User talk:109.175.155.99

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to Dog intelligence&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

July 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Noise pollution, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kangaroo emblems and popular culture. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, you may be blocked from editing. —El Millo (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, JJMC89 made clear that supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work, even though the very essay he cited itself does not make that clear. Without some sort of consonance, editors will inevitably get confused, disorientated and be discouraged from editing, and the editor attrition Wikipedia has suffered from for well over a decade will only continue to get worse. How is attempting to combat such an eventuality "disruptive" or "vandalism"? 109.175.155.99 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever any user says can't be just randomly considered to override the consensus of an essay, and this comment was made in a specific context to a specific person who was making a particular argument. This comment obviously can't be applied to every case, otherwise nothing would ever have precedential value, and you've been told this repeatedly. —El Millo (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the principle of the essay applied differently in different contexts, that admin would surely have attempted to justify and explain why the principle would apply in that way in that specific context, rather than making a blanket statement with no supporting reasoning. It would be totally remiss for an admin to steamroller a discussion like that. My only conclusion can be that the "supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work" principle applies with absolute generality. 109.175.155.99 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even tried asking the editor if they thought citing other stuff was always invalid? Still, if they meant that, an admin's opinion is just his opinion if it's not backed up by consensus, which this case would be an example of, since many editors don't even think that citing other stuff is ever invalid. As you see, the essay is an WP:ESSAY because it doesn't have enough consensus to be a guideline or a policy as it is now, much less with this super strict notion you're proposing. Admins can be wrong. If citing other stuff is always invalid, that means nothing has precedential value, which means that the same discussions would be had countless times for each and every case, no matter how similar with a previous case. All our policies and guidelines are meant to reflect common practices, and not everything is written there. The common practices listed there are still common practices, and if an editor doesn't agree with one of them, the WP:ONUS is on them to convince others that the common practice is wrong, not for the others to convince this editor that what we already do should continue being done.
 * But what makes your edit disruptive is that you've already done this before, been reverted and it was explained to you why it was wrong. Then you came, did it again without addressing the explanation and with the same outdated rationale that some admin said something barely related and taken out of context. You were reverted and, instead of discussing it per WP:BRD, you reinstated it. You were reverted again, and you reinstated it again. That is edit warring. —El Millo (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Admins can be wrong" - surely their total lack of humility would suggest otherwise. If a comment which directly appeals to the essay is "barely related", I struggle to see what the purpose for actually having essays or any editing guidelines at all for matter is. And how is it taken out of context? I quoted the full sentence exactly as it is. If he'd said something like "Supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work in this specific context because ABC" and I'd truncated it, you might have a point. The comment isn't compatible with the common notion that all editing principles are only guidelines. It allows no room for the interlocutor to come back and say "actually, I think an argument based on other similar cases is valid in this context because XYZ". It is an unqualified blanket statement, that clearly states that arguments based on other stuff are always invalid, no ifs or buts, in a way that will just shut down any reasonable discussion based on the actual merits of the edit in question. Clearly some things really are set in stone. You can't have it both ways; either JJMC89 was wrong, or the essay as currently worded, and the recent move, are wrong. 109.175.155.99 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The context isn't, the context is the whole discussion. That's why I'm not saying that JJMC89 was wrong, because I'm pretty sure no one would suggest that referring to something else existing is always invalid. Because someone may refer to everything else existing in a particular way, or something else existing and according to policy, in comparison to whatever's being discussed not being according to policy. If JJMC89 said that it is always invalid (which he didn't explicitly say), then yes, they are wrong, very very wrong. —El Millo (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that the context is the whole discussion, but surely if JJMC89 had only meant "isn't going to work in this specific context", he would have given reasons to support that conclusion with reference to the specific context, even if not in the same sentence. But even if one reads the entire discussion, nowhere can one detect even the merest suggestion of that. In fact, in the recent move discussion, Vaticidalprophet said "For what it's worth, WP:OTHERSTUFF says pretty much the same thing, including the same "don't namedrop this without explanation" disclaimers." So wasn't that exactly what JJMC89 was doing? If "other stuff" arguments really were valid in some contexts but not others, then either JJMC89 boldly cited the essay in support of his conclusion even though he didn't bother to read past the essay title, or even though it's not at all apparent from his words he meant something more like "a principle that applies differently in different contexts conveniently applies in this context in a way that supports my position just because I said so" since he failed to provide any supporting argument beyond citing the essay itself. Either way, he would be guilty of gross negligence. But given his general ruthless and uncompromising demeanor, that can't be the case, since such a lack of humility on his part would then be entirely baseless. I dunno, I'm trying to be charitable to him here, even if it requires me to conclude that almost everything the essay says is actually wrong. 109.175.155.99 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You simply can't use your interpretation of an offhand admin's comment in a barely related discussion as a basis to repeatedly change the whole meaning of an essay. Vaticidalprophet is in agreement with the essay when they say, which is exactly what the essay is about. Just saying "this is done like that somewhere" isn't worth anything, you have to explain why that applies to whatever is in discussion, and that's how the argument is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid. If, for example, you could cite a mountain of examples of something similar to whatever's being discussed where things are done a certain way, and you can prove that the situation is analogous, then it is valid. If you're just saying that you saw one article once do it that way and you liked it that way, it is invalid.
 * Discussing other people's comments without even asking them has no value. You want to know what they meant, you should ask them what they meant. But still, an admin's opinion doesn't trump other opinions in matters like these. It just counts as one opinion, and others still have to agree with them to form consensus. —El Millo (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello, I'm Zudo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Glasgow effect have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse.   Zudo (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)