Magic.Mike63

March 22

Please read wp:v and wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven My edit request to have the term misinformation removed from an eminent medical professional is within the guidelines and is substantiated by documents released under a court order. Magic.Mike63 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Further more the guide lines look they were written by the phamasutical industry, why can't you mention the Sars virus without spreading misinformation?

It was the phamasutical industry that told government and health care administrators that Tamiflue gave good levels of protection against Sars, as it turns out they falsified the trial results.

Watch Statin Wars on the Carbs down under the YouTube channel, what is needed is independent funding of health care research and clinical trials. Magic.Mike63 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sars and Covcid are not the same thing, and please read [wp:or]], you cannot draw inference from sources, they must say what you want to say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven John mensioned Sars on his YouTube channel when he was talking about a British medical journal document recently published requesting the raw data from the Covid 19 trials and in the document it sighted Sars as an example of previous malpractice by the phamasutical industry.

Why does that mean he is spreading misinformation? Magic.Mike63 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to ask the RS that say he is, we are just repeating them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven It's the Wikipedia guide lines that are spreading misinformation in my opinion, everything John talks about is factual and based on medical publications, he is not spreading misinformation he is encouraging open debate about concerns he has about the emergency vaccination program. Magic.Mike63 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Then you need to take it up (say) as wp:pump and make a case as to why our policies need changing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Well I'm disappointed that Wikipedia are making it so difficult for someone with Dyslexia to make an edit request. Magic.Mike63 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Just tried to edit the Covid 19 Misinformation rule and it's impossible, is there a mentor program on Wikipedia I can join to collaborate with an experienced contributor? Magic.Mike63 (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have told you about the village pump, you can go there and ask for help. But one way is to edit in topics that are less contentious and not subject to WP:ACDS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Which reminds me

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.

Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Thanks for the advice but can't you see why I want to edit something that is classed as contentious when its fact based. Magic.Mike63 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See wp:rightgreatwrongs and wp:spa. We do not deal in facts we deal in verifiability, again, if RS does not actually say it we don't. I really can't say any more than that, please read and understand out polcies, that really is all the is to it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)