User talk:190.173.175.155

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (190.173.175.155) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP[edit]

Hi Ezequiel. Per your responses elsewhere, and the history and your sigs at Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism, I can see that this IP is one of a set your ISP is assigning you (e.g., 190.173.139.65, 190.173.150.216, 190.173.173.61, 190.173.175.155, 190.173.193.119, 190.173.193.85, 190.173.195.94, 190.173.199.245, 190.173.202.195, 190.173.206.186, 190.173.207.99, 190.173.227.182, 190.173.231.137, 190.173.247.237).

See User talk:190.173.150.216 for the range block. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Registering an account[edit]

Hi, I've noticed some of your edits, and you may wish to consider creating an account. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself).

When you're logged in, you can do many things that unregistered users cannot, such as creating new pages, uploading media content, moving pages and keeping track of changes to articles you edit frequently. It helps the community, too — Wikipedians will be more likely to remember who you are when you have an account name!

If you want more information on the benefits of creating an account, click here. As to what username to choose, there's a guideline here. I noticed that you signed one of your talk posts "Ezequiel", and that you have an interest in music. You could combine those to make Muzeke; this name is not currently registered, so it's yours for the taking, if you get there before anyone else. If you want to check if another username is available, you can go here. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, to be honest. Wikipedia is said to be a free encyclopedia, but it's pretty biased. For instance, read the thread I created in the Violin talk page. There's a user who comes up with every possible argument to not believe what I said about vibrato. And if I present my reasoning, he says it's Original Research and therefore not admissible.
At least, in that article, the've left in my edits. But it was a totally different story in the HIV denialism article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism). My proposal was met by a barrage of double-standards, know-it-all editors and censorship. And I don't mean censorship because my edits were rejected. I mean censorship because I was banned by user Bishonen after I filed a dispute resolution request. That was the moment I decided I don't want to be a part of such a web site. That request was closed because I appeared to not want to "discuss" and the dispute noticeboard is meant to solve things by discussion. This is the typical argument that someone with power will give when they want to placate people who don't agree with them. "Discussion" means that they will tell the only, unbeatable truth, and dissent is seen as disruptive and not following Guidelines. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_164#Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism#Contradiction
User Bishonen says, in her User page, using the third person: "This user loves the sound of her own voice (...) her inflated sense of her own importance". Doesn't that tell you something about who becomes an editor, and an administrator of blocks, in the site? 190.173.147.95 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel @Mathglot:[reply]
I don't think it's biased. Unfortunately, I think you've been running into some unpleasant situations because of the way Wikipedia is structured. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one of the core principles here is verifiability. This means that everything added to an article must be verifiable by published material that can be found in reliable, secondary sources.
Becoming an editor and learning the ropes here can be difficult. You're obviously intelligent and have knowledge of musical and various other topics. If you happen to be a student, or a scholar, or even just highly knowledgeable about a topic, it can, paradoxically, be a handicap and make it even more difficult to add to articles on those subjects, because in an academic context a well-argued, completely original research paper or thesis on a topic is the summum of expository achievement and is even required to get your doctorate; however, that would be anathema here. It could even get you blocked if you made a habit of it. In an Wikipedia article, in contrast, you have to completely avoid anything like that. Instead, you start by gathering some reference works, digest what it is you want to say in the Wikipedia article, then compose it in your own words, using citations to the references to back up your content. If you're knowledgeable about the topic already, then you're a step ahead, in one way, in that you may already know what you want to say and how to organize it; but you can't skip the step of getting references and providing citations to them. If your knowledge is accurate, it should be easy pickings to find standard references on your topic, and cite them. (It's not enough to include just author/title; you need a page number pointing to the specific content in the source that backs up the content you are adding; and the year, or isbn, or oclc, or url, so someone could check the specific resource you are citing to see if it backs your content.)
I read the discussion at Talk:Violin, and I found you to be having a civil, reasoned, discussion on how best to improve the article in the areas of open strings and vibrato; bravo for that, that's exactly what a talk page is for, namely: to discuss and find consensus, which is then ported to the article itself. On the Talk page, you don't have to provide sources, and I can see the other editors respecting your opinions there. Your only misstep there, afaict, was your "self-evident" remark, and Just plain Bill called you out on that; rightly, imho, and for the right reason: namely, original research. While not every single sentence in an article needs to have a footnote after it, per Wikpedia policy, everything must be verifi-able: meaning, that if anyone challenges an unsourced assertion in an article, it must have a citation to a reliable source, and if it does not, it may be challenged and removed. The best response to someone arguing that there is original research in a part of an article, is simply to add footnotes to reliable sources; that will shut down that whole discussion in its tracks. Normally, it's a lot easier to find references, than to carry on long discussions on Talk pages on why something is right or wrong. A refusal, or inability, to find sources, is an indication that maybe that content shouldn't be there after all. Anything that is self-evident, should be the easiest of all to find a source for, so that's definitely the way to go, here. If you're not sure yet on how to create references, no worries: just say that you found some, and add something to the Talk page about it; and/or ask for help here on your talk page about how to do it. (Help:Footnotes is a good place to start; and templates {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}} are invaluable.) You might benefit from reading WP:When to cite, WP:MINREF, and WP:Verifiability challenges.
