User talk:Myosci

Hello! --Myosci (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the version of my German user talk page from July 24th, 2022.

German Wikipedia: "Ober sticht Unter"[edit]

See de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Myosci#Bitte Anfrage ans Schiedsgericht durchlesen (with English translation) --Myosci (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masks[edit]

"The effect of smoking on exhaled carbon monoxide and arterial elasticity during prolonged surgical mask use in the COVID-19 era". Retrieved 9 July 2022. PWV change Myosci (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not forums[edit]

Hi, Myosci. Regarding comments like [1] and [2], please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles; they are not forums to discuss the article's topic or tangential matters. Also, please note:

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 9-Euro-Ticket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FDP. 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) 09:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Step function with template chart[edit]

Is it possiblie to create a true step function plot with the Template:Graph:Chart? It is possible to mimic it by a line plot with steep increases, but that graph has (almost) vertical lines that look "non-mathematican".

This workaround would be too complicated for large data sets:

--Myosci (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

see Talk:Myocarditis#Explanation_for_revert_of_well-sourced_information_needed --Myosci (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Myocarditis, you may be blocked from editing. You are violating talk page rules to argue your point of view. See WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM.

Make a proposal for a constructive change, and support it with a WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Please refrain from false accusations: My edits (see below) aren't disruptive. --Myosci (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to make your case for including off-topic primary sources. Read WP:TALK - make a specific proposal for wording on article content, and provide a MEDRS source to support it. That's what the talk page is for - it's that simple. Zefr (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't off-topic. The source doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 wasn't introduced by me and a single copy of it was retained by the other editor twice. Please go more into detail. (And on aspiration test read [3]: It's not common practice anymore.)--Myosci (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other "sources" listed below aren't intended to be introduced in the article: These are the articles on which the meta-analysis relies on. It is the first step of an investigation of the quality of the meta-analysis. You can search them and read them and then copmpare these articles to the British article doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970.

@Zefr: But first of all: Read the sections #"Primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion, #Meta-analysis not always superior to a singly study without haste. And then I hope you will realize that there is no "disruption" contained in it.-Myosci (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion[edit]

Background: On two occasions this wiki-article had two copies of the study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 and on two times only one copy was deleted. The explanation was that it was "redundant" (what is obvouisly true since it was a doublette). Then I pointed out that the source contained extra information regarding the 2nd vaccination with mRNA-1273 for men under 40(*) that qualified other information(**). Today the same editor scrapped it with the explanation "primary source".

(*) In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).

(**) ... the risk [after COVID-19 vaccination] is less than that associated with COVID-19 itself.

I think that "primary sources" are so abundant and meta-analyses are so rare that it is impossible to have an article that rests only on meta-analyses. So some "primary sources" are retained and others aren't. Therefore "primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion.--Myosci (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-analysis not always superior to a singly study[edit]

A meta-analysis can be marred with many errors, see wiki-article: Meta-analysis#Challenges

A meta-analysis hides the underlying premises. A good study article can explain the study setup at least to some degree, the study results and the problems that occured to the interrested-yet-non-expert reader.
If you have a meta-analysis of hundreds of articles that share the same weakness then the meta-analyis will share this weakness too. That is called systematical error.
- For example compare doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 (a "single study") and doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00059-5 ("meta-analysis").
- The "single study" is from Britain where vaccine side effects are reported in a systematical way whereas the "meta-analysis" relies on data from 11 studies with COVID-19 vaccines and 11 non COVID-19 vaccines, see Fig 2.
- 2276 non-duplicate records have been screened -> And only 22 studies included: Nowhere is it explained how the selection was conducted. That is completely intransparent. Of these 22 studies there were 11 studies with COVID-19 vaccines. These are:
  - Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia (2021)
  - Bozkurt et al (2021)24
  - Diaz et al (2021)30
  - Fleming-Nouri et al (2021)25
  - Health InfoBase Canada (2021)35
  - Mevorach et al (2021)21
  - Montgomery et al (2021)13
  - Singapore Health Sciences Authority (2021)43
  - Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, UK (2021)41
  - Chua et al (2021)29
  - Husby et al (2021)3

On top of that in this "meta-analysis", the two mRNA vaccines are lumped together. But there are many studies that tell that: (a) mRNA-1273 is more immonogenic than BNT162b2 (what is good) and (b) mRNA-1273 has a much higher rate of myocarditis (what is bad but moreover: it is the topic of the "analysis"!) -> So the meta-analysis has a serious blind sport from the beginning! And its authors must have been aware of that flaw.

