User talk:RandomEditor6772314

Welcome!
Hi RandomEditor6772314! I noticed your contributions to Sexual selection&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

John Wayne
I've reverted your edits. Please do not add contentious material that is sourced to non-reliable or self-published sources. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It was sourced to reliable source, as evidenced by the link to clear analysis of facts that anyone can verify themselves by looking at the historical record (aka "reliable"), as the person at the source did. Secondly, there's nothing contentious about it, like how 2+2=4 isn't controversial in the face of 2+2=5.
 * This is like if a wiki makes a false claim about physics, then it's corrected by linking to an obvious demonstration from a HS physics teacher, and you call it "contentious" (for being correct in the face of falsehood) and "non-reliable or self-published" for some mystical reason maybe that it's not from a textbook corporation or something? The physics demonstration would be "self-published" despite being clearly observable evidence.


 * Meanwhile, to take one example, musical information on wikipedia uses "self-published" reference material all the time, in the form of sound samples. You should probably reflect for a while on the nature of information.


 * Another meanwhile, your article on Bob Timberlake uses a self-published source from a Resort company, with a link that no longer works but still shows the laughable nature of the source. Aside from that source being self-published by an irrelevant company at their website, my comments now must by definition make your entire article there (which by the way is an artist's wikipedia entry with literally zero pictures of the person's art? A strange parody of notability) "controversial", since I have raised argument? None of this is surprising after reading between the lines of your philosophy. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)