User talk:2402:3A80:8C4:3C35:FFD5:9627:40F0:D65A

January 2020
Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of national founders without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KNHaw  (talk)  19:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In relation to Vaimānika Shāstra, you may want to know about the policy on pseudoscience. I have restored the mention but have also added another supporting source to the article. Happy editing, — Paleo Neonate  – 04:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate I am not sure why you don't know the policy yet about WP:LABEL and also WP:CONTEXT given your misrepresentation of source was rather too apparent here. Your book has discussed numerous hundreds of subjects but only mentioned a very few as "pseudoscience", Vaimanika Shāstra not included. I would remind you of WP:BRD too. The text cannot be described as pseudoscience since the purpose of the text was not about opposing a 'scientific practice'. This error was added by an IP on 13 November and it makes no sense to tout it. 2402:3A80:8C4:3C35:FFD5:9627:40F0:D65A (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again. WP:LABEL and WP:CONTEXT are style guides (vs policy).  The book is about many pseudoscientific topics, including Vimanas with mention of the Vaimanika Shastra.  As for WP:BRD, it is indeed an explanatory complement for the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD.  On the other hand, I am not the only editor to restore the material (and was not the one who initially added it).  The WP:PSCI policy also says that pseudoscience should clearly be indicated as such.  WP:NPOV also is about faithfully representing reliable sources, not avoiding due criticism...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate Show which sentence say that you should treat all these subjects as pseudoscience? WP:LABEL says that the 'pseudoscience' label has to be supported by the sources. 2402:3A80:8C4:3C35:FFD5:9627:40F0:D65A (talk) 06:39, 2 January 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.


 * Your claim that they aren't mentioned in the book is odd, but I did add a second page where they are discussed. All the subjects in the book are of course considered pseudoscience. Doug Weller  talk 06:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Vaimānika Shāstra 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 2 January 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.


 * Note that even if you were in the right, which you're clearly not, 3RR applies. Doug Weller  talk 06:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller Where does the source mention the subject as pseudoscientific? I don't see any mention as such then why you are frequently readding it back? Your above explanation reads like "but it's truth". When none of the sources verify the information. Should we also describe Rock Drawings in Valcamonica to be touting pseudoscience because this book suggests so? 2402:3A80:8C4:3C35:FFD5:9627:40F0:D65A (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And User:Doug Weller I was completely correct with saying that source makes no mention of the subject. There is no mention of "Vaimanika Shāstra" in whole book. You are confusing "Vimana"(an older concept) with this literature. 2402:3A80:8C4:3C35:FFD5:9627:40F0:D65A (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)