But here in Wikiepedia the meta-analysis with the blind spot by design and the intransparent data acquisation is retained and the "single study" from England was deleted. On the flawed notion that a "meta-analysis" is per se better than a "single study".--Myosci (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a "meta-analysis" is not necessarily sufficient for a source to be a good one. Systematic reviews are better, and position statements and clinical guidance from major inter/national bodies better still. For exceptional claims multiple such sources are needed. Primary research simply doesn't move the "accepted knowledge" needle, and accepted knowledge is all that Wikipedia is interested in. Bon courage (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a exceptional claim that Moderna causes more cases of myocarditis than BNT. There are multiple studies that come to this conclusion. (The additional information here is that the rate exceeds the rate of mycorditis after a postive Covid-19 test result.)

BTW: The difference between the two vaccines appears (I know Bertrand Russel's famous quote too!) to be logical since:

(a) Moderna has 100 µg (in the primary series) and Biontech has 30 µg modRNA in one dose and both modRNAs endcode a full S-protein. So the individual macro-molecules should have about the same mass. Therefore Moderna'vaccine has 3 times the biological dosis and therefore it has likely more (postive and negative) effects.

(b) This assumption is also supported by the fact that Moderna's vaccine causes a higher antibodiy response than BNT (i.e. postive effect).

(c) Another (but much weaker) sign is that the company halfed the dose for the 3rd dose to 50 µg.

So there is no basis to think that this is a an exceptional claim. And even if that would be the case the study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is outstanding in its data basis. Unlike the new BA.4/5 boosters that rely on mouse studies.

Why can one discard this decent study when the CDC approves two vaccines on the basis of trials with mice (BNT's vaccine: 8 mice in the ba.5 monovalent group, 8 mice in the bivalent group and 8+8 mice in the controls.)

Is this enough to make the claim that the BA.5 vaccione is better than the BA.1 vaccine and has not more side effects? Does this meet your requirements for Wikipedia? If not – why is it enough to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of people with it before the first human studies emerge?

Besides: The argument that myocaridits would be too rare to find it in a study with ~1000 persons is wrong since one doesn't (and in fact shouldn't!) need to find a clinical mycoarditis. One could measure the troponin-blood-levels of the vaccinated persons and can spot with that (temporary) pre-clinical impairment of the tissue (there is some daily loss of myocytes in healty people too!).

And look exactely that has been done in case of the smallpox vaccine Imvanex, read page 6 of SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS! --Myosci (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing standard is WP:MEDRS. You seem to have your own views but Wikipedia's purpose is merely to summarize the accepted knowledge in reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First to your "you seem..." expression: Everyone has its own views, not only me, you too! But I'm open about it and I consider openness to be very important. (It's like the declaration of confict section in an article!) I make clear on what I stand on the issue of mycarditis after vaccination. BUT this is related to facts. So let's first turn to the (external) merits of the article:

The study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Circulation (journal), that's the flagship journal of the AHA and has a high impact factor. So the background of the journal makes it additionally suited for this article (i.e. it wasn't publishded in the across-the-board science journal like nature.)

And now to the article itself:

"We performed an evaluation of the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine in >42 million vaccinated people 13 years or older, including 21 million people receiving a booster dose, stratified by age and sex." This is a huge data basis. And it's data from the British NHS where vaccine side effects are reported systematically - unlike the U.S. (VAERS) and Germany where they are reported on a voluntary basis (And in Germany the doctor would have to invest half an hour to report and wouldn't get any money for that!) --Myosci (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't have any ideas about vaccination and myocarditis because I recognize I have no expertise in that subject. All a Wikipedia editor has to do is find and summarize the WP:BESTSOURCES. I've pointed you at the relevant sourcing standard and you can see it says we shouldn't use primary sources, especially when good secondary ones are available. For background reading, maybe see WP:WHYMEDRS. If you want to challenge or overturn the English Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidance, start by posting at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think at all that it has to be changed to include doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970:

First: You once thought the same since you retained one copy of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice!

