User talk:Krakikoko

Post to the right section

I'm not sure if this is a problem with the mobile web editor or you're just making a mistake. But if it's the latter, can you please make sure you post to the right section? You started a discussion about mask use here [1] which is probably fine. But you then proceeded to add comments about mask usage to random other discussion [2] [3]. You also made another comment in a closed discussion which seems to have nothing to do with the topic of discussion [4]. You also posted this [5] to no section. (If there is no existing section which fits your comment, start a new one like you did for the masks.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. I will post in the correct section from now. My comments were not added to a random discussion , I chose them because I thought I could help. Seems strange to me that I can't talk about the subject if the label is called "Talk". What can I do to fix this issues you mention?

Krakikoko (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, please note that talk pages are for discussions about how we can improve the article. They are not for your personal views on the subject matter, or anything other than suggestions how we can improve the article. It does not matter whether you feel they are appropriate for a page labelled "talk".

Anyway I don't quite understand you response. You seem to acknowledge a mistake, then claim it was intentional as you felt it would help. If you are claiming you "chose them because I thought I could help", can you explain how

I think its a generalization, but is true that prevention will be depending on the mask shape, materials, etc

had anything to do with

Newest publication: ten-fold (10x) increase in COVID-19 mortality observed among countries without BCG policy, versus thoroughly vaccinated countries.

?

Alternatively can you explain how

Maybe he/she meant to add the Use of Masks as an effective Prevention mechanism, regardless of discrepancies between countries measures and health organizations recommendations. BUT, this is controversial, because it could lead to all people buying essential PPE, leaving many (if not all) health workers unarmed in this war (this answers OC question).

had anything to do with

There are so many articles on this project Have listed the few that I found. Most of these articles, have redundant sections as these are covered in detailed manner in a different article. Is there a central page where all these articles are being listed ? Is there some method for editors of the different pages work together ?

?

Alternatively can you explain how

Yes, they covered things up. But EVERY other country would have done it; of course by different means. An argument people don't consider, is that independent of the source of any outbreak, people in charge will always act carefully and try to contain it before alarming everybody. I'm not defending nor saying that what Chinese leaders did was the best they could have done. But is human nature to try and fix a problem before admitting we are unable to, in this case tell the world "hey, we couldn't handle this silent assassin... we have failed" when you are one of the world's biggest economies. Put yourself in the position of a President. If shit is happening, you maintain it a secret and try to fix it to not cause mass hysteria. When that fails, you'll have to swallow a bitter pill and then tell people about what is happening.

had anything to do with

RfC What image should we use

(to be clear that discussion, was a closed RfC on which images to to show flattening the curve)?

You latest contribution to the talk page [6] was removed by someone else for reasons stated below. If we put aside the WP:forumish nature of your comments, I'd note you added

If we cannot decide for our own health and lives, we are not free. If we let our leaders decide how to distribute the PPE available, then we are being robbed if politicians decide to prioritize health workers when faced with shortages.

to a discussion about

Shouldn't this be renamed to COVID-19?
The official name is "COVID-19", it is also the common name. Sure, that name was derived from the term "coronavirus disease 2019" but that is not the actual name of the disease.-

You did not post it to the discussion on masks right below that where your comment was least related to the topic of discussion about masks.

Again I don't know if this was a problem with the mobile editor, although it looks to me like the talk page hadn't been edited for over an hour when you posted so I would be surprised if it's a bug. It seems more likely you are choosing whether by mistake or intent, the wrong topic, a completely unrelated one, to add your comments to.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely new to editing in Wikipedia, so I ignore how things work. I'm not doing it intentionally to cause problems, I just didn't understand the nature of the system. I can't argue what these 3 comments have to do with their topic and how to improve them; they are my opinion on the general subject. I apologize for my incorrect approach and for posting these comments. If they don't serve their purpose then I agree that they should be erased. Thanks for your guidance. Krakikoko (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

I have removed your recent comment at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019, as article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article and are not for general discussion/opinion about the subject - please see WP:NOTFORUM for further explanation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I understand. It won't happen again. Krakikoko (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]