User talk:Rbb333

Robert Sears article

I see you tried to remove what you saw as bias at Robert Sears (physician). However, it looks like you may have added a bias towards your point of view, per WP:NPOV, bias should be corrected but not replaced with the opposite bias. Major changes to articles in controversial areas (like vaccination) should generally be discussed on the talk page first. Also, be aware that discretionary sanctions apply to vaccination-related articles, as one admin explained it to me "Discretionary sanctions mean that administrators are given far more leeway in what sanctions they may implement. Usually, administrators may only block editors, nothing else. In areas with discretionary sanctions, administrators are granted broad authority to place editing restrictions other than blocks on editors (e.g. WP:1RR or a topic ban). Normally, such restrictions can only be placed through community discussion. Administrators are also quicker to act against disruptive activity. There are less warnings to be had."

"Tornado Chaser".....who are you? It would be nice if you identify yourself before sending threatening messages to me in such a tone. What is your title and authority at Wikipedia? Who is your supervisor? Do you even work for Wikipedia? Why do you send such messages anonymously?

I would like you to show me which part of my edits were biased and how you came to the conclusion they were biased rather than factual. I believe I stated something to the effect that mainstream medicine has criticized his view on vaccinations but many families have followed his medical advice and have raised healthy children free of vaccinations and diseases they were warned to vaccinate against (paraphrased loosely from memory). This is the truth and it tells both sides. I also stated that Dr. Sears' approach is to simply examine the risk of contracting a particular disease and the risk of serious harm or death resulting if the disease was contracted and weigh it against the risk of the vaccination, in light of the fact they are not test by standard double-blind placebo testing like all other prescription medications, and the pharmaceutical companies are immune from lawsuits if their vaccinations were prepared negligently or caused harm or death to a child receiving the vaccination. I did not mention the last part which is the most startling and best reason to avoid vaccinations....the manufacturers have no motivation to keep them safe if the profits are large because they are immune from liability. They must have poured a lot of money into lobbying DC to get that law passed in the 1990s.

Stop attacking a doctor who challenges the establishment by smearing his reputation and instead, start stating what his position is and why. This is called discussing the merits of a particular position. Are you following me? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. Forgive me for striking out at you as if you were stupid. My bad.

I replaced ultra-biased, libel with moderate and respectful comments which are accurate and true on the subject being discussed. I have sources for all of it but not the time to invest in it right now. This bio is repugnant because it is so obviously biased. I am surprised that you allowed it to stand. Perhaps you (and/or the others responsible for approving edits) should check your own bias. We all have them. A course in bias was the first I was required to take as a temporary judge. We must understand and acknowledge that we all have bias and then we must check them at the door of the courtroom (and I propose at the door of Wikipedia).

The Wikipedia people in charge of final authorization of editing either embraced these horribly biased edits or pretended to look the other way even though they violate Wikipedia standards on neutrality simply because the Wikipedia editors agreed with the biased comments. This means Wikipedia is not trustworthy because its editors are active participants in furthering agendas they agree with rather than focused exclusively on delivering the truth with citations to back up the neutral factual statements made.

I am also troubled by the threatening tone of your email. While it is fine to notify me of potential consequences that could result from my editing if not backed by citations, it is startling to read the language of your message and the apparent power you have given to people who spend their lives editing your pages.

These people who are "super" editors tend to have an agenda, and it is NOT delivering the truth in an unbiased fashion. They spend so much time doing this because they have an agenda to convince others to think like them and ridicule, demonize, and marginalize those who do not. You've given the most editing power to these people simply because they help Wikipedia make money by continuing to develop your website. Doesn't it always come down to money and power in the end?

Extremists, typically on the left, try to restrict freedom of speech and respectful sharing of ideas, thoughts, argument, data, research, and experience if the person speaking disagrees with their point of view. They also try to attack and marginalize the person rather than address the merits of the position they have presented. Attacking people instead of ideas is juvenile, at best.

I will save your comments and share them with anyone who quotes Wikipedia so they do not actually take this website seriously.

Thank you for the warning, no matter the tone and manner in which it was presented. I will be sure to follow the rules when editing in the future. I presumed it would be deleted as it was never live and did not have citations, but I understand and will try to follow the rules more closely in the future.

Would you please email me a link that would provide an overview of the rules on editing so that I can become more knowledgeable about how to go about it. I think I will participate in effort to remove biased information that seeks to smear reputation rather than address the merits of a particular point of view in a neutral fashion.

Cheers!

I totally didn't mean it as a threat, I don't like to see well meaning new editors banned right away just because they didn't know all wikipedia's policies, when I was new I didn't know all the rules and was warned by an admin, so I wanted to give you a heads up, no threat at all.

I am strongly against bias and extremism, I don't work for wikipedia, i'm just an editor like you, see WP:VOLUNTEER. I have received personal attacks from other editors, and I work a lot on removing vandalism, I have eaven seen another editor (a vandal) make a death threat against someone who undid their vandalism, editing anonymously is common for these reasons, see WP:OUT

Speaking of bias, I have removed pro-vaccine bias; some examples: [1], [2], [3], and [4], I remove ANY bias, weather I agree with it or not, see WP:NPOV

You say you haven't added the sources yet, and that the article isin't live, actually an article goes live as soon as you hit save, if you want to experiment or work on an article without it being live, use your sandbox. When an article is live is must have sources in it, see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

The context in which you say that vaccines are not tested properly, the lack of citations, and the way you say "however, kids have not got the diseases the said they would get despite not being vaccinated", are the reasons that I thought your edit read like like an argument in favor of Sears.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask me, you are clearly not a vandal. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rbb333, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rbb333! 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 Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)