Second WP:BESTSOURCES does not say that reliable "primary research" has to be excluded. Let me cite with emphasis added: "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." And doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is very reliable since has a huge data basis (the U.K. numbers include 21 million people that received 3rd dosis) and the data is much less prone to underreporting than the U.S. (VAERS) and German numbers. See Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System#Limitations and abuse : "Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated." --Myosci (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of cherry picking from the guideline we see a lot. Stick to the best sources. If in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherrypicking picking from the guideline" is a claim that cuts both ways. Selective inforcement of guidelines is the real issue! --Myosci (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLUE comes into it. To repeat: if in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:CLUE meant for real? (I'm not a native speaker of English so I could miss some subtle self-irony.) --Myosci (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, familiarity with how the WP:PAGs fit together and apply in practice, is a thing. Bon courage (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be nasty but maybe many "experienced" Wikipedians are more prone to selective enforcement of guildelines than "less-experienced" editors. Being an inclusionist (meta:Wikipedia is not a paper) and using higly reliable primary sources like doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 — again and again: published peer-reviewed Circulation (journal) with the high impfact factor of 39.9 in 2021, pubished for the American Heart Association,[4] on the issue of myocardits (that literally belongs to the heart of the journal's subject area) with a analysis from more the huge NHS database. What more do you want to consider that a highly reliable primary source? — isn't too bad, don't you think so? --Myosci (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being "nasty"; you're being wrong. Which is why I'm inviting you to seek wider opinions at WT:MED, since you're obviously stuck in your groove. By your reasoning Andrew Wakefield's autism research would have been a golden source. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No so comparable because it stood only on one leg, the journal (external merit) — doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 stands on two legs: A medical journal and the huge NHS database. But yes, from an inclusionist standpoint I adhere to it had to be included as long as the journal didn't retract the article (like it did!). And after that it is included as a warning sign that articles in journals can be wrong. But this cuts both ways: The journal that published the Wakefield study was The Lancet and guess what journal published what is now the sole source (a meta-analysis) in the section about myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination? The Lancet! If that journal (or any other) had a failed peer-review back then why don't increase diversity and use another study from Circulation (journal) now? Isn't better to stand on more than one leg? --Myosci (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with "inclusionism", a daft term which means a bias towards having articles on stuff rather than not. What you're doing is wanting to use unreliable sources. It's more like POV-pushing. Because editors kept arguing about it, a while ago it was even put in bold in WP:MEDRS: ""Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Not Wakefield, not this. There are exceptions, but this is not one. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the basis to call a decent scientific article like doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 "unreliable". On what specific grounds do you assert that?

And notice that it wasn't me that introduced the source-article: I was made aware of this article because you've deleted the doublette of it. I've read it and realized that it contained important information not already included in the article. Later I've realized that the source was already in the article. So in effect all I did was to include into the wiki-text what the source did say.

That means that it's me that is free of confirmation bias (already have an opinion and then search for sources that support that) – this time (see P.S.). Whereas you have to explain: Why did you retain one instance of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice - and discarded it after I found out that it had new information? --Myosci (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S). What was my primary edit in mid-January 2022 in this wiki-article is the information that it is reasonable to do an aspiration test.[5] That was common medical practice before ~2015, but not anymore. In Germany it was reintroduced by the STIKO in mid-February, but only for the Covid-19 vaccination. So my edit was in line with the evaluation a medical panel published a month later. Kind of scoop, isn't it?--Myosci (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MEDRS to learn what kind of sources are reliable for WP:BMI. I'm sure this article (and many COVID articles) needs further cleanup, yes. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First: Since you deleted the source doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 it is on you to explain which specific item of WP:MEDRS is violated.

Second: I may note that you declined to answer my question:"Why did you retain one instance of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice - and discarded it after I found out that it had new information?" --Myosci (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "retain" - what is the diff of the edit you have in mind? As to "it is on you" - no, the WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking inclusion. Bon courage (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there were two instances of the same source and you deleted only one instance on 30 August with the explanation "trim redundant, accurify", see [6]. Only after this edit of yours I was made aware of the study. And only later I realized that it was maintained by your edit: [7] (search for "CIRCULATIONAHA" in the diff) --Myosci (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, probably still working out what to do and looking at sourcing. I cleaned it out later. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't let me look into your cards, unlike me. So let's begin with basic stuff. My local time is 15:27 (summer time). What's your local time? --Myosci (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is just impertinent. Bon courage (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's a simple question of basic openness needed for a symmetric discussion when your answers before were so evasive and culminated in "Dunno, ... I cleaned it out later". A time difference of 27 days between 26 September (deletion of source) and 30 August (first retainment of source) but only 18.5 hours after my edit is remarkable and warrants a better answer than "Dunno...". So that was my last try to start a symmetrical discussion. Since you've rejected that, it's futile now.--Myosci (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for those with no unlogical fiber...

