User talk:Pitchlumins

October 2022
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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I will happily cite my sources. I have confirmation that there is zero observational data for nonlife becoming alive (properly names the biogenesis event (life creation)). I can show you this from multiple professors, including from Harvard, and institutions like the National Science Foundation and National Association of Biology Teachers, among others. The notion of nonlife naturally becoming alive, along with all things following suit like a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) is believed, as something you have never seen but take as truth is a personal faith. I will provide sources upon request. Please let me know what you would like so I can fetch the proper documentation. I will now be reapplying the correctly made change, until our discussion resolves. Pitchlumins (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abiogenesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''That is utterly unacceptable, and it's not the first time you have attempted exactly the same change. You MUST NOT insert your own point of view, whether as a joke or for any other reason, into Wikipedia articles in any form. "Other unscientific theories" could imply that Abiogenesis is also, ho ho ho, not science, i.e. that the bible's presentation of creation is the only acceptable theory. If that's your point of view, for example, well you are totally allowed to think that, but you are NOT to try to enforce that viewpoint on Wikipedia, that is not even slightly acceptable. I do hope this is clear, or your editing career here will be extremely brief. Do not think of doing anything like it, ever again.'' Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I told you that I have credible sources, and you did not ask for the citations, you went forward and asserted that it be changed back, and did so. I can politely respond with the documents confirming abiogenesis is a belief. I have not at all mentioned other creation stories. You were the one to bring them up. Please ask me for the citations, before you edit this corrected page. I will now be changing the page back to it's correct form, until you can provide observation, so you can see to no longer believe that life can form naturally from nonliving. Please respect others beliefs, and yours will be respected to. We have religious freedom, and you are allowed to practice your faith, as are others. Until you show nonlife to life, you believe what has never been seen, like others do with a Creator. Cheers! Pitchlumins (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to any faith, creed, politics, religion, opinion or whatever you choose. What you are not welcome to is to attempt to force your views on to Wikipedia's science articles, that is POV editing which is - always has been - strictly forbidden. I do hope this is clear, or your editing career will be extremely short. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Jesus of Nazareth has not been seen by any of us, simply because he lived in the past. That also applies to Napoleon Bonaparte. But it isn't a reason to think they did not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying nor have I brought up anything about other faiths. Only that abiogenesis and things requiring the event are not science, but beliefs. Pitchlumins (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Abiogenesis, you may be blocked from editing. ''Sorry, but we've had this conversation several times now. That is simply unacceptable. This is a science article attested by dozens of reliable sources. If you don't like science, Wikipedia may not be the website for you - there are plenty of anti-science websites to choose from.'' Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I do like science. I love it actually. I cited my source that says we have never observed abiogenesis. What is it when you believe something without observing it? Faith. Like what creationists have with their soul. Yours is no more a faith than theirs. What I did ask for, since you are claiming science for abiogenesis, is evidence to support your claim. 100% of all observations falsify your hypothesis that nonlife can become alive. Can you show me observation to the contrary, and falsify my citation? I am not advocating for any creed or religion. I am putting abiogenesis and Evolution where they belong, which is religion. If I say to teach another in place, then you can criticize me. You claim to be science, but you completely overlooked and ignored my request for evidence to support your claim, as you would want from one claiming angels are science. Would you not ask to be shown evidence of angels? I did not ignore your request for a citation to support my change. The author of that article could just have easily changed this page to be more accurate, as I did. I ask again for evidence. Discuss this with me. I will refrain from changing the article as of now, because I have received temper flaring responses already, and if I change the article again, I could get blocked without a reply or reason or reading and response. I ask you again: I, as a scientist, am skeptical of your claim of natural abiogenesis. Please cite for me the observation to match your claim. Pitchlumins (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can not cite a nonlife to life observation within 3 days, I will take this as a conceding of having support for your extreme claim. I will change the article back to include the, then verified by yourself from failure to provide support, correction of "other". This is all documented here, so we have record of this. It is you currently promoting one favored faith over others. If you want abiogenesis to be science, you need to be constrained by the scrutiny of science, and hold rigid against the scientific method, as I suspect you might be aware. Again, please provide any single citation to support natural abiogenesis, as you asked me for one, and I supplied it. Pitchlumins (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Abiogenesis. ''Could I advise you please to "drop the stick". Sanctions are available for persistent point-of-view editing.'' Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Can I get a fair reply and conversation? This is not a personal edit. I am not citing my personal blog. I am citing the National Library of Medicine. Are they not a credible source to you? Can I get a source citing where we observed nonlife become living? I was told to provide a source, and did, yet you do not respect your own requirements and do not cite a source back. Please cite a source or leave the change. I gave you ample time to do so. Please leave the change until you provide a source showing abiogenesis, separating abiogenesis requiring Evolution from other creation myths like the Hindu turtle. Have not seen the world turtle, have not seen abiogenesis. This isn't a joke either, that was an example. Please read this part seriously as a human being: I am writing a scientific paper for school involving the beginning of Evolution. This is for my scientific research paper. Abiogenesis is not shown ever, even once. If it is not, one can't write a paper of science about the topic, any more than the world turtle. I could cite many more sources other than the NLM, including Harvard professor and Nobel Prize winning professor Jack Szostak. He is on my side as far as abiogenesis never being observed. Cite a source, listening to your own requirements. I am told to cite to make a change. I cite, so make a change. Now you have to cite to make a change. Cite a source for abiogenesis being observed, and know I will be heavily analyzing your source. Pitchlumins (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abiogenesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not do "war". I am the only one to provide a source for my claim. Can you provide a source for nonlife being able to become alive naturally? So that it isn't another origin of life belief? If it has never been seen it is believed. Pitchlumins (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no point in using the talk page when none of y'all even engage in discussion. You change this page, failing to cite a source, and then ignore me entirely, despite me doing what was asked, which is cite a source. Pitchlumins (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abiogenesis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. ... disco spinster   talk  00:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Pitchlumins (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Pitchlumins. The problem with your edit adding the source, which led to a lot of the reverts, is that you were adding it to the hatnote (the bit of text at the top of the article that you wanted to change). That's not a place to explain anything; it's just a navigation aid for readers who may be looking at the wrong article for what they want to read about.

