User talk:178.78.100.94

December 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The original research is the reliable source. What on Earth are you talking about? 178.78.100.94 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Great Barrington Declaration, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Great Barrington Declaration was changed by 178.78.100.94 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953301 on 2021-12-16T22:02:09+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop baselessly accusing me of vandalism. If wikipedia hadn't have become a biased leftist echo chamber we would have balanced and fair information published for all to see. As if stands all we have is a selective mix of one sided opinions. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruption, incl. changing quotes from cited sources.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

October 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

So, in your humble opinion my edit does not appear constructive. I suggest you are clearly biased and have a conflict of interest in your gatekeeping of the information. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so in your opinion it did not appear constructive. Please explain how giving balanced information from all perspectives would not appear constructive? Constructive to what precisely? Pushing your opinion on a subject? 178.78.100.94 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2023

Hello, I'm Always forever. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Catherine McKenney seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. always forever (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite hilarious that you believe you can decide what best is neutral when clear bias exists in many articles. This is the kind of censorship we are used to seeing. It mt edit is to be removed it only makes logical sense the other "less than neutral" contributions are also. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is hilarious. You clearly do not try very hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. The currently published information on the Catherine McKenny page is far from neutral. I see that you are another one who uses words to appear to be something you clearly are not. Neutrality clearly is a foreign term to you. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2024

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sea salt, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Sea salt. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Complete rubbish. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2207995 The New England Journal of Medicine is not a fringe organization and nor dos it push fringe content. The information is balanced and peer reviewed. The only person pushing fringe information appears to be yourself by gatekeeping this page and not allowing balanced information into the wider public domain. This is a majority viewpoint. But apparently your opinion trumps this. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---