User talk:MrEarlGray

December 2020

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Nick Gibb. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this @Arjayay, my mistake :-) MrEarlGray (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

Hi, I noticed that your recent edit to Vernon Coleman seems to have accidentally broken one of the references - specifically the one with name "asa". BTW, thanks for reverting the POV-pushing by some editors on that article. Autarch (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Autarch, thank you for letting me know. My apologies, I've fixed that broken reference. Thank you also for the balanced work :-) MrEarlGray (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that- no need to apologise, we all make mistakes - I should know, I've made quite a few myself! :-) Autarch (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

Hi, re: Vernon Coleman This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish: and you know it fine well. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts) My view is that the whole article is a serious breach of the Wikipedia rules on living persons biographies, in no small part because he is not a criminal or a raving lunatic, and not a threat: but an author who you might even describe as a science fiction writer or story teller, someone who certainly doesn't fit into conventional mainstream science writing, but is stimulating, communicates well to a wide audience and always has something interesting and provocative to add to a debate. I find it petty and unpleasant in tone, and as you seem to know so much about him, I'd urge you to tone it down a bit. Excalibur (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Excalibur. I would like to remind you part of Wikipedia's TOS is an agreement to remain civil and polite. Several of the accusations you have made here are not included in the article on Coleman and I therefore hope they are not addressed to myself, as to make such wide-sweeping statements would be in breach of said TOS.

Much like similar discussions on Andrew Wakefield an article is capable of being both impartial and reflective of the facts regardless of whether you accept them to be true or not. The term "widely discredited conspiracy theorist" is a similar labeling used on numerous pages of individuals who have made similar debunked medical claims and is not an insult levied solely at Coleman. Claiming "he is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast" would be pushing a biased POV as it is not reflective of the facts - it is a personal opinion and falls afoul of Peacocking. Vernon Coleman is described as a "widely discredited conspiracy theorist" due to the negative attention he has garnered amongst both the medical community and the mainstream media thanks to his claims that: vaccines are dangerous, AIDS doesn't exist and Covid-19 is a hoax. Furthermore, the debunking of Coleman's medical claims are supported by evidence from various widely-respected and impartial sources. The article had been written by numerous editors over the years and I certainly do not hold sway over the tone of the article. You can observe for yourself how previous edits by myself have been removed to best represent the subject. If you have peer-reviewed medical journals or similar credible evidence supporting any of Coleman's medical claims to justify the removal of the conspiracy theorist tag please provide it to the community. MrEarlGray (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Spamming allegation. I wish to make a formal complaint about your misrepresentation and spurious allegation re SPamming for which you purport to be issuing a warning.

No 1 I have not been Spamming No 2 I wish to appeal your warning to say you are conflicted is an understatement and I will be requesting an independent adjudication. No 3 I said I would add the revised lede is no one wished to engage in the process and get the consensus process going, you have ignored the very clear statement I made to that effect.RogerGLewis (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Roger, posting a edit-war warning on a talk page when the said individual is not involved in an edit war is a breach of TOS. Go offline and go outside. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply

My response... I guess all these statements have some veracity. The problem is not the facts: I don't deny them. Vernon is indeed, an irascible old rogue and thorn in the side of the establishment: I don't think even he would deny that! The problem is the highly selective use of them: this can also constitute a form of bias or prejudice. You see this a lot of wikipedia these days: an even more egregious example is [1] 's page. Both Boris and Vernon are wildly popular authors with their own readership and followers, because they both help to make some kind of sense of an, at times, very confusing and conflicted world. We are not all top scientists, authors, or politicians. And yet, these people are popular, and their supporters and admirers come here looking for a few facts and basic biography, not a rant. Our problem as editors is not to rubbish them or focus entirely on their weaknesses and flaws, but to try to be be fair handed. They are both fellow human beings, after all, and we all have flaws. My own POV is that this page on Vernon is too harsh and selective with the truth: and that doesn't help wikipedia make any friends - that's all. Excalibur (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Both Boris and Coleman have been subject to similar criticism for lying and endangering the public health. Boris bragged of "shaking hands with Covid patients" when the advice was to social distance. Coleman claimed "Covid-19 doesn't exist". Regardless of how popular their medically-ignorant writings are, they are not "helping people" by lying - there's a reason the UK has the highest deaths, highest hospitalisations and highest number of cases of Coronavirus in Europe. Remember; Wikipedia exists to state the truth in all its forms and if it so happens that an individual has spent a large portion of time making fringe claims lacking any form of evidence, their page will obviously reflect criticism of such claims from people with the qualifications to do so. Wikipedia also doesn't exist to debate fringe views, it exists to state the facts as decided by expert bodies. As it stands none of Coleman's medical claims have passed a peer-review, instead when put under rigorous examination each of them has been deemed by regulated and independent medical bodies as being either nonsense or a danger to public health. That's not a selective view, it's merely writing down the facts. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

there are many truths, some that must be said, and some that do not.

I mean, imagine a page about some science fiction/ fantasy author, or a children's author of tall tales: would we focus on the fact that Jack could not have climbed a beanstalk, because the maximum height and girth of a beanstalk is 10 metres and 38 centimeters, or instead focus on the delight this story has given to millions of young readers? Sure, Vernon is a bit random, he loves to speculate, and some of his theories may be totally wrong, but how sure are we: how sure can we ever be? I mean when we look back at the history of medical science, we find disaster after disaster: from the contaminated blood scandal, to lobotomies, and the gross misuse of antibiotics. Our entire asylum system, that locked away millions of disabled individuals, was at one time unquestioned, and it is odd that it was the much reviled Enoch Powell who was willing to challenge it. We find doctors and opera singers who promoted the benefits of tobacco - the process of science is not about orthodoxy, it is the fun of provoking alternative ideas and criticisms: even if they are a bit silly at the time, some of them actually are correct. Lets go a bit more gentle with our dissidents and freethinkers, please! Excalibur (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You are defending a man who has claimed: that AIDS isn't real, vaccines kill people, face masks give people cancer etcetera, etcetera. Are you unwell? MrEarlGray (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am urging a calm, clear voice of reason and balance: not a witch-hunt. And by the way, Vaccines do actually kill people: quite a lot of them, and I could reference that , but that isn't actually the point, is it? My keyboard is wonky, so I'll just sign this as Excalibur

Excalibur your 'calm, clear voice of reason' is biased beyond all belief and because of that I'm not going to waste my time replying to your evidence-lacking comments here anymore. You need to go offline, go outside and go get vaccinated. MrEarlGray (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear...

... I was directing the IP editor attempting to legitimize the crackpot theories to WP:FRINGE - not you. Your calm adherence to AGF is a model for us all. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Doctors Alliance has been accepted

World Doctors Alliance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

NagalimNE (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Doctors Alliance has been accepted

World Doctors Alliance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ernest Petter

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ernest Petter, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding criticism sections

WP:CRITS tells us that we should avoid sections labels as criticism. With that in mind, could you review this overall worthwhile edit of yours and adjust it appropriately? Thanks! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)