User talk:89.159.52.232

March 2020
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, French people, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:26, 22 March 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.
 * Hello, please do not delete everything. what are you talking about ? these are scientific sources --89.159.52.232 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at French people. 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. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 18:38, 22 March 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.


 * John from Idegon the user User:Sundayclose delete queries with scientific links for the sole purpose of misinformation. I will be more attentive to your request.--89.159.52.232 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And that is just your opinion. You'll need to make dispassionate logical arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines to convince others, on the article's talk page. Without agreement, disputed content stays out. It would help if you would properly detail your citations. Instructions can be found at WP:RFB. You will not be a successful editor here until you acknowledge that what you feel should be in the article may not be what actually should be in the article. I personally have no interest in this subject, nor really any knowledge or desire to gain any. I only procedurally reverted you because you didn't follow WP:BRD. Your dispute is with . You must stop casting ASPERSIONS towards them. They disagree with you, and no matter how good you consider your sources, others can and should revert you if they disagree. It's up to you to convince them, and since the status of your contributions depends on consensus, saying they are behaving improperly (they are not) actually hurts your chances of gaining consesus. WP:TRUTH may help you understand. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay John from Idegon, I'm going to start a conversation to see the reason. I think it's a misunderstanding.--89.159.52.232 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That very well may be. I don't know or frankly, really care very much. I do know Wikipedia and the ways we do things have 20 years of history. And I also know, that despite the somewhat clumsy way we determine truth, our accuracy in scientific subjects including anthropology and linguistics, our accuracy is actually better than print encyclopedias, including Britannica. We do fail badly on accuracy in subject areas where publicity for the subject is a factor, like biographies of living people, articles on extant companies and organizations, sports, pop music, film, etc. John from Idegon (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at French people. You are not listening. Do not edit the article further. Instead, discuss on the article talk page. If perhaps the problem is your comprehension of English, sorry. This is English Wikipedia. If you cannot communicate in English well enough to discuss the issues, you cannot edit here. Perhaps fr.wiki would be a better choice for you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

English
Please ask someone fluent in English to review your edits. An example is this edit. Competence in English is required to edit the English Wikipedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)