User talk:ChasChas123

Welcome!
  Hello, ChasChas123!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dinosaur of Ta Prohm, you may be blocked from editing. ''You also tried to add a citation needed to the lead to text which is clearly sourced in the article and thus not needed in the WP:LEAD. You violated WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.'' Doug Weller  talk 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug
 * Why do my photographs get deleted?
 * I have not added 'personal analysis' - though there is a lot of exactly that on the page currently
 * Regards
 * Duncan ChasChas123 (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please explain how I violated NPOV and FRINGE - I tried carefully not to do that.
 * For example the claim that there are lots of mythical creatures depicted at Ta Prohm is 100% false. I've been there and looked closely! The claim that there are should be verified ChasChas123 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We only care about reliably published sources, your k nowledge etc or mine can't be used. See WP:NOR. Note that I only reverted 3 of your edits, most were reverted by someone else.  Doug Weller  talk 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Eg “ Though note that the tip of the tail does not form part of the carving, so this is a curious claim.]” As an encyclopaedia we would never make such a statement in Wikipedia’s voice. That’s your opinion and not reliably P.U. loser ie original research. Doug Weller  talk 08:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole of the statement about the tip of the tail should be removed.
 * The tip of the tail is not included in the carving at all, so this sentence is an "opinion" about non-existence evidence! ChasChas123 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is nonsense. The article is full of people's opinions.
 * Since when is Wikipedia just about published content, rather than wisdom and knowledge of the crowd.
 * The opening paragraph contains about 6 opinions !
 * "the "dinosaur" is one of its more ambiguous artworks. The relief first gained modern notoriety in the late 1990s when the lobe-like features running down the animal's back were compared to the back plates of stegosaurian dinosaurs. The relief has since become a popular piece of "evidence" for the fringe belief that non-avian dinosaurs once coexisted with humans."
 * How is it ambiguous when everyone can identify it?
 * Why is it "notorious" implying discredit?
 * Why describe attached spines as lobes?
 * Why is "evidence" in quotes
 * Why denigrate the belief that dinosaurs lived with dinosaurs as "fringe". (Why do you think the Welsh and Chinese have dragons in the culture? Why do you think there are hundreds of dino/dragon depictions around the world? It is not a popular belief for sure - not least because it is denigrated without just cause, ignoring and trashing evidence!)
 * The article is one long biased opinion piece, which wouldn't be so bad if it was acknowledged as such ChasChas123 (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that Wikipedia would make at least some effort at impartiality, but now I know not to trust it an inch. I am appalled at the high-handed policing and unashamed evolutionary dogmatism. Other people have opinions. The approach of this article is to rule inadmissible anything that threatens decided position.
 * truly awful  ChasChas123 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood the above. Are you arguing against evolution? Doug Weller  talk 07:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's evolution got to do about it?
 * I am making factual comments.
 * eg there are not mythical creatures carved elsewhere. Just real animals, sometimes stylised. For example the creature at the bottom of the column is a stylised lion. There are thousands of such carving throughout Cambodia.
 * One has to question the motives behind the editors.
 * eg the plates are clearly attached to the back of the animal.
 * eg a number of times the resemblance to a stegosaur is described as "superficial", despite the article noting that when it was 'rediscovered' people immediately noted it looked like a stegosaur. And despite the fact that anyone that looks at it now says 'it looks like a stegosaur'. If it doesn't look like one then why does this article strive so strenuously to rubbish the idea, completely overplaying the case against to the point of ridiculousness. (What soes this even mean: "Alternatively, this could have resulted from it being cleaned or from visitors making molds of it")
 * The editors have no problem with opinions that it might be a hoax! Where is the evidence for that?
 * The tenor of the article is dreadful. By all means make the case for it not being a dinosaur. But the page should allow for the case that it is a dinosaur, without outright falsehoods, bias, derogatory comments, etc.
 * Having derogatively dismissed the idea that it is a dinosaur is "fringe", that section then does not make the case for it being a dinosaur, but repeats arguments why it is not.
 * Overall this page is so biased, the reaction is laughter along with annoyance. ChasChas123 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me what evolution has to do with it when I'm replying to ". I am appalled at the high-handed policing and unashamed evolutionary dogmatism. Other people have opinions.". Do you accept the basic science of evolution? Please give me a clear answer. Note again, we only use what we consider reliably published sources, and we are a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller  talk 14:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You would have to explain what you mean by the basic science of evolution.
 * This article is meant to be about the Ta Prohm dinosaur carving, not through a single lens of 'dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot'.
 * The article is not just using reliably published sources, it is full of dogmatic opinion and outright falsehoods (lion carving, lots of mythical creatures, carving does not have tail spike, carving might be a hoax, damaged by someone taking a mold, damaged, looks like a rhino, etc etc ChasChas123 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I should add, a good encyclopaedia would acknowledge that there are different views, and let proponents of each view state their case. This article seems to have decided a priori that not alternative case should be properly acknowledged.
 * Is that a scientific approach? Or one that is useful to the pursuit of human knowledge?
 * Does a small elect already have perfect knowledge? If the idea that the carving is a dinosaur is really false, then let the proponents make their best case and it will surely be obvious that their case is weak, if indeed it is.
 * Just as the detractors should be allowed to make their case (but only fairly, and not by misleading people), and people can judge for themselves the strength of the case ChasChas123 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ChasChas123 Dinosaurs never died out. That's a popular myth, but wrong.
 * Here's our article on Evolution. You've been stonewalling my question. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. WP:FRINGE also perhaps. Doug Weller  talk 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are the photos not back? ChasChas123 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most telling of the bias is the refusal to include more pictures
 * One would almost think that people are scared of the evidence ChasChas123 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can complain at WP:NPOVN Doug Weller  talk 15:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ChasChas123 And if you don't, this conversation is pointless. Doug Weller  talk 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)