FrankBierFarmer

Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Douma chemical attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Cross, I will continue to discuss with you as it is recommend by Wiki standards on the talk page regarding the issue itself.

KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not open unblock requests on your archive page. That means someone has to investigate your request for unblocking. If you are able to edit your archive page, you aren't blocked! If you are having problems setting up archiving, no problem. User:lowercase sigmabot III can help you out! --Yamla (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I am archiving the first time, not very easy to do .. made quite some errors, .. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem! I probably made mistakes when I set it up, too. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

'Sidewhiskers' is a perfectly correct variant of 'side whiskers', as indeed is is 'side-whiskers'. An example of usage is from The Luzhin Defense, Ch 1 by Vladimir Nabokov:

"A daguerreotype of his maternal grandfather - black sidewhiskers, violin in hand - stared down at him, but then completely vanished, dissolving in the glass, as soon as he regarded the portrait from one side." Urselius (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment I agree about the synonyms and variants. However I did not understand it easily, and the Wiki link works only with the space in between, so I think it is the best for understanding. Hoping four your tolerance. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:ASPERSIONS before again implying that other editors could be paid propagandists, as you did here. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And again here. Focus on article content in talk pages; don't muse about "who profits". VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, "Again" is misplaced. You misunderstood it. "Profit" is something enterprises and institutions earn, pay what is given to workers. So no Wiki co-editor can be, and was, meant here. And please let´s clarify those issues at the talk page of the content site. I ask you now for the second time, not to use my user:talk page for it. Otherwise I start really to feel intimitated, as User:Cambial Yellowing has statet on 5th of February. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Article talk pages are intended for discussing improvements to the article. Communication directed specifically to you belongs here per WP:TALK#NOMETA. VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, please refrain from comments on me. You are not the headmaster of a class, where I am your pupil. I do not comment your writing style and tactics. I note here however, you do not accept, when you have erred. ( see above my answer on "Again"). Instead you just start a new "advice". This is exactly against the spirit of WP:TALK#NOMETA, you quoted. Please refrain from that on my talk page here. KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi FrankBier Farmer. Just want to remind you not to be put off or intimidated by any editors mischaracterising your actions as something they are not. You have done nothing wrong with regard to Wikipedia policy recently. Nothing specific in mind here but just remember that. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Cambial Yellowing. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, thank you for the information. I am interested in improvement of the content of pages, and therfore please tend to refrain from using my user page for questions which have been raised in the relevant content page. If the page Douma_chemical_attack has been improved in it´s balanced reporting, especially on source Bellingcat, I feel fine. And please lets use the talk page of the attack to clarify matters there. I asked you politely before to use the talk page, but you may have forgotten my wish (see my archive here). KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The notice above is mandatory; I am required to notify you if I mention you at ANI. I do not believe I had ever posted to you talk page before the February 3 notice above: we have no interactions in your talk page archive. VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, aha, thank you again... I am to new ... and sorry if I may have mixed you up, indeed it was another user from the "Bellingcat" - defenso group-. Apologize please for this short-hand, I am rather busy with other things at the moment. KR

Hello -- at Talk:COVID-19 vaccine, you said: however to dismiss the German medical association paper, but happily quote Bloomberg when talking on the US devlopments (final sentences of the national governments section), shows in my eyes, some lack of a balanced view of the world. To put a merchants outlet over a doctors one in the Covid-19 case, is courageous in my eyes. It was agreed that some scientific journal should report on the Russian vaccine, and then the news should be added to Wiki. Thus I followed the a priori established rule. The Deutsches Ärzteblatt is the German equivalent to JAMA. I guess if JAMA reports it, you would not dismiss it. With the same right, I could remove the final sentence on the US developments, based on Bloomberg. I think we should keep restrain and should discuss "removals" first. I urge you to improve my text, but not completley remove the statement stemming from the official association of German doctors. So please, undo your removal and improve the text please, jusst adding more of your sceptical in view.

I felt it was sufficient to have a discussion with you here rather than debate further on the vaccine article talk page. Note that the Deutsches Ärzteblatt article is not an actual study or review, but summarizes information published in widely-read, peer-reviewed journals, such as in Nature here and Science here. Your main point seemed to be making a case to include the Russian vaccine announcement under National governments in the article, but - with most of the world scientific community believing the Russians are just pushing propaganda about having the "first" vaccine (when no results are published), it is justified by consensus among other Wikipedia editors (see the Gam-COVID-Vac article and talk page) that we not state anything (since it is a false Russian government-led registration and approval process for a vaccine). We work as a collaboration of editors - if you wish to make a change to an article, the way to have it accepted is by a consensus of other editors, WP:CON. Besten Wunschen! Zefr (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Zefr what I want here, is the same as you, and the consensus of editors it seems, for this Vaccine page.

It is a balanced reporting based on "peer reviewed journals" . Note however the Deutsche Ärzteblatt is peer reviewed, and as I argue a much more "peer reviews scientific journal" as Bloomberg is.Or do you disagree on that? So does Bloobmerg fullfill your/our criteria above? Is it peer reviewed? Obviously No. Please answer specifically, what you think.And thank you for your trial of kind wisches for me, however "Best Wunschen!" does not make any sense in German, but it sound somehow kind.My humble wish = Wunsch, not even my best wish, is, to treat sources the same. Be it American ones, or German ...

