User talk:GodOfNonTyranny

February 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cumberland (CTA station) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cumberland (CTA station) was changed by GodOfNonTyranny (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953712 on 2016-02-16T02:55:45+00:00.
 * There is no button to report it. Link shows complicated instructions for hour-long process or more.  Report button for the particular problem or edit is not seen.  ClueBot NG   GodOfNonTyranny 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Then I click the link again and suddenly there is a button now?! Okay, guess it must have been fixed.  Reported.  GodOfNonTyranny 13:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of tags
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Housing in Japan‎, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your response here doesn't make sense to me. If you have an issue with a tag, feel free to bring it up in the talk page. That is what "giving a valid reason for the removal" means. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the meaning behind your message. What doesn't make sense is 1) Why you are telling me like I'm the one who added it in the first place, which I'm not and 2) your inference that telling me after I've reverted you is a good way of informing other editors your rationale. Both are untrue.
 * There's nothing wrong with disliking the citation needed tags, but if you want to remove the tags, you need to address them. Citation tags are designed to prompt other editors to find sources. If you don't want to bother finding a source, but don't like the tag, then remove the unsourced claim. Removal of tags is a disruption of the verification process and in violation of WP:V. If you feel like they have been added untowardly, then say something in the edit summary or, even better, discuss it in the talk page before you remove them. If another editor disagrees with your assessment and reverts you, then you need to discuss the issue with them.
 * If I were you, I would not double down on this issue. If you continue to remove tags in this way, you will be sanctioned. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Please do not write irrelevant, 100% random messages on other people's pages, which have nothing to do with that user's edits in any way, for no reason, in order to fraudulently imply that they have done something other then the thing you are referring to, even though that has never happened.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Beat generation without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- DynaGirl (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is DEMANDED, not "requested" with words "please", that you do not post fraudulent messages on other people's pages claiming that they have "removed maintenance templates" when no such thing has occurred, claiming that it is somehow acceptable to leave in irrelevant messages which no longer apply or which should not have been added to begin with. Fraud is not acceptable on Wikipedia or anywhere else.

HIV/AIDS denialism
There is only one "scientific consensus" The article is written per the sources and wp:neutral point of view. Jim1138 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018: only warning
Stop your tendentious editing against the scientific consensus at HIV/AIDS denialism. Please also proofread any changes you make so that they are in reasonable English. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC).

Neutral point of view
The Wikipedia definition of WP:NPOV conflicts with your claims of neutrality when editing. The policy is about faithfully summarizing reliable sources and in due weight, not about inserting our personal opinions (which is not acceptable per the policy about original research). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)