User talk:2601:280:C600:CFA0:C5F1:862D:B4F6:E889

February 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Walking with Monsters, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, no offence, but I'm not being "disruptive," nor was I doing anything related to "original research," I'm just saying that if Megarachne is now a sea scorpion, then the mesothelae spider would instead be Arthrolycosa. 2601:280:C600:CFA0:C5F1:862D:B4F6:E889 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is considered original research because this is your own personal conclusion - no reliable source refers to the spider depicted in the programme as Arthrolycosa. Your edit-warring to keep original research in the article is presumably why you're being accused of being disruptive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said I was "edit-warring?" Sure the spider in the show may instead be the early version of Megarachne, but... Oh well. 2601:280:C600:CFA0:C5F1:862D:B4F6:E889 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit were removed, you added it back etc. That's "edit-warring". I don't really understand the dismissive attitude towards original research here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Walking With Monsters. --Mr Fink (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)