User talk:Real Information0909

April 2013
Your recent editing history at Indigo children shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Indigo children, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Indigo children, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Indigo Children and "Pseudoscience"
Please stop editing the page and calling it pseudoscience, it is not pseudoscience, all it is, is a New Age theory, there is no legitimate evidence to say that the theory as a whole is pseudoscience, you cannot say simply because a portion who partake in the Indigo Child theory use pseudoscience reasons to back up their claims, that the whole concept is just pseudoscience. That's pseudoscience itself, you are claiming something is pseudoscience without any logical reasoning. The Indigo Child concept is based on the theorist's own data and observations from their own experiments with these children. I disagree with the edits constantly being made about Indigo children back up the reasoning for it being pseudoscience with real evidence and not claims based on some portions who partake in the theory, or don't make the edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Information0909 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not about what I think. This about reliable sources. There are reliable sources calling this stuff "pseudoscience". You cannot remove reliably sourced info from the article by edit-warring. And you cannot add stuff which is not sourced. If you continue along this road you will unfortunately be blocked. Please discuss any changes on the article talkpage before you make any changes. If you have any more questions please ask me, but again, stop adding this stuff to the article and stop removing sourced information. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

I still disagree with you, you haven't given links to these sources, besides that. MY POINT WAS, you cannot call something pseudoscience simply because some of the partakers are using pseudoscientific methods, THAT is pseudoscience itself. I don't want to have a page war or a huge arguement, but Christ, are you listening to what I'm saying? There was no evidence from the original page to say its pseudoscience, just parts talking about some of the people who partake in the concept that aren't using the concept correctly based on biases or their own ignorance. This DOES not and will not, EVER make the concept as a whole pseudoscience.


 * Yes. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog to add unsourced opinions. Your opinion is unsourced and it cannot go into the article. The term "pseudoscience" is sourced, for better or worse. If something is sourced, it stays. If unsourced it has to go, never mind how strongly you believe in it. There are the rules of Wikipedia. I don't make them them up. Please see the guideline on reliable sources WP:RS and the policy on verifiability WP:V. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I say I believed in ANYTHING? My point is there is no source for it being pseudoscience, just certain people who partake in it, look ON pseudoscience and you will quickly see what I mean when I say the claim of it being pseudoscience is pseudoscience itself.


 * Ok. I'll give you this link. Click on it, write your thoughts in there and then save. The regular editors of the article will see it and you can have a discussion with them. During that discussion you may find some agreement, at least hopefully. Good luck. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   00:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)