User talk:24.5.8.227

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Microwave oven. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (24.5.8.227) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Danski454 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I enjoy helping out here. I have my own personal reasons for not creating an account at this moment, but I almost certainly will later. I even have already thought of what my username will be. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait - I just discovered that it isn't mandatory to give out your email while creating an account! Okay, I think I can create one very soon. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm Donner60. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Steve Watkins (politician) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 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.
 * Thanks for the notice. I have given an explanation on your talk page. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you add the text and references again, I will not revert the edit. That will result in a third opinion. Either no one else will edit it or someone else will wish to contest it - and I will leave it to you and others to resolve. Since your edit is not vandalism, I think that getting another opinion, even though perhaps indirectly, is the best way to resolve what could be viewed a difference of opinion. Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse question
Hi 24.5.8.227. I'm not sure why you made this edit. The Teahouse get lots of questions of this type and even those which appear to be off-topic are almost never deleted (unless they're a serious violation of policy). may have been blocked for disruption, but their question wasn't really disruptive; moreover, any answers provided by other editors might be helpful to others who have might have the same or a similiar question. Posts made by a blocked editor using different accounts to try and WP:EVADE their block are often removed, but generally the posts an editor makes prior to being blocked are left as is absent any serious policy issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I just removed it because, as you said, the user was being disruptive. To me at least, the question seemed unconstructive, especially due to the pattern of the user's edits to Male privilege. It seemed pretty obvious that the user was prejudiced against females and the question about politics was stated in bad faith, as a means of expressing this prejudiced viewpoint which several editors have said is completely unwelcome on Wikipedia. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but the question itself wasn't particularly worded in an offensive way and was general enough so as to not be a direct attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Moreover, any responses to it would've most likely made clear how article content is typically assessed as well as which policies and guidelines are typically applied. So, even if the answers are no longer useful to this particular editor, it might be useful to someone else trying to figure out the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ricardo Carezani
hi, I have revert your edit as the info you deleted is sourced.If content is not balance then added info (with independent reliable sources) to balance it or bring it to article talk page to get consensus agreement before remove the content. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While there were sources, they weren't reliable sources. Both of them were articles published by the same follower of this fringe theory. There are many, many reliable sources showing that the claims are incorrect. Here are some links to such sources: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-neutrino/ http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/what-is-a-neutrino-and-why-should-anyone-but-a-particle-physicist-care and the primary source of the paper about the discovery of free neutrinos http://science.sciencemag.org/content/124/3212/103
 * These all show that contra autodynamics, neutrinos do exist.
 * The other source is basically just standard fringe arguments: the mainstream is closed-minded, they are biased to keep their livelihoods (but in reality, a proven new discovery could very well bring great fame and fortune), there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth. None of these hold much water.
 * The reliable "relativistic velocities" source does not mention autodynamics at all, so using it to back up supporters' claims is WP:OR.
 * Please see Wikipedia's position on fringe theories at WP:FRINGE. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, sections describing autodynamics in detail probably belong on the autodynamics article itself, not this article. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, if you are familiar with the subject, then I do encourage you to rewrite the part and add necessary sourced info. If you are not familiar on how to add inline citation, pls check out referencing for beginner. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not extremely familiar with the subject. However, I know that it is a fringe theory. It is even given on the Wikipedia fringe theory guidelines as an example of a fringe theory. It has been thoroughly disproven. I believe those sections I removed give undue weight to this theory. They should not be there altogether. Even if seriously cleaned up, they would still fit better on the autodynamics article itself. I will remove them again due to this reasoning. Thank you. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw your revert. I have placed a message on the article talk page. Should anyone who knows the subject well and wants to discussion the removal of the info, then they would.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Creating an account
Hi it seems you have editing Wikipedia constructively from IP for a long time. So why don't you create an account it will give you more features and you could also become a regular contributor.Hamid331 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I already have! I edit from this IP if I am feeling too lazy to log in, or if I am following up on something that I encountered while I wasn't logged in (I believe WP:SOCK states that people are allowed to edit non-logged in even if they have an account, as long as it is not editing in the same setting as their account was used and as long as they are being constructive).

Whoops, didn't see that the OP here had themself been blocked as a sock... 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)