User talk:Modanung

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation
So far I've given you the benefit of the doubt, in that you might not be aware you're propagating a falsehood. I've observed intelligent people, who only made the mistake of failing to realize early on that their information sources were compromised, falling into similar traps. What you're claiming to be "known" is not known. Actually, some time back there were reports circulating that the Trump administration was planning to lie about the statistics when the US death toll reached/approached 100,000; so it's not only not "known", as disinformation it isn't even unexpected.

Separately from that, our article would not need correction even if what you're asserting hadn't been false, because, following basic good news practice, we reported on what was said rather than endorsing it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you consider the CDC and The Spectator and Deborah Birx compromised information sources? Modanung (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Assumptive administration
helpme Pi zero is persistently ignoring the WikiNews guideline to never assume as well as the neutral point of view policy. See also this history. Modanung (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but regarding US it appears to be unsourced. The links provided are not about wrongness of the US data, they are about other countries.
 * Even if there were, the article says "Johns Hopkins University data indicated so-and-so many deaths", so the article isn't wrong even if the data is. (Ref. npov, attribute).
 * Also when it is over 24 hours after publication, articles cannot be expanded. Instead they can be corrected only if it is unambiguously clear that the information was incorrect.
 * In the case it is a recent find, why not write a new separate report about the wrongness of the death tolls in the several countries? Gryllida (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this article and its sources contain misleading information while being on the front page. Look harder. Modanung (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please link to the source that says, about the US specifically, that this is wrong? Gryllida (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are US flu death figures more PR than science?
 * Because this article and its sources contain misleading information while being on the front page. Look harder. Modanung (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please link to the source that says, about the US specifically, that this is wrong? Gryllida (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are US flu death figures more PR than science?

US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably.
 * Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)
 * Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on  a  death  certificate  as “probable” or “presumed.”
 * Dr. Deborah Birx | Recording Covid-19 as Cause of Death No Matter What
 * Dr. Deborah Birx | Recording Covid-19 as Cause of Death No Matter What

[...] the intent is right now that those [sec] if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
 * Modanung (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In this context, it would be a problem to say "COVID-19 death toll in the US exceeded N"; it would be less of a problem to say "COVID-19 death toll in the US exceeded N, according to data XYZ". Would you agree?
 * 2) I'm reluctant to insert "these data is questionable" into the article, because it is a question, not a fact. Can you process these sources and find facts? For example, "This figure includes cases of compromised kidneys and heart, which were further aggravated by catching the COVID-19 virus and then resulted in fatal outcome", if this is true, could be a fact. Gryllida (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added more sources to the talk page of the article. Take a good look, instead of making silly requests. Modanung (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added more sources to the talk page of the article. Take a good look, instead of making silly requests. Modanung (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
--Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC) I guess you have me quarantined, or should I say gated? Modanung (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Black holes do not exist, galaxies have a plasmoid at their center. Stop living under a rock, you are proving yourself the worst person to be leading this operation. Modanung (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have talk page privs to request unblock -- if you are going to say useless things, I would interpret it as NOTHERE, and remove the talk page privs. •–• 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider this your final warning, Modanung. A blocked user has talk page privs for requesting unblock -- and misusing that will only result in losing talk page privs. •–•  10:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request
Serious abuse of power by Pi zero; marking addition of Misleading-template as spam followed by immediate block. Article talk page Modanung (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Modanung. Just to clarify, WN:AAA linked by Acagastya above is not accessible to you. You may only edit this page. Ineffective, such as uncivil, communication is off-topic on it, though, so please do not continue it on this page, as otherwise your access to editing it may also be revoked. Regards. --Gryllida (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By using the word continue you seem to be insinuating - or worse, assuming - my behavior has been uncivil. I cannot agree with this accusation. Modanung (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)