User talk:205.206.90.84

November 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Del Bigtree. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Per WP:BRD take this tot he article's talk page or leave it alone Meters (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * That article is under pending changes protection, which means that your edits will not show up in the article until they have been approved by a confirmed editor. So, no-one is even going to see your edits. Meters (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit was not distruptive. I edited misinformation. Why should people not be informed about the potential dangers of vaccines? There is a vaccine court that pays out a lot of money to those injured by vaccines. Why call people conspiracy theorists when they are simply stating FACTS? 205.206.90.84 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please show me the disruptive edit I made, or please let me know why you are campaigning for misinformation 205.206.90.84 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Del Bigtree, you may be blocked from editing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * 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.

Your recent editing history at Del Bigtree shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:25, 26 November 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 TELL ME WHERE THE ISSUE IS.. It's not an edit war, I am trying remove problems spreading misinformation. Telling me I am making disruptive posts is not telling me what is disruptive. Why do editors want to spread misinformation? 205.206.90.84 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Please provide proof that vaccine injuries are a conspiracy "theory", and that my post was disruptive. It was only disruptive to misinformation. 205.206.90.84 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's there isn't misinformation-it's well-sourced, accurate information. The changes you made were whitewashing and pushing an anti-vaccination bias that is not in line with reality-based science or facts. Please refrain from doing this again. The onus is on you to provide information that uproots the status quo, not the other way around. The claims you are making are extraordinary and thus require extraordinary sources to back up such claims. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page and present such sources if you have them. Otherwise, do not try to revert others' edits to try to get the content you want to see in the article. That is called edit warring and is not permitted on Wikipedia (whether you're on the right or wrong side of any given issue). Please do not do that. If you do, it will only get you blocked from Wikipedia and the original content will be swiftly restored. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You are telling me it's well sourced that vaccine injury is a conspiracy theory?! https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf Here is the vaccine compensation table FOR VACCINE INJURY THAT IS NOT ANTI-VACCINATION BIAS. It is fact. What you are doing is vaccination bias. Why not push allowing people to make their own decisions when it is a well documented fact that there are vaccine injuries? I was trying to use wording that was not putting people into conspriacy holes, because that is a weaponized word. I presented facts. Conspiracy theory is ridiculous, as many conspiracies actually do exist. Tuskegee experiment - or are you okay with black people being used as pawns to infect and discredit? So, I am taking facts and presenting them as such. You are denigrating someone who has every right to speak his voice, and he does so with facts. https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+origins&rlz=1C1GCEB_enCA884CA884&oq=covid+origins&aqs=chrome..69i57.7178j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 - this is showing the origins of the virus being in Wuhan, China.. Is what he said baseless in that case? IT CAME FROM CHINA... What about all the people saying it came from the wet market? That seemed okay, until they found it didn't. It was a conspiracy theory as well. But that was an okay one to spread to the world without calling it a conspiracy theory? 205.206.90.84 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)