User talk:PeterSweden

Peter Daszak

Hi there, Peter (?). Accusing others of "censorship, restriction of freedom of speech and manipulation" is not okay. Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.

When I first reverted your additions I explained why: researchgate.net is not a reliable source for medical claims. See WP:MEDRS.. Have you taken to the time to read WP:MEDRS? You should. Health-related content, also called biomedical information, has special sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. As editors we need to follow these. Personal opinions or what we believe is "publicly known" doesn't really come into play. Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? has further explanations. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution: Zoonotic origin is not the only theory

Hi Robby (?)

The article regarding Peter Daszak contains a statement that he researched on "zoonotic disease outbreaks like that of COVID-19". But this does not show the full picture: Even the WHO commission which visited Wuhan in spring 2021 could not rule out that the origin is not zoonotic (basically means a lab escape). Some scientists - I linked 2 articles - even have the opinion that a zoonotic origin is extremely unlikely considering the furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the SarS-CoV2 virus genom sequence. Please study the especially the second article from thebulletin.org and the linked documents therein.

Whatever the trueth is, my strong opinion is that it is therefore very incorrect and missleading not to mention that the zoonotic origin is contested. Freedom of science and freedom expression does not allow to silence different and legitim opinions.

I am also wondering why you think Researchgate is not trustful, when you did not remove the next Researchgate link in the same article too? Can you explain this selectivity, otherwise this looks like to be a double standard?

Coincidently I opened another user talk- same content as above.

There would be a "salomonic" solution: We remove Covid19. Do you agree to that?

I saw that you already escalted the issue which is fine with me since I was thinking to do the same. I am looking forward and am curious about the outcome and will share it with some important scientists involved.PeterSweden (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Peter Daszak.

Regarding the other Researchgate reference: it is not being used to back bio-medical claims. It references what the article subject does professionally. I also haven't systematically reviewed the whole article for decent sourcing. I just happened to notice your changes.

Stop implying I am trying to hinder freedom of science or expression: Freedom of science and freedom expression does not allow to silence different and legitim opinions. Casting aspersions will get you blocked from editing in no time. I already referred you to WP:AGF above. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Daszak. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your reply

I also have the feeling that there is another user to be enganged in an edit war and this should not be talerated. This other user has made claims which can be discussed. However, in order to please these claims I have altered my replies each time. Therefore please judge yourself who is here engaged in an edit war.

I have certainly more important things to do and therefore have rased this issue for dispute regulation. The regulator may now decide based on knowledge and facts, but hopefully not based on politics or whatsever.

And I am therefore seriously shocked about being shamelessly threatened to be blocked. In my opinion this constand threats are leaving behind a disastrous impression regarding the communication culture which is harming Wikipedia. Thanks.

PeterSweden (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]