User talk:Dr Philip Taylor

Dec 21

You really need to read wp:rs, wp:not and wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating... but I'm not sure how this will help improve the quality of your article on Campbell.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is telling you to avoid a ban at some point for violating them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but with all due respect, Wikipedia really should consider making an objective assessment of the content of this article to see it even meets your own standards as being fit for publication - "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

As I said, if you think the article should be deleted nominate it for wp:afd. If you just do not like it, make a case at talk for alterations. But do not AFD just because you can't get your way, that would be wp:disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Like it"? - I hadn't thought about it like that. Academically, it's lousy but also entertaining, so not all bad I guess. I've clearly highlighted the technical shortcomings of the article, however as you chaps seem happy with it I'll leave up to you to decide whether you keep it as is, improve or delete it. Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article will not get deleted without either a wP:csd or wp:afd, and you need to make the case for it when you make a formal request using either of those two routes. So not the article will not get deleted based upon that talk page discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My son's summary is that Wikipedia is great for the molar weight of a molecule or the date of a battle. But poor fir biography, political and current affairs. I sympathise with Dr Philip Taylor that the article doesn't seem to capture anything like the essence of Dr. Campbell's work. That it doesn't is an illustration that Wikipedia's "editing model facilitates multiple systemic biases: namely, selection bias, inclusion bias, participation bias, and group-think bias". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia That is the way the world works to deliver a fantastic resource but one that seems to let down outsiders. DicksterWall (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... but I remain an enthusiastic subscriber. You wouldn't find that openness in The Guardian or The Telegraph. DicksterWall (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we can only go with what RS care about. Now there maybe an argument for an AFD, but that needs to be made at an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting comments

Please WP:INDENT your talk page comments by putting an appropriate number of colons at the start (one colon = one unit of indentation), it makes it easier for other contributors to see the structure of a conversation. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you and season's greetings.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

feb 22

You really need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will it help improve the quality of this Wikipedia article?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No but it will look good, as right now you do seem to be here for one reason That tends to end up with blocks or bans. Also getting editing experience under your belt might make you better understand how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would constructive criticism of an article "end up with block or bans"? This is supposed to be a "talk page". For debate...?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because if it is all you are here to do it can be argued you are wp:nothere to build an Encylopedia, but to fight for this person reputation's (do you have as wp:coi by the way?). Also (as I said) " getting editing experience under your belt might make you better understand how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IN fact your recent claim over source 3 is a good example, the link it not broken as you claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As right now you are making a number of errors, such as wp:synthesis, and not understanding wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

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.

Sigh... Nope, not remotely interested in COVID-19, just interested in getting this bio for Dr John Campbell chiselled into some kind of shape.

The template isn't really about your interests; it's about your edits. Obviously the article falls under the COVID-19 topic area, and we want to make sure that editing in that contentious area is done neutrally and without disruption. What you are doing on that talk page is not productive; you are bludgeoning other editors, who have offered you answers based in policy. You seem to refuse to listen to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, making a mockery of both the policies and other editors--that also is a violation of our policies. They do not deserve your scorn. So please consider this a warning--thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "They do not deserve your scorn. So please consider this a warning". But I'm not the one putting slanderous rubbish on the internet - you chaps really ought to spend more time working on your copy than being overly offended by a bit of light-hearted banter, and a genuine effort to improve this article.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I assume you've notified other editors of this talk page of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  - The other editors are well aware of these policies and guidelines, having edited here, and on this subject matter, for years. The topic is too serious for light-hearted banter; for that we have Facebook. I am still assuming good faith, that you are genuinely interested in improving the article, but badgering contributors and beating dead horses (about his Ivermectin claims), or steering the conversation toward a discussion about the supposed efficacy of Ivermectin, that's not helping to improve the article. The fact that this topic is your only interest so far on Wikipedia (yes, WP:SPA applies) does not help either. Finally, please don't do the "offended" thing; that's an accusation that easily bounces back. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd then how all of your edits have been related to Covid misinformation, this is what is meant by an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as John Campbell (YouTuber) for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 11:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven Are you being facetious? All my edits have been related to Dr John Campbell misinformation and the distinct the lack of it.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of your edits have been about Mr John Campbell's misinformation about COVID. You also need to read WP:LAWYERING and WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I beg to differ - all my edits relate to the poor quality of the article in that it does not accurately represent Dr Campbell's life. The "COVID misinformation" section in the article was not put there by me.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that has been the focus of your edits here, trying to get that section removed or re-written. It is about COVID, so you are editing about COVID. After all, it's not as if his misinformation is about cats or the use of Bananas to cure leprosy, is it? It does don't matter if you added it, you are discussing it, thus you are editing in an area related to COVID. It's really not that hard to figure out. As I said above you need to start getting in other topic areas to show this is not your sole area of interest. I have told you what you are doing wrong, I will stop now, what happens is now on you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh… Okay, have it your way.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really simple. User:Drmies and I were both members of the WP:Arbitration Committee that sets such sanctions, and we are telling you that your edits are covered by these sanctions. We are also able to sanction you, eg ban you from editing in the area or even block you, either from certain pages or entirely. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe that's the just and right thing to do, there's little I can do about it. But banning me from contributing won't really be beneficial to improving the content of this article, which, I have to say is utter rubbish. Numerous other contributors have also pointed this out too. I suggest describing Dr Campbell (a nurse and medical professional) as a "YouTuber" is not the most useful way to title this page. After all, if he'd been using Soundcloud or Twitter as a means of communicating his educational material, one wouldn't describe him as a "Soundclouder" or "Twitterer" would one? These things are merely a means of a communication, media, not a defining attribute of the person utilising them. Do you see my point? If we can at least get the title right, we could then maybe move onto correcting the misinformation about Dr Campbell edited out and look at putting some content in there actually relates to the man himself. I hope this sounds reasonable. --Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not getting involved with the article itself. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to YouTuber, I supposse we could follow The Guardian and call him "YouTube blogger" - but that just seems wordy. A YouTuber is what he is, so *shrug*. Alexbrn (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the rock band, 'U2' are "iTuners"?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

