User talk:112.168.189.72

May 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pupil, you may be blocked from editing. –DMartin 05:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pupil. –DMartin 05:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. –DMartin 05:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop your IP-hopping edit war on the page Pupil! The text passage you are trying to insert is nonsensical and unsourced, and a request has been made to put a bucket on the page because of your persistent disruptive editing. Thank you,  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  05:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How about we have half of one page and half of the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.168.189.72 (talk) 01:40, 2020 May 2 (UTC)


 * That is not how Wikipedia works. We are an encyclopedia and strive to be factually-accurate; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a venue for original theories. Keeping half of the problematic content in the article is still keeping problematic content in the article.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  05:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of things aren't cited in your version. Maybe you should contribute constructively and add citations where you feel it needs them instead of just deleting everything. I could just go and delete everything without citations in your version.


 * Yes, but that version is a not a far-out theory that is obviously not backed up by scientific evidence. We don't need to source every single statement rigorously as long as it sounds remotely plausible - this cannot be said for your text passage. Also, please do not give stern warnings to editors who have committed only minor vandalism or even none at all; this is considered disruptive editing and scares users away from the project.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  05:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well exactly who gets to appoint themselves as the arbiter of remote plausibility?


 * Nobody does. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and the consensus, as established by a number of different editors who have all reverted your additions, is that your theories are unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia based on facts published in reliable sources. The community has also come to a consensus that it is unacceptable to bite other users by blanketing their user talk pages in unwarranted stern warning messages, edit pages while logged out to evade scrutiny, and revert a contested addition to an article more than three times in a 24-hour period, especially by hopping across different IP addresses in order to outfox blocks imposed by administrators. You have a lot to learn about our policies and guidelines if you wish to be accepted into the Wikipedia community in good standing.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  06:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Right so your little club is the arbiter of plausibility and only people who agree with your existing position are allowed to join.


 * I said no such thing. I am not sure it is worth trying to help you here, because I see no evidence that you are interested in doing any editing other than inserting your unsourced fringe theories.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  06:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You say that its ok for things in your version of the page to be unsourced because you and your group judge them to be plausible and judge my version not plausible. You make it clear that your group is of like mind and that I must change my view to fit in. Your appeal to the consensus of your fellow editors doesn't carry much weight when only people who agree with you can be editors.


 * Apologies if I phrased that incorrectly; when I said we "don't need to rigorously source every single statement", I meant that the fact that the old material was somewhat lacking in sources was no excuse for you to replace the whole thing with a totally unsourced fringe theory that carried with it no modicum of plausibility.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  06:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

But that's according to your subjective view of plausibility and you've made it clear that only those who share that idea are welcome to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.231.63.209 (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have serious proposals about adding controversial material, please discuss on the respective article's Talk page. All are welcome to contribute, but not all material must be kept, even if true, if it is unverified, off-topic, gives undue emphasis to minor views, or is better presented in a different article. Review policies of Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and What Wikipedia is not --Animalparty! (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pupil. –DMartin 05:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)