User talk:159.100.84.247

Hi i have no idea how to reply to these accusations because wikipedia despite existing for over a decade is still a confusing medium to contribute into. Ok so i don't want to disclose everything about my network and living situation, for obvious reasons. I thought it was rather audacious to request i post, publicly at that, my IP address. I'm not even sure i gave the right one, and may have inadvertedly publicized my private i.p address following this, which i find is a concern for security. Furthermore i am connected to a gateway and this may be the address you see as my user profile. I thought it would be redundant to post this i.p address, since it is literally as i understand it, my own username currently.

I don't get it. Also i am pretty sure i did not violate the three revert rule. I find the term edit war rather self defeating. One cannot war with oneself. Who determines what is a perpetrator of such rules? I tried reading through the rules, (there are so many of them, it seems wikipedia should have its own jurisdiction) but could find nothing to clarify what constitutes exactly such a violation. I.E Could it not be argued, that my opponent was the one who initiated the perceived war? Why does such not constitute a violation? As i am sure my edits were reverted, too.

Kind regards, User 159.100.84.247

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Sunni Islam. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (159.100.84.247) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum
Please note that article talk pages are to discuss specific improvements to their respective articles, not to chat about the topic. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 18:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'm new to this. To be fair, i started in lieu of improving the article, i just don't know how to format suggestions or logic on the talk page in response to other edits (i've seen there is some reaction based discussion going on in the talk page already, arguably a form of chatter, but i digress). My point here is i am new to formulating comments in the talk page. If you would like to help me out here i'd appreciate that. A hyperlink will do Also i would like to add that if you are correct in that talk pages are not a place for chat then i would like to postulate that the word talk here is tremendously misleading. (talk and chatter being almost one in the same thing) Could you clarify this to me?

(i read the thing about replying here before i sent a reply on your talk page) (all this html is confusing af) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2018‎ (UTC)


 * I'll first copy the reply I also left on my talk page:

"This was the right place to contact me. I will reply back on your IP address's page (where I left the aforementionned message before). About, they indeed deserve to live as much as we do and are much closer to us than we tend to realize.  My user page (User:PaleoNeonate) explains why I chose this nickname.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)"


 * For more information on how to use talk pages (there are technical details like comment placement, thread indentation and signing posts), please see WP:TALK. An important thing is to sign one's post by appending four tildes ( ~ ).  New messages should usually be left at the bottom (rather than top posting), and columns (:) can be used as line prefix to indent the text.  About  if you create an account, it would have its own talk page (just like mine where you contacted me) and it would be useful if your IP address tends to change.  If the IP address is static and remains the same, then this very talk page will remain your "user page".  Advantages of creating an account include things like a watchlist, a custom user name, preferences, potentially accumulating user rights if necessary (i.e. for technicalities like renaming articles, reviewing changes when patrolling articles, etc).
 * About article talk pages, WP:NOTFORUM has more details. Each article has its talk page which should be used to form consensus for our changes when contested and/or to suggest article improvements.  WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS explain about the general editing process: one can edit an article directly; if those edits stick, fine; if they are reverted we have two options: to move-on, or to use the respective article's talk page to explain our rationale and try to find a compromise, etc.
 * I understand that you have seen chatter on article talk pages. Especially if the comments are old (they have timestamps as part of their signature), policies are not always applied at the same level, and have also changed over time.  If those threads are old, there also is little point in trying to revive them, the editors of those old posts likely moved on.  Here is the reason talk pages are not general forums:
 * Wikipedia articles should be made of summaries from reliable sources. In the case of a topic like Astral Projection selecting sources is of course tricky, so many groups have written about it.  Some authors are considered to have well summarized the topic and you will see a list of sources at the bottom of the article in the "References" which have been used to cover the content.  Those existing sources, especially books, may be most useful to continue explanding the article, if you can have access to those.  If you have a source that is not there, you may also use it to expand the article and add its reference (see WP:CITE on how to cite content).  Article content that is not supported by references can be challenged or removed.
 * In articles, personal opinions, experiences and research do not matter: we must avoid original research and synthesis and as pointed out above, derive our text from sources (while avoiding to copy their text). As such Wikipedia is not a proper venue for general discussion of the topic (unlike web forums).  I understand that this can be difficult.  A researcher in the field who would like Wikipedia to include material about their research first needs to publish in a peer reviewed journal or in a book; then their work could be used as a source for an article.  Still then, to avoid non-neutral conflict of interest, authors are rarely expected to cite their own material.  Expert editors on a topic are still useful since they can assess which sources to select, how to present the important material to cover, etc.
 * User talk pages (like this one or mine at User_talk:PaleoNeonate) are less regulated than article talk pages. However, discussion about the content of articles belong at their respective talk pages so other participants can read them.  There is of course a lot to learn on Wikipedia at first, it's a large project and community.  Thank you for pursuing the discussion, your questions are welcome and I'll try to help when I can.  An excellent place to ask questions is also the teahouse.  The welcome message at the top of this page also includes more useful links.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Your recent editing history at Astral_projection shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.