Empiricus-sextus

Welcome!

Hello, Empiricus-sextus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 04:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your nice welcome and yout tips, I´m a wikipedian over 5 years, but mostly I´m working (if I have time) in the German Wikipedia with a concentration on science. Only sometimes I come here:--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Wikipedia appreciates your Contributions... Keep it up... Denver C. (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Empiricus-sextus, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand this 100 % (I was a strong fighter for the copyright issue in wikipedia -see my german side) but the press statement is more or less an open source UN document without any copyright (until you citate the source correctly !) Specially in the context it is even necessary to use the "UN words". I´m offically for Wikimedia Germany at the conference - the text was exactly verbal communicated on the press conference. For me it`s enough to care for the german version.... --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The UN webpages are copyright, according to their copyright page: "COPYRIGHT © UNITED NATIONS All rights reserved. None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part..." so you're not allowed to copy their material to Wikipedia. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources on Estiphan Panoussi

Hello Empiricus, if you could have a look at your article Estiphan Panoussi and make sure all content there is sourced to a reliable source, that would be ideal. The English Wikipedia has stricter norms around the sourcing of biographies of living people than the German Wikipedia does. If he has gotten significant coverage in independant sources, that is also good to add to demonstrate notability.

See you around, – Thjarkur (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I add some strong source. Should be o.k. now ! Best Greetings --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Estiphan Panoussi

The article Estiphan Panoussi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I add some strong sources - should be o.k.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Long overdue

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) 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And now with a nice thread at WP:ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a sanction

This sanction has been removed; the topic ban is not longer in place. See #Topic ban removed (Special:Diff/1026737918) for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The following sanction has been imposed on you: You are indefinitely topic banned from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly personalized a content dispute with statements such as "One has to be blind not to see [...] Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.",[1] "Sorry, you don't understand the relationship between politics and science in China [...] You do not understand that",[2] and "If you don't know anything about biosafety, you should better not respond here. I see you are a proven expert in medicine but this is a biosafety issue for which other scientific backgrounds are relevant.",[3] and because you are persistently perpetuating disputes by sticking to your viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive, by: repeatedly insisting on the creation of an article deleted at WP:MFD/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis: "We need neutral article on the laboratory hypothesis. This is pure disinformation !",[4] "possibly in another article",[5] "we need a neutral balanced article on this very fundamental issue [...] an additional article on the controversy of the laboratory hypothesis",[6] and by steadily insisting that the origin of COVID19 is not an issue to which WP:MEDRS applies: "Laboratories are per se not research subjects - and therefore strict scientific standards do not apply here. [...] This is not only an issue of science but also of international politics",[7] "One has to be blind not to see - that the laboratory thesis is a highly political issue. [...] this has less to do with science, but with politics. Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.",[8] "The laboratory lack question is a biosafety and biosecurity issue [...] The question of natural origin belongs first of all to animal virology.",[9] "from a scientific point of view regarding biosafety",[10] "all this has nothing directly to do with medicine and missinformation",[11] "MEDRIS must be the central source for all medical questions concerning COVID 19, but this question is about biosafety [...] It is the wrong methodology to answer this question. For this reason, we have no choice but to consult other reliable sources."[12] This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, kindly consider lifting the topic ban placed on Empiricus-sextus. The two reasons you gave for the ban simply do not hold up.

• Firstly, Biosafety is a field dedicated to managing occupationally-acquired infections and the WHO Director General publicly acknowledged that the WHO team’s report on a possible laboratory incident was not extensive enough. The team did not have a biosafety expert and the DG said the possibility of a laboratory incident requires further investigation by a more specialised team. This is what Empiricus-sextus was trying to say in the statements you cited in the topic ban notice.
• Secondly, the deletion of a long abandoned draft by the esteemed CambridgeBayWeather was before the March 30 WHO report and WHO DG remarks, and does not make for a good reason to topic ban an editor bringing up the topic for WP:CCC in good faith. A much improved version of that draft was published as an article titled COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis by the affable Arcturus, which was repeatedly WP:BLARed by certain NOLABLEAK zealots, in circumvention of the customary WP:AFD and WP:RFC procedures, causing much upset. The article does not claim there was a leak like the WP:NOLABLEAK essay claims there wasn’t, and could be renamed to COVID-19 lab leak controversy with further improvements from experienced editors. Even if the hypothesis is disproven, the controversy is WP:N and will be a value to future historians, bored housewives who scroll through our random articles, or songwriters looking for inspiration for their next hit.

