User talk:2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC

May 2023
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Telegony (inheritance), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 🔥 Yes I'mOnFire 🔥( ContainThis Ember? ) 02:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Somebody vandalized Telegony (inheritance) page by making it look like telegony is real. I saw two people doing this before. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have currently restored it to the latest version by Veverve. You shouldn't spam your undos like that, it's plainly annoying. 🔥 Yes I'mOnFire 🔥( ContainThis Ember? ) 02:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there was a(n) user from namu.wiki who tried to vandalize the entire Telegony page in that website by claiming that telegony happens in humans as well for an obviously misogynic purpose and got banned as a result. After that, he immediately came to Telegoy (inheritance) page in Wikipedia and tried to spread the same false information to validate his misogynic purpose, which is why when I saw this sentence "Strong evidence now supports the existence of telegony", I immediately assumed that someone was attempting that same nonsense again. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop your edit-war, IP. Veverve (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, we might need to monitor this page regularly because of people who tried to vandalize the page by making it look like telegony happens in humans to validate their misogynic purposes. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen no such edits since I have edited this page.
 * You reaction violated WP:3RR more than once. Veverve (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this sentence:
 * "Strong evidence now supports the existence of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis as a non-genetic mechanism of inheritance."
 * We might need to edit this by making it clear that there is no evidence that telegony happens in humans in such frequency as well because that study was one of his excuses to validate telegony in humans. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence is clear enough that there is proof only for those flies. Veverve (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it okay that I add back that human part and combine with sentences regarding flies to make sure that no one gets a wrong idea? 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see why it would be need to change the article: to me the current sentence is already easy to read, concise and to the point. Veverve (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This was my idea:
 * "Although strong evidence now supports the existence of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis as a non-genetic mechanism of inheritance, no evidence exists of any true telegenetic mechanism of inheritance for humans." 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This second part is nowhere stated in the article. Do you have a ref to support this second part? Veverve (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, collapse of theory part literally exists. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say. On Wikipedia, as a general rule, information should either be sourced, or be summaries of sourced information found in the same article (MOS:LEDE). Veverve (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we still need a way to make sure that no one uses that fly study as a proof that telegony happens in humans as well like someone tried to do last time. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannot prevent users from editing Wikipdia. If a page receives regular vandalism, said page can get a protection, the form of which will depend on its level. Veverve (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well uh, I'm the guy that added the "in [fly binomial]" bit. Before that it really was, like 2601 assumed, an attempted stretch from fly to men by MoldciusMenbug (ho boy, the DARK ENLIGHTENMENT IDEOLOGY!), a warned "Ishmae1", and a now blocked "Trusci". I see that a different 2601:600:827F:200 had also fought the addition of "recent data" added by 98.114.190.60, and I am going to assume this is the same person. The thing is, I can't remove things backed up by a source that looks "reliable". That's why I put up the expert request template: I can accept that some ejaculate protein doing stuff in insects, but some article in Evolution Letters about the color of rats or whatever is just out of my league to deal with. Extraordinary claims and all that. --Artoria2e5 🌉 13:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm the same person. I immediately assumed that 98.114.190.60 was Trusci after seeing how someone tried to make it look like telegony is real. Also, as far as I'm aware, I don't think the whole telegony theory about rats is not a widely accepted theory. 2601:600:827F:200:DC3A:F426:848D:ABC (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh about "spamming undos". You can just open a version in the history by clicking the date, then click "edit" on top to revert to it. It does the same thing but is a lot less annoying. You would still break the same rules, but I would open this talk page with a lot less worry. --Artoria2e5 🌉 13:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)