So to see as you, "Bloomberg" as sacrosanct to be used as source here, and "Deutsches Ärzteblatt" not ... what shall I say .. that is my least wish.That is not the information world I want the English Wikipedia to be a reflection of ... Or do you?Please be aware what bias your are introducing here. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear why you are focusing on replacing Bloomberg with the DA content. What reference is it specifically, and likely if Bloomberg was used - numerous other globally published news services could have been used for the same information (Bloomberg is a worldwide financial and news site). The only requirement for news about the Russian vaccine is WP:RS, which Bloomberg fulfills, and it is logical for this encyclopedia that sources be in English (German Wikipedia here, where the DA source may be better). Zefr (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, pure commercially or market propaganda oriented statements may not be of interest as o little sientific value:

How do you defend then that sentece I mean, based on evidence from Bloomberg, you request above:

"In June, the Warp Speed team said it would work with seven companies developing COVID‑19 vaccine candidates: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, and the University of Oxford in collaboration with AstraZeneca, as well as two others.[56]"

What scientific value is in that?It should be removed, as my whole paragraph has been removed by you, that is, what I wish now.

And please note, for the sake of transparency I will furtheron use the talk page on the subject to discuss with you on this issue.FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

For that statement which does not address medical content (where WP:MEDRS would be needed), Bloomberg merely is reporting what dozens of other world news sites reported for OWS. You can fight this for consensus on the COVID-19 vaccine talk page if you like, but I am finished here, as I believe you are making a futile, hollow argument. Zefr (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

--RexxS (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't edit war. When content you add is challenged, you don't just re-insert your original content. This article is under general sanctions, and I'll take steps to see you sanctioned if you continue to edit war.

Don't misrepresent sources. I assume you can read German, and I am sure you know that the Deutsches Ärzteblatt (more a 'magazine' in English than a 'journal') article does not support the sentence you wrote:

• Peter Liese, a member of the European Parliament (MEP), who criticises among other issues, the lack of publication of data or articles in peer reviewed journals.

The article states that the BMG made that criticism:

„Die Zulassung eines Impfstoffs in Europa setzt neben dem Nachweis der pharmazeuti­schen Qualität, hinreichende Erkenntnisse aus klinischen Prüfungen zum Beleg von Wirk­samkeit und Unbedenklichkeit voraus“, erklärte das BMG auf Anfrage.

The quote from Peter Liese was a comment about the vaccine candidate being behind six other projects in its testing:

„Der russische Impfstoff hat nur die Phasen eins und zwei der klinischen Prüfung abge­schlossen. Damit sind die Russen eigentlich hinten dran, denn weltweit gibt es schon sechs Projekte, die diese ersten beiden Phasen seit längerem abgeschlossen haben“, sagte Peter Liese, gesundheitspolitischer Sprecher der größten Fraktion im Europäischen Parlament (EVP-Christdemokraten). Diese sechs Projekte würden nun in die notwendige dritte Phase gehen.

Now, you either misread the source or you deliberately misrepresented what it stated. In either case, it's not acceptable behaviour in an article under GS. If you do that again, you can be assured that your editing privileges on the English Wikipedia are likely to be rapidly curtailed. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear User RexxS,

Discussion moved to the content page, wrong accusations and trial of intimidation as done for first time, will not be reported of.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at COVID-19 vaccine, you may be blocked from editing. Your repeated addition of this content and the limited content in the sources is not convincing. There are no independent sources with "eyes on the ground" in Russia to verify this. It's just further propaganda of a future event that is not verified; WP:V needed. Zefr (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Zefr. Your complaint on my user talk page is unjustified, your threat is intimdating and you are disruptive in your editing behaviour. You do not answer on the talk page of the subject, that is violating basic Wiki policies.

I invited you for discussion on the talk page of the subject 48 hours ago. You did not and could not defend your edit warring actions. There was ample of time.

So you are edit warring systematically. If you continue with this behaviour I have to report it to the approbriate levels in Wikipedia. Please refrain from using my talk page, please use the talk page of the subject to make your arguments transparent to all editors. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of an edit summary is to explain why an edit was made or reverted. I provided that sufficiently on 31 Aug: "WP:NOTNEWS for a future event that cannot be independently confirmed; WP:CRYSTAL" and again today: "WP:BRD - no consensus or adequate independent sourcing to verify this. Resembles Russian propaganda. This edit note is an explanation; get consensus on the talk page." You are wanting to add something that is unverified by independent sources, and seem to be pushing Russian propaganda about the Gam-Covid vaccine candidate. What is the hurry? Wait for reputable sources that may - or likely probably not - be able to confirm the status of Russian research on this vaccine. This is still an announcement of a possible future event (for which the Russians have been notably missing their promised reporting), which Wikipedia does not provide as an encyclopedia: that is why the policies NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL exist.

Meanwhile, the burden is on you to 1) verify the Die Presse source with more extensive, independent references - see WP:BURDEN, and 2) build consensus among other editors to include this content in the article, WP:CON. You had no other editors supporting your desire to include this content from the talk page - this should reveal to you that other editors don't feel your edit is worthwhile to include. You are being disruptive by insisting to include content without adequate verification. The warning about disruptive editing is justified.

Lastly, your use of English is poor and contains simple reckless errors of spelling and punctuation. You can practice in your sandbox, then seek help with English at WP:HELP. You also don't format references - a guide for beginners is at WP:REFB. Slow down and don't create extra work for others to clean up your careless editing. Zefr (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear user:Zefr, please see my reply on the subjects talk page, I am waiting again for a response from you there.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac, you may be blocked from editing. Focus on quality writing and sources for the article, not on an individual editor; read WP:NPA.

Also, why spend time on the English Wikipedia where your knowledge and practice of the English language and syntax are evidently so poor? You can freely edit on the German Wikipedia. Perhaps you'll enjoy the experience more there. Zefr (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

>> I cast my vote as of today, (FrankBierFarmer (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zhurong (rover), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjunction. 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) 06:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Munich Charter, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Infobox Munich Charter, was tagged as a page made in error under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, due to the page being mostly or fully comprised of a template loop or other technical issues, and has been or soon may be deleted.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aidan9382 _(talk) 21:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)