You asked for a peer reviewed paper about ivermectin's efficacy. If you look at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic it's a little more complex than that. But Wikipedia also cares about using even better sources for biomedical claims, like systematic reviews (WP:MEDRS). A few of these are cited: doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015017.pub2, doi:10.1038/s41429-020-0336-z, doi:10.1136/bmj.n949, doi:10.1093/cid/ciab591, doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111678. Major medical bodies will also stress that there's no evidence for prevention or treatment of COVID-19: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials is an example. But more general reliable sources can be used to mention the fact that misinformation has been provided. Wikipedia should also not present a false balance between personal opinions and the scientific consensus (WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV). I hope this was useful, —Paleo Neonate – 10:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You asked for a peer reviewed paper about ivermectin's efficacy." Thanks, but I did not.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that refers to your statement ". Finally, it's good practice to have least three (3) peer-reviewed references supporting each point" - which looks like a request for peer reviewed papers. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see how it could be construed as that. I'll elucidate a little: it was a criticism of the lousy referencing in this article. For example, the statement, "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment" has no references supporting it, other than the one with a broken link (making it useless as a source, as it cannot be validated).--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told the link works, you've also been told there's zero requirement for you to be able to access it. Any more WP:IDHT nonsense and I'm asking for sanctions. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you accuse me of "whining".--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CIR

You have (more than once) said a link it broken when it is not (more than once), you have been told that your claims "it cannot be validated" is not true, as all wp:v requires is that some editors can access the source, not all. This really now looks like either wp:trolling or a wp:cir issue, which along with your clear SPA nature means that if you continue to (being generous) be disingenuous about our policies or your actions, I will report you to wp:ani as it is now clear you are wp:nothere to build an Encylopedia and are being wp:tenditious, and are a time sink wasting our time. This is your last warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power corrupts…--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive and troll-like behavior relating to COVID topics.

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 ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This has become a time sink due the editor either being truly ignorant of how we do things, or simply a troll. I'm betting a troll. I wouldn't consider an unblocked without a discretionary sanction style topic ban on Covid topics, broadly construed, although any reviewing admin is free to do as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... how predictable.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trolling and talk page access will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For gods sake man, learn the lesson, you have been told what you have been doing wrong, and you continue to do it, this is why you are being seen as just a troll. At any point, you could have proven us wrong by editing another page, or saying "yes I get policy says this". Now you may even lose talk page access.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Philip Taylor, this is indeed quite predictable, unfortunately. a. Person comes to Wikipedia only to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, without knowing how we operate; b. Editor works only on their chosen topic and gets into conflict because they do not care to figure out how we operate; c. Editor is explained how we operate and refuses to listen; d. Editor is blocked and complains. You could have stopped at any moment to reconsider what you are doing but you chose not to--the result is indeed predictable. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven "For gods sake man, learn the lesson, you have been told what you have been doing wrong, and you continue to do it". Please calm down and try thinking before reacting: All I've done is suggest edits to a webpage. Try and keep some perspective. BTW how is editing another page even relevant?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told (by me and others) that you look like an SPA that is only here for one reason. You have been told we have policies you have to obey to "suggest edits to a webpage". You have been told this (repeatedly) and have refused to take it on board. So it now looks deliberate, that you know what you are doing and it is a conscious decision to deliberately ignore our policies. This is why you have been blocked, you are not listening to what you are being told. I (literally) told you at the top of this page why being a wp:spa is a bad idea. You have been banned as you have shown no desire or interest (or indeed even capacity) to obey our policies. As such if you continue to edit you will make the same points, ask the same questions over and over again and get the same answers. Thus you are a waste of our time. This is why (as I said right at the top of this talk page) it would be a good idea to stop editing the one article you are interested in, so you can get some experience of how we do things without us having to waste out time telling you 15 times "this needs an RS". You are still not listening, and we are still WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus you are a waste of our time". The feeling's mutual. --Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a. Person comes to Wikipedia only to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS" Well, I certainly failed in that.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think talk page access should now be revoked, this is just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. WP:UTRS is available if an unblock is desired. I suggest everyone just go find something else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]