User talk:AuntyPropaganda

February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SeaWorld have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SeaWorld. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at SeaWorld, you may be blocked from editing. CLCStudent (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing
In what way is the editing disruptive? Why do persist in naming the animals incorrectly, stating the incorrect number of animals, and other errors I have corrected? AuntyPropaganda (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing
On what way is the editing disruptive? Why do you persist in calling the animals by the wrong name, showing the incorrect number of animals present, claiming the cause of dorsal fin collapse is unknown, and other errors I have corrected with citations? AuntyPropaganda (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing
How is the editing disruptive? Why do you persist in calling the animals by the wrong names, listing the incorrect number of animals, claiming the cause of dorsal fin collapse is unknown, when I have corrected these errors with citations? AuntyPropaganda (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In what way are the changes disruptive? The language use in incorrect, the numbers of animals listed is wrong, I included the study that explained the cause of dorsal fin collapse and is regarded by the scientific community as the definitive reason for the majority of dorsal fin collapse. Persistence in using incorrect facts is the reason no one cites Wikipedia as a source.
 * The burden is on you to provide reliable sources to challenge claims that already are reliably sourced (specifically the orca count claims), and you have refused to do so. "It is incorrect because I said so" is no valid argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Orca count
I did cite cetabase, considered to be the only impartial consensus on the subject, not my fault if you ignored it. AuntyPropaganda (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)