The reason you were blocked from the article is that you kept reinstating your version; we call this edit warring and it's not allowed. (Back in October after you first tried to make this change, put a big "welcome" template at the top of this page with links to where you can look up our rules and guidelines and places where you can ask for help. It may look intimidatingly large, and the project does have quite a steep learning curve, but I'm summarizing what you've run into.) If an edit of yours gets reverted and you believe it was correct, you're expected to use the article's talk page to discuss the matter; if not the first time, then certainly the second. Pretty much any admin will block someone who reverts four times in 24 hours, but people often get blocked for edit warring less than that. You were blocked just from the article, to encourage you to discuss. So, go to Talk:Abiogenesis, make a new talk page section at the bottom of the page (using the + sign or making a heading that looks like this: ==Your heading text== ), set out what you want to change in the article, and sign by clicking the squiggle symbol or typing ~.

But. The reason I headed this "Advice" is that before you make that section on the talk page, you should do two things. First, read the article. It probably has a short section dealing with objections to the theory of abiogenesis—I gather from the change you tried to make to the hatnote is that your point is that the theory is unproven? Second, look at the yellow box at the top of the talk page, the section headed "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)". Here is a direct link to that section. I think this may address the issues you want to raise. If after reading both the article and the FAQ, you still want to make a change to the article, make that new section at the bottom of Talk:Abiogenesis; you'll now have a better idea of how to explain what you think should be changed or added, and you can add your references there for others to examine.

I hope this helps to explain how we do things. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Hatnote is then exactly what I wanted to change. That is what should be changed. If you are reading about abiogenesis under the naturalism banner, then you are reading a creation myth. If you want to redirect to *other* creation myths, click the link to creation myths. Abiogenesis should be on the creation myth page, also, linking back to it's explanation page of what naturalistic abiogenesis is believed to be by some of this faith.
 * Abiogenesis is not a science, and I cited my example plenty of times. I could do this from multiple sources. Just because no one that is a follower of naturalistic abiogenesis on this page was able to refute anything I said, or challenge any claim, or provide citations when asked for them, does not mean that I should be banned while they are the ones making changes without citing credible documentation.
 * That article that I cited is not "my version". I did not write the article. Sounds like a lot to go through, when I think if I understand correctly I made the correct edit in the correct location with the correct link.
 * The idea of natural abiogenesis is admitted never been observed by many in the science field, from several different fields of inquiry. Adding "other" is a simple, yet correct, making more accurate, the abiogenesis page.
 * Regardless to any support/believers or any objectors/detractors, abiogenesis is a belief in the idea that nonlife can become alive via natural processes. This is not up for discussion because it is an empirical knowledge, not a belief. Advocates and critics both discuss under the realm of this domain, a belief in an origin idea/story. Science poses ideas, religions and belief systems have stories. Abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis when tested as a scientific idea. Simultaneously, sharing many characteristics of most other origin myths.
 * Could you please explain how the link for "other" is inaccurate? Pitchlumins (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generaliation, other talk pages such as User talk:Pitchlumins are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)