User talk:MadJack1974GR

MadJack1974GR, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MadJack1974GR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to COVID-19 pandemic in Greece. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The material you are adding and re-adding is not properly sourced, it is not phrased in a neutral fashion, and frankly it isn't very good English. Don't re-add it, go to the article talk page if you believe any of it should be in the article, but at the moment at least 3 other editors oppose the inclusion - frankly you are adding poorly sourced conspiracy theories, 'beefed up' by your own obvious distrust of the present Gk government. Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MadJack1974GR when you write things like "I hope your messages and the interference in my text are in the context of the exchange of views and not directed by immoral politicians." I'm not sure whether you are joking or not. Do you really imagine that there are people 'directed by immoral politicians', working for the Gk government on WP?

Any content on WP has to come from a reliable source, a source with a reputation for checking its facts, which means no blogs, no youtube postings etc. It has to be neutrally phrased ("persecution by ZXY of ABC" is not neutrally phrased, it's your opinion, interpreting the facts, ascribing malicious intent - "extreme measures of the Mitsotakis govt" is not neutrally phrased - if we use an expression like "extreme measures", we say whose opinion it is that they are "extreme"). Content also has to be sufficiently important to warrant inclusion (which is ultimately decided by the agreement of other editors, not you or me individually). WP isn't a message board where you have a right to add anything you want - there are tons of those if you want, but WP has a different purpose. My removals, and those made by other editors have had that support on talk.

In the mist of all your text, there may be a few notable incidents, but frankly when a man posts on Facebook that he heard that someone went for a COVID test, left early but got a ++ result a few days later and even the person posting this on Facebook deleted it a few days later. Please! This is an urban myth or rumour at best. When you seek to dress this up by implying deliberate bolstering of numbers, you are making it into a conspiracy theory. When you interpret a Youtube video similarly you are advancing your own opinion with zero evidence to back it up. Of course there are various ways of counting anything, and there is no single reliable, universally accepted way of counting COVID deaths, each country has used a measure that best suits its circumstances and most medical authorities in the UK certainly believe that most ways of counting REDUCE the real figure. Regardless, neither your nor my interpretation has any usefulness to anyone. If you see medical experts as corrupt beings 'directed by immoral politicians', a) you need much better sources and learn to leave your own interpretation out of the text you add … or b). WP probably isn't the place for you.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 pandemic in Greece; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The material you are inserting, and reinserting in this article is not WP:RS, is based on your own interpretation of sources, it makes no attempt to be neutrally phrased and some of it is so obscure as to be little better than a conspiracy theory or urban myth.

Several editors have objected to the content on talk, but you make no attempt to engage with their arguments, indeed appear to think you have the right to ignore WP principles and guidelines,

You will be blocked if you continue, the rest of us have better things to do than 'clean up'. Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to some of your points is that it isn't our job to either attack or defend Gk, or any other Govt. If a substantial number of doctors/statisticians/politicians make a criticism, we record it neutrally - but a single MP making a claim about a piece of hearsay that he got from the widow of one individual is so trivial as to be nonsense. Of course the vast majority of deaths have other factors such as old age or pre-existing conditions. Not only is that true of all Covid deaths, it is true of almost all deaths - in a car accident - if everything else is equal - an elderly or unwell person is more likely to die than a young fit, healthy one. This happens in wars, in illnesses and it is a very well known trait of Covid. It is also a fairly common trait of Covid that the person appears to get better, then relapses and dies or becomes seriously ill - this is what happened to Boris Johnson, he got better and then relapsed. Obviously I don't know whether this was true of the instance you give, but a single non-medical source questioning a medical diagnosis on the basis of the impression of the widow is such thin evidence and so unimportant to anyone but that family as to be nonsense - even the source does not come to the conclusion you did, that this proved something.

As I say above, almost every country has controversies about the method of counting the dead. In the UK and France there was believed to be a huge UNDER-count initially, they now count all deaths where Covid was believed to be A factor, because it is almost impossible to establish whether it was THE main cause -and it is almost never the SOLE cause, because obviously the old or frail are much more likely to be killed by ANY disease, whether it be flu, common cold or Covid. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sotiris Tsiodras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roche. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiris Tsiodras

You have repeatedly attempted to insert text in the article that is unsupported by solid evidence and frankly constitutes libel against a living (and notable) person, though it'd be libelous in any case. I suggest that (a) you familiarize yourself with the WP:BLP policy, and particularly with the part about rumors, as soon as possible, and (b) you refrain for a period of time from editing in that specific article. There is a real case for taking this up for a topic ban. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations by blocking the violator. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2021 (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. The discussion can be found here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from COVID in Greece

In my role of uninvolved administrator, I have imposed on you a topic ban from Covid in Greece. Please read Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 for more information about the community-authorised general sanction. In particular, the topic ban means you may not make any edits in the articles which are reasonably related to Covid in Greece, nor may you discuss the topic at the talk pages, or actions of other editors related to the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Per WP:NOTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]