. Please send to Arbcom. Fangpila (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Fangpila (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think arbcom already knows and I see no particular reason to believe they're using multiple accounts. And.. who are you? —Paleo Neonate – 03:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Judging that their sole recent edit has been to an AfD about The Cambridge Working Group (which is seemingly just part of a scientific controversy about gain-of-function research [i.e. one frequent, and this one debunked, claim from the usual conspiracists...] - see [1] which seems to make a good portrait of the context of that working group), I have my doubts... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gimiv/sandbox Gratis! Gimiv (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimiv: Hi, I added a source on your sandbox today, hope that is ok. There is also a discussion here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2 with two other MEDRS sources that consider the possibility remote. Eventually, the 'very very so far away but still possible' and the 'likelihood merge into one general speculation that cannot be ruled out. I would suggest your sandbox include a field to note if it is MEDRS and another field with a quote, eventually this will go to an RFC and a summary will be useful for the un-involved editors to review it. The involved editors seem to spend a lot of time on this subject. At some point in time I would like to run an RFC on it (if someone else doesnt do it first), but I dont feel quite ready to do that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, what was this? Tinybubi (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinybubi: I was just suggesting to add more data to your sandbox. The various covid talk page discussions always note if a source is WP:MEDRS or not. So it would be useful to note that on your sandbox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: do you mean my Sandbox here? What was in Gimiv's sandbox that was so bad that it got them banned without standard procedure? Tinybubi (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalik_Buterin&diff=997444178&oldid=997440948. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]