This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Liz: pease see Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Is_this_new? where @Shibbolethink: has turned the talk page into a science forum to discuss the covid orgins instead of simply citing sources in The Telegraph. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Doesn't state a case for unblock, and having seen what you've posted below I now have to go look at what you might have posted on other talk pages and see if it's what Bishnone revoked your talk page access for. If it is, that goes again too, as well as this essay. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alright, I'm not revoking talk page access (Stop the presses!) because it does not look like this is what triggered the previous such action. Although I must let you know, this is not any likelier to get you unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Shibbolethink:, sorry for pushing your buttons lately, I know It was a little much. We both want wikipedia to be the best, but of course we can't all always see eye to eye on ever issue, and that's okay. Covid is a serious issue and we all have friends who have died from it and that naturally makes people very passionate about the facts surrounding it. Hope we can have some productive discussion on the matter in the future. Wishing you a relaxing weekend. Thanks. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Drafting my new Wikipedia exposé here, as a courtesy please don't delete. More research to follow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Sin of Wikipedia: The EcoHealth Coverup

There are real life consequences to what is decided here. The result will influence the spread of misinformation on the internet. - Shibbolethink

I, 2600:8804:6600:C4, have witnessed a dark side of wikipedia since the beginning of September. While still being unable to prove the natural zoonotic explanation for Sars2, scientist wiki users have swarmed COVID-19_lab_leak_theory to cleanse all mention of the EcoHealth Alliance despite many COVID-19 lab leak theories now citing Peter Daszak by name. Despite public knowledge of prevaricating by top science officials (here: Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#February_1,_2020_Teleconference), wikipedia has failed to investigate or protect the biased editing of the lab leak article and talk page. This is not a matter of anti-vax, ivermectin, or injecting bleach. These are respected journalists covering an immensely important topic under intense scrutiny and pressure from powerful figures. Lets not make Wikipedia_coverage_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic a story of shame.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

While still being unable to prove the natural zoonotic explanation it seems that this needs to be repeated everywhere: throughout history, the origin of many pathogens have not completely been tracked yet it is understood that they came from nature and evolved, often via intermediate hosts. It was the case for all known epidemics and pandemics as far as we know, so remains the default, most plausible explanation, especially as serious current research is promising and progressing to achieve a better understanding on the origins. It was also predicted that for environmental reasons and the increasing level of interaction between animal habitats and humans, and considering the high constant contamination rate (fortunately often of lesser concern), another pandemic would unevitably eventually occur. Other scenarios are considered extraordinary. A lab leak is always a possibility but so far has never resulted in a serious epidemic and is unlikely to, because of basic security protocols. Speculating about this without credible evidence is out of the scope of an encyclopedia, except for critical coverage of notable stories, using the best sources. So far, those sources remind us of the scientific consensus, that the plausible origin is natural, as usual. WP is not about WP:SYNTH to connect the dots and unlike a number of websites, does not care about clickbait-revenue, so is not the place to promote. —Paleo Neonate – 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources Uncited in COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

November 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.

Add topic