...and who don't mind spending one hundred dollars (or pounds or euros) and four blood drawings. Test your troponin level before and after an arduous sports activity. And then the same before and after a vaccination. Then you could assess whether you reacted too sensitive to that vaccine.--Myosci (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS2

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Myosci. Thank you for creating 365-Euro-Ticket. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small text[edit]

Please stop adding small text formatting to talk page comments. Making the page more difficult to read doesn't help anyone. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: I can't understand you and the other user – first this and then that – we not only (very likely) live in different time zones (GMT+1 for me) but we live in different worlds in terms of Wikipedia! But I think it's counterproductive to discuss this now, let me wait for a ten days. O.K.?--Myosci (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reversion here. If you're still unsure, ask me on my talk page. Yes we are polar opposites, GMT +11: Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did oversee this explanation and thank you for your answer. Would like to restart the discussion on the topic in ten days.--Myosci (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:COVID-19 vaccine, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct in this matter is becoming disruptive. You are reminded that the topic is under arbitration sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicous group actions. --Myosci (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me that started a edit war, it was this group, that clearly cooperate what can be seen a the very fast time response (2 minutes). So they should be treated a one editor. And so it's them that engage in edit war. Two times a revert. --Myosci (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who disagree with you are not evidence that you're being conspired against. I will impose arbitration restrictions or a page block if you continue this conduct. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the disagreement, first of all it's the suspicious short time response: 2 minutes! You don't even see this as suspicous? --Myosci (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see this as suspicous. And to close a discussion section that mentions this is unwarranted to say the least.--Myosci (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Do you disagree?--Myosci (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's why I warned you.Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to consider the validity of an edit in this short time. --Myosci (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's even fast for one editor. But for two editors that act independently and on the mertits of the edit itself, there's simply no time. Do you dispute that? --Myosci (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: This double negation before is not so clear. Therefore I may repeat my question in a more open form: What do you think about the short response time of two minutes from the three editors? --Myosci (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not significant. Your assumption of bad faith and treatment of other editors as opponents is what's concerning. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, it is impossible to build ones mind independently and react in this short period of time. Opponents? What are you talking about? Do you think that I'm here for a high school debate competetion. It's the article that matters.

According to studies, the combination of two different COVID-19 vaccines, also called cross vaccination or mix-and-match method, provides protection equivalent to that of mRNA vaccines – including protection against the Delta variant. Individuals who receive the combination of two different vaccines produce strong immune responses, with the immediate side effects no worse than those caused by standard regimens.^[1]

So the section obove makes a health claim relies on only one source that isn't a peer-reviewed article (it's only dubbed a "news" article, see doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02853-4) But the large peer-reviewed study doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583 zhat has information that warrants caution especially for the combination BNR/MOD is erased with the explanation WP:MEDRS? No problem with that? I DO HAVE. And I habe a problem with ppl. that revert this in two minutes. This topic needs more time to reflect! The least I would request from you is that you read the source doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583 Table 2.--Myosci (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Callaway E (October 2021). "Mix-and-match COVID vaccines ace the effectiveness test". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02853-4. PMID 34675430. S2CID 239455075.

It takes about 10 seconds to see that an edit like this bad, for me. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted section above is the current state of the subsection that relies on a source that isn't a peer-reviewed article. BTW the only change that wasn't reverted is the adjective "immediate", but I wanted to remove that adjective myself because that's suboptimal to say the least.--Myosci (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've reverted that myself since I don't want to smuggle in words that people that erase that fast tend to oversee.--Myosci (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: 10 seconds is way too short to reflect on the deletion of this:[8] I may remind you that the current state of the subsection makes a health claim and my source – that is published in a high quality journal and is peer-reviewed and is based on a large database – has results that challanges that claim.--Myosci (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Grant Wahl, you may be blocked from editing. Please engage with article talkpage discussion if you wish to make changes. Kingsif (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: By no means was my edit about the date disruptive. It was inclusive. On the article there are two sides that keep editing different date: Dec 9 one side and Dec. 10 the other side. Currently it's Dec 9, despite the talkpage. I wrote that it was a midnight Dec 9/10. Aren't you for Dec 10? So I don't get why I'm the one to receive your ire? I await the deletion of this offensive talk post.--Myosci (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the age: At my edit the situation was that in wikiarticle text said 48 years but the linked source said 49 years. So I searched for a source that said 48 years and included it and retained the other source as well and stated that there are different sources that state different ages. So my edit was not disruptive but it harmonized the article. You cannot say 48 and have a source that says 49 in the headline![9][10]