I won't get into the dispute regarding HIV denialism; I'll just say that User:Bishonen is a long-term, very-highly respected admin with a reputation for fairness and reason; if you've butted heads with her, then in all likelihood you violated some core principle, and at this point you should just carefully step back, and try to figure out what it was. If you don't see it (and I haven't looked, so offering no opinion about it), then your best bet is to apologize, beg off on account of being a new user, or just fade away from the Talk page discussion and stop editing that article until you clearly see what the problem was.
Please don't give up on Wikipedia, because I can see with your background you'd be a great editor; and in time, what appears to you now as annoying roadblocks or behavior on the part of other editors, will become clear later as essential principles to safeguard the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Here's one final tip: it may seem paradoxical to you, but a great way to get on board here is to start contributing to some area that you know virtually zero about. Did you see a great documentary on the Battle of Midway that you liked? Go grab a few references, and see what can be added to it, or other WWII Pacific battles. Your cousin occupies a chair in Medieval History and is lecturing on the Remensa peasants and you have no frickin' idea what that is? Go read up, and improve the article. This will force you to do the very important step of going to the sources, and writing citations. Plus, I guarantee you, it's fun to delve into some topic of interest where you know nothing, and start adding to the article about it. A few months down the road, when you're starting to get the hang of it, come back and start contributing to music or health policy or whatever areas you are more knowledgeable about. Just, please don't give up. Well, I've gone on way too long, hope this helps, feel free to write me on my Talk page anytime, or add a question in a new section below, along with the code {{Help me}}. And really finally: consider registering your account.
P.S. No need to add a notice to someone's Talk page that you've replied elsewhere, just {{ping}} them, as you did above, and that's enough. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, only just got around to reading this range block notice, so didn't realize that most of the IPs your ISP assigns you were blocked, although not this one, apparently, since it's outside the range. It's not the end of the world, and it's kind of an enforced wikibreak; and you're already past the halfway point. A two-week block is serious, in the sense that if you come back and continue doing what you were doing before, you'll likely get a longer block, maybe even indefinite (which doesn't mean forever, but is very serious). Please don't let that happen. Please please take my advice: swear off all the topics you feel most strongly about right now, especially in the areas where you ran into some trouble. Instead, pick up some articles in topics you are interested in, but know little about. What was that course or two in college you wished you'd taken, but never had time for? Work on those areas. If nothing jumps out at you, I have a backlog of articles I could use help on; could I suggest a few where you could help? If you speak any foreign languages, we totally could user your help on a whole bunch of articles. Let me know. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Here I am, with a brand new account. Now: let me tell you something. I have the interview with Luc Montagnier, who, as you maybe know, is the French doctor who discovered HIV. In that interview, he says that HIV is cleared from the body in just a few weeks. Do you think I could post that in the HIV Denialism article? I don't think so. I forsee the editors' reactions: Luc Montagnier is not an HIV denialist because he is not deniying the existance of the virus; his assertions about the virus being automatically cured are pseudo-science; and if he dies some day from now, his name will go to the "Denialist who have died" section. You claim that Wikipedia is not biased, I claim that it is, and nothing will change my mind.
After I was banned, I pleaded for my ban to be lifted. And the administrators agreed. That's the reason I can post now. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.173.240.80#Unban They unbanned me in exchange for not editing HIV related articles. And I see it as extorsion. Do I have to remind you why I was banned? It wasn't because of my edits. It was because I asked for a moderator to help out. It seems that Bishonen and such feared that a moderator might side with me. I can't promise that I won't have another go at that topic, and if that breaks the deal and they ban me again, so be it. I don't think I'll get to be an editor here, not with my background. I mean background as in being emotionally volatile.
Maybe you are asking, why am I so headstrong with this topic? Why can't I back off, as you adviced me? Full disclosure: my father has been diagnosed with HIV more that 10 years ago. And he believes it wholeheartedly. He takes the medication. He claims that he contracted it when he had sex with a prostitute. Then, I started thinking. I remembered how the health campaings said that HIV is transmited by sex, but it doesn't present any symptoms in the genitalia. That was the first thing that didn't make sense. The last thing that made no sense happened two weeks ago, when I read the Wikipedia article about Circumcision and it claimed that having no foreskin reduces the chance of contracting HIV. Seriously? I told this to my father last week, and he said "Could be". People believe what they want to believe. And I was using Wikipedia as an outlet to my anger. I know. But it doesn't change the fact that some very strange things are being said, by medical doctors, by health campaigns, and by Wikipedia editors.
Thank you by your message, nonetheless. I'm Argentine. My native language is Spanish, so I guess I can help you if you need that kind of assistance. EzequielBelaus (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]
Yay! Ezequiel, congrats on your new account! I'm eager to respond to your post above, but I'm busy for several hours. If you could hold off adding anything to that article, or Talk page, I will be back and let's talk about your questions. I understand where your strength of reaction is coming from now, we are only human after all. Please hang on, I'll be back, soon. Meanwhile, I'm so glad you've registered, and decided to stay! ¿Conoces Lumfardo? Un abrazo, Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.173.175.155&oldid=843998211"