If you do lift the ban, my advice to Empiricus-sextus would be to leave this topic to experienced EN:WP editors. Tinybubi (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have read this message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Friendly note

Since you have already been issued a topic ban under general sanctions relating to COVID-19, I would recommend you quit engaging in discussions that could be construed as relating to the subject (such as these two edits to User:ToBeFree's talk page). jp×g 22:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thank you for your nice advice. I didn't want to get involved here either way. I could not contribute anything here anyway - there was already an implicit, even dogmatic source ban not only for me, but also for many arguments, sources also from many colleagues.I made only one suggestion for improvement and was very surprised by the selection criteria. This very strict and wrong rule interpretations (from few editors) leads to dogmatic discussions (in one other topic) - is a logical consequence. There is nothing more to say about it.

You are a source expert, as I have seen -what I have understood so far, is that in Wikipedia to certain topics the sources must fit (but what happens if scientific sources can be automatically excluded ? - is not regulated !), that we must also take into account the background and circumstances and then weigh what where we find consensus. This basic rule is here out of order, I have oriented my behavior to it and I do not think that is wrong with me, my behavior, but we have a rule problem - resulting in a content problem.

In special cases an adjustment (what you suggestet- I think !) would make sense, reasons I and other had mentioned, otherwise you violate rules and that leads to misbehaviour. I think that in the future much more research will follow, pro and contra, but I think we should (not as now) exclude none of the results of both options here, also not the cirumstances, etc... Thanks again and have a nice Sunday.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: There is no adjustment necessary for rules; because in WP:MEDRS we have this rule: "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." That was exactly my position in the discussion and above, which I emphatically defended. It's logic. Biosecurity and Biosafty - the laboratory topic in general is a multidisciplinary topic, with a lot of non-medical informations. I have behaved correctly according to WP.There is a misunderstanding of the application of the MEDRS rules. Also - I have never used a NON MEDRS source in an article, wrote nothing - only discussed, that is a big difference.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Empiricus-sextus: I would, again, recommend you quit engaging in discussions that could be construed as relating to the subject (such as this one). jp×g 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I realize that. I am not interested in discussions on the topic, as I said, I respect the topic ban here. I'm just trying to understand the rules that led to my ban. Our Wikipedia can't be that illogical - fortunately. If the rule applies, the topic ban is disproportionate. There is a need for clarification. As I said it is a problem of interpretation and correct application of rules - my mistake was that I didn't really check deeper the WP:MEDRS correctly. I have discussed for something that has long existed here !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A topic ban means you are not allowed to discuss the subject, anywhere on the website, nor are you allowed to argue about the specific details of why you were actually right in the argument about the subject that led to it. While you can appeal it on the issuing admin's talk page or at WP:AN, I do not recommend you immediately doing this: it would probably be a better idea to spend a while editing elsewhere on Wikipedia (in non-controversial subjects) and get a better feel for how things work beforehand. jp×g 03:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of making helpful contributions to talk page discussions, I'd recommend reading WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. jp×g 07:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing in wikipedia for nearly 20 years !!! The basic rules are already clear to me. As an occasional editor, I certainly do not know the many, new nuances (specially here in the english WP), but basically I do not make personal attacks. I am diplomatic, but strict and logic in the argumentation. But this should not be taken as a PA. Thank you for advice....--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban removed

Hi Empiricus-sextus,

first of all: I'm sorry. I have attempted to strictly enforce the verifiability and civility policies in this area of conflict, but I have misinterpreted the situation and taken severe unilateral action that later turned out to lack the consensus I was sure it had.

