A drs Note for Jimbo from Dr Vernon Coleman, Novel Edititus Wikipedius Bias Virus 21 #CovidPupose a study in UnPersoning. Pass Laws and Banned People Vaccination Apartheid.#GateKeepers #MatchFixers & #GoalKeepers @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 @LeeHurstComic @JamesDelingpole @Lloyd__Evans @scientificecon @jbhearn @NoContextHearn @21WIRE @ukcolumn @alisonfletch1 @Albion_Rover @toadmeister @ClarkeMicah @JuliaHB1 @Iromg @DPJHodges

Why have I spent several precious hours on Dr Vernons sick note?, the answers in the graphic

4.69 billion Monthly Visits with Twitter at 3.92 Billion and facebook at 19.98 billions with the coup de gras and the info distribution big daddy being Google at 60.49 billions this is the COnduit, the tap the fosset and and the SOurce. The God Head the portal to the information age dimension.

Vernon Coleman · Start · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 507,227 pageviews

Vernon Coleman · Start · 01/04/2020 – 23/03/2021 · 416,147 pageviews

That is why!

Location of dispute
Vernon Coleman
Dispute overview
The Lede of the coleman article and general tenor has become a character assassination and negation of a notable persons career. The Article Existed prior to Covid 19 and is now defined almost entirely around concerns that the Subjects views on Covid19 are so egregious that they must explain all previous actions of the subject. There are numerous archived Talk pages where attempts to gain balance in the entry are documented, what one finds is an editing war by attrition , resulting in an unbalanced article. I have sought to follow the dispute resolution process for seeking consensus, I had invited my interlocutors to agree neutral editing pages on which to ask for assistance in reordering the lead, the editors with whom I had been discussing the matter all had been involved in previous discussion in the archived talk pages and to get a balanced consensus I was aware that a more detached view would assist in achieving some balance in the entry.
Users involved
RogerGLewis, MrEarlGray, Drmies, Roxy the grumpy dog, Hob Gadling, ,
Resolving the dispute
Previous steps to resolve the dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vernon_Coleman#Restore Lede to pre Covid 19 denialist bias attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RogerGLewis#Stop mentioning me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RogerGLewis#Refrain from spamming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RogerGLewis#March 2021
How you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The Consensus process allows for posting notices in editor discussion pages seeking a view on the dispute. The Process of achieving a consensus has not been followed and my request has been I think misunderstood by my interlocutors, and subsequently misinterpreted and misrepresented.
Your Appeal key is:
2c7b…”#¤% 3828c

{{unblock|My editing in question relates to a discussion on the talk page, I incompetently added notifications to other editors which I can see has been seen as spamming, I used “underconstruction” and “in use” templates in accordance with work in progress advice and incompetenly left too many on the page as initially there were several which I rectified, again I can see these were not useful. Regarding being unconstructive, I understand how my efforts could have been interpreted that way and following wikipedia of assuming good faith, felt that Explaining my point would result in a wider consensus being drawn I can see that this was naive on my part.I would never shy away from a “Mea Culpa” and I hope that suffices. ~~~~}}.

/* March 2021 */ mea culpa regarding unblock appeal in progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vernon_Coleman_(2nd_nomination) see

A drs Note for Jimbo from Dr Vernon Coleman, Novel Edititus Wikipedius Bias 21


Peter Hitchens , Dan Hodges and David Icke walk into a Bar, Hitchens Says your Round, #Matchfixers don’t pay, Hodges says Not my round #GateKeepers don’t buy, David Icke says Well I guess that leaves the #GoalKeeper.
Grub Street Journal, GateKeepers, Match Fixers and Goal Keepers, Turds all the Way Down Issue



Peter Hitchens · B · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 1,728,348 pageviews

David Icke · GA · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 5,843,061 pageviews


Dan Hodges · Start · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 534,479 pageviews

Piers Robinson · Start · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 26,969 pageviews


Scaling the Internet and Disrupting the Disrupters. The Web is about to be turned upside down by the Distributed web where Content and Authenticity will compete on an even field outside of the filter controls applied by the dominant players Of Alphabet ( Google) Face Book, Amazon etc and their desperately old Fashioned Server Based Model.
Distribution of Web Traffic is impossibly concentrated within the very top 1millionth of one percent of The Top 100 websites there are in excess of One Billion Websites and The top 10,000,000 of those ( Ten Million) represent the Top 1% of websites. This Blog Is Ranked as the 21,047,245 websites with its modest 116,000 Unique views and The Golem XIV Blog is currently No 5,762,718 in the charts and The Slog is at 1,865,325. The top 100 Web Sites, The BBC is no 105 to give you some idea, represent the Top 10 to the power of minus 7 that’s .0000001% of Web sites the top 10,000 is the (0.00001%) of websites. ( These Ball Parks are around there being 1 billion sites there are now more like 1 and a quarter Billion.)


Last Point on reaching consensus here is the page view chart for the discussion page for deletion of the Dr Vernon Coleman Article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination) · 01/07/2015 – 23/03/2021 · 1,216 pageviews
Vernon Coleman · Start · 01/04/2020 – 23/03/2021 · 416,147 pageviews

Levels of consensus

See also: The Arbitration Committee’s statement of principles on levels of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.



  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vernon_Coleman&diff=1012930554&oldid=1012847907

    Everything is wrong with this unpleasant article
    This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish. It doesn’t belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. If he is notable, then we keep it, but lets try to ensure it is a bit more balanced. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, the kind of chap who likes to fling a few rocks into the canal, but not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts). My view is that the whole article is a serious breach of the Wikipedia rules on living persons biographies, in no small part because he is not a criminal or a raving lunatic, and not a threat: but an author who you might even describe as a science fiction writer or story teller, someone who certainly doesn’t fit into conventional mainstream science writing, but is stimulating, communicates well to a wide audience and always has something interesting and provocative to add to a debate. I find it petty and unpleasant in tone, and as you all seem to know so much about him, and I am no expert, I’d urge everyone to tone it down a bit.Excalibur (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable secondary sources write about a subject, not anyone’s personal opinions or the way in which the subject wants to present himself. If the predominance of such sources say that someone is as described in this article then that is what we say. The reason that this article is unpleasant may well be that Coleman himself is unpleasant. I see no evidence that he is in any way “a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast”. Please provide some such evidence if he is. There was a deletion discussion about this nearly a year ago that resulted in the article being kept, as there was no consensus for deletion, but if you think it should be deleted then you are welcome to start another one, in which I may support you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    I’ve just reverted the article to a good version from yesterday. Apologies to good faith editors whose work has gone, but that nonsense couldn’t stand. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Much like similar discussions on Andrew Wakefield, an article is capable of being reflective of the facts regardless of whether you accept them to be true or not. The terms “widely discredited” and “conspiracy theorist” are used on pages of individuals who have made similar debunked medical and conspiratorial claims and is not an insult levied solely at Coleman as you are suggesting. In comparison, claiming “he is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast” would be pushing a biased POV which falls afoul of Peacocking. Coleman has garnered criticism from both the medical community and the mainstream media due to his claims that: vaccines are dangerous, AIDS doesn’t exist and Covid-19 is a hoax (among others). The outlining and debunking of Coleman’s medical claims is supported by evidence from various widely-respected and impartial sources. Further still, counter to your statement, Coleman was ruled to have made claims which were a threat to public health, twice, by the Advertising Standards Authority. This article has been written by numerous editors over the years and no one person holds sway over its tone; you can observe for yourself how previous edits have been made to best represent the subject. If you have any peer-reviewed medical journals or similar credible evidence supporting any of Coleman’s medical claims, please share it with the community. MrEarlGray (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)