I don't get your editing on two talk pages for me doing nothing wrong. That is not how one treat each other. --Myosci (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the content of your post on the article talk page [11], since the issue is addressed here I cite it here and it only belongs to here or on your talk page if you want. --Myosci (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Myosci] DO NOT continue to re-add indisputably factually incorrect information based on your interpretation of sources (date of death) or sources that were written early and inaccurately (no ibuprofen). There is no need to say "another source says X", when we know X isn't true: omitting it does not break WP:V. Indeed, omitting it makes the article better by not being needlessly confusing. As there have been clearly-explained edit reasons for removing your previous additions, and the discussions on the talk page here about some of the items, take this as your third disruptive editing warning; you have had the issue directly explained to you before, and the opportunity to come to discussion and see there was already a topic but didn't.

You aren't receiving ire, you are receiving a warning for continuing to be disruptive. Also, check the time stamps, you got the messages before any recent changes that you think should also be addressed. Why at two different places? I came here to give you a formal warning when you made the same edits again. And, yes, re-adding factual inaccuracies after they have been removed with explanation and discussed at the talkpage is inherently disruptive. Either you don't care and just want your own text, or you don't understand.
If you do not understand, which seems to be the case since you insist that you have done "nothing wrong" and still think that finding outdated sources for the purpose of including conflicting statements is a good idea, then you should not be editing. This is your third third-level warning for the same thing in as many months, I would seriously think about changing your editing behaviour before you trip the fourth. Kingsif (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you thinking that "midnight December 9/10" is a suitable compromise to editors changing between the dates based on timezone differences is bizarre - you gave an exact time that appears in no sources and is by all accounts plain incorrect. Don't attempt compromise when it comes to facts. That's a warning all in itself, not something you should receive adulation for as you seem to think. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed you removed the above message from the article talkpage. In case you are unaware, it is not uncommon to bring issues with a certain article to an article's talkpage, and it is generally frowned upon to remove other users' talkpage messages. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did add it on two talk pages and I chose to answer it here. So I moved the other content in order not to unnecessary splitting and duplication of arguments.

And on the issue before: According to the articles it was some time after the game and therefore around midnight Qatar time. (See also the talkpage discussion.) So my edit tried to resolve the conflict about the time zones (use local time (best) or UTC (second best) or ?) by being more specific. But it would have been better to say "around midnight". You agree with that? --Myosci (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a source for "around midnight"; if you disagree with "in the early morning", you can start a discussion on the phrasing at the article talkpage. (Also at the talkpage are some of my previous comments, doing the rough maths for someone but saying, it needs a source.) Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/midnight the term "midnight" has two meanings: "the middle of the night" -> that was my usage, and "specifically : 12 o'clock at night". It's better to use "around midnight" when one wants to use to first usage and "exactly at midnight" for the second usage. --Myosci (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And 12 o'clock at night is the civil midnight, the astronomical midnight (i.e. 12 hours after the astronomical noon) is about half an hour earlier, in Doha for instance at 23:27 local time.--Myosci (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: And on the issue of ibuprofen: Both sources are right. In his Dec. 6 podcast he stated that he got cough syrup, antibiotics and ibuprofen. So my edit that did mention the other source (from CNN) was correct. Sometimes it's not an either or.--Myosci (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss article content, it should be at the article talkpage. We can have this discussion there, where other editors can give input. Discussion of editing behaviour is all that should be had at your user talkpage, really. If you can acknowledge that you should have engaged with discussion before re-adding controversial edits, and maybe that using outdated sources and seeking to include contradictory statements in general are not good editing practices, we can move on here and talk about content at the article. Kingsif (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a edit war there, so I want to know first:

Did you listen to minute 2:45 till 3:00 of the Dec. 6 podcast?
My time zone is GMT+1. What is your time zone?
Have you a clue what these "3,000 years" in Mr Infantino's diatribe against Europe stand for? World Cup 2022: FIFA chief Gianni Infantino hits out at Qatar criticism saying European countries should instead 'be apologising for the next 3,000 years' --Myosci (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Callaway E (October 2021). "Mix-and-match COVID vaccines ace the effectiveness test". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02853-4. PMID 34675430. S2CID 239455075.

[1]