A discussion is currently being held at Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. (current permanent link) and will probably continue to run until about 25 June 2021 (WP:RFC#Duration). The current state of the discussion and a possibly relevant comment at Special:Diff/1026317283 make it hard to justify keeping your ban in place. A major part of the reason that led to your ban is currently being challenged, to my honest surprise.

I can understand that having been banned at all is an upsetting, hurtful situation, and the discussion in the "Friendly note" section above must have further felt like an attempt to silence any dissent. There was always the option of appealing the ban at WP:AN, as described in the last paragraph of the ban notification, but after the experience here on your talk page (25 April 2021 to 28 April 2021), I believe that this community's apparent collective response to your concerns has felt so illogical and stonewalling that you felt discouraged from making an appeal at all.

I should not have made my understanding of WP:MEDRS's scope a part of the reasons for your ban, at any time. I should instead have evaluated your conduct purely regarding the WP:NPA aspect described in the first part of the ban explanation. I would then also probably not have reached the conclusion that banning you from the topic area was necessary to prevent disruption.

Your topic ban "from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed", is removed. The removal of this ban will be logged at WP:GS/COVID19: I'll apply strikethrough formatting (example) to the sanction entry and add a sub-entry pointing to this removal notice. There is no entry at WP:RESTRICTIONS; if there was one, I'd remove it now.

The discussion that led to this decision can be found at User_talk:ToBeFree#Grievances and questions and will be archived to User_talk:ToBeFree/A/3#Grievances and questions afterwards. Archiving happens relatively quickly (24 hours without comments) on my talk page, and modifying the archive should usually not be done, but in this specific case, if you'd like to add feedback to that discussion, you can do so until 01 August 2021 even if the discussion has already been archived, and you can point to this message here if someone tries to prevent you from doing so. This is meant to ensure that you have the final word in a discussion that you had initially been prevented from joining. You're free to ping editors in your message as well, to notify them about the response.

Again, I'm sorry. I have made a mistake here by enforcing a consensus that turned out not to exist in the way I thought it did.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear ToBeFree,

thanks for your correction and the removal of the topic ban. I did not take it personally. I am aware that the administrators sit between all chairs and to do the right job for Wikipedia, the community and the world is very difficult - concerning the origin question. The time out was also not a real problem, since I only occasionally write in Wikipedia anyway.

Best regards --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Empiricus-sextus, this relieves me. Thank you also for providing a statement at WP:ARC.

I guess the only possible outcomes of the case are a) the committee taking no actual action, or b) the committee converting WP:GS/COVID19 to the slightly more strict and formal WP:AC/DS procedures. None of these two options would have an impact on the RFC linked above, which may be the most important area of COVID19-related discussion at the moment. When that RFC is closed, hopefully by multiple experienced administrators or bureaucrats, the result will probably have a very strong impact on all of the origin discussions.

There's probably still a lot of time to do so, and I guess you already have this on your schedule, but just saying: A concise statement with policy-based arguments in the RFC is probably a valuable opportunity I'd recommend taking before it's closed.

Best regards and sorry again,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear ToBeeFree - all good. I have added in the RFC discussion - which was almost finished - a section Conclusions, which comes more from the point of view of the philosophy of science or medicine (my specialty) and looks at the whole thing from another perspective. Basically, all discussions here are going in circles, because of complex problems of classification of contents medical (bioinformation) and non-medical (no bioinformation). If this is understood and we find consensus on the correct application (of MEDRS) and Bioinformation - a central problem is solved. Greeting --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Hi Empiricus. When you get a chance, please have a look at WP:CANVASS, particularly don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. You are not supposed to notify people who have a certain POV about an RFC en masse. [1][2][3] People are supposed to find it naturally via their watchlists, on the list at WP:RFC, via the Feedback Request Service, or via postings at central locations such as WikiProjects and noticeboards. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)