User talk:Theodorus75

Welcome!
Hello, Theodorus75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Cryonics, 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. It is not suspended animation. Ifnord (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cryonics. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at cryonics. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:David Gerard/archive 16 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested we could clean up the cryonics page? is that ok? Theodorus75 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in an archive, no. Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roxy, the dog . wooF :) not sure what you mean by archive but thanks Theodorus75 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Important message concerning discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience

 * I have given you this alert because of your engagement at Cryonics and Suspended animation. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC).


 * Thanks man, doing my best :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello again, I just noticed the new DRN thread (when looking for updates at another one I'm involved in). My personal experience with DRN is rather limited, but since you are relatively new and already there, perhaps you would like to know about those other resources in case you don't already know them. Often the talk page of an article is enough for discussion and to assess a consensus. If it's not, there also are wider audience noticeboard which can be used to gather the attention of more editors (WP:PNB). If the reliability of a source should be evaluated, WP:RSN is useful for instance (and also has searchable archives); there's WP:NPOVN, WP:FTN, etc... WP:3O is a simple process to request the opinion of a third uninvolved editor. If the dispute resolution process starts, it may be best to wait until it closes before these options, but very often they are used before DR is considered necessary. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you PaleoNeonate, I will begin to study those links, much appreciated :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

COI
Do you have a WP:COI with regard to the topic of cryonics? Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alexbrn. It is important we stay objective, agreed. I will take a look at that link. I will also ask Editor Gerard regarding his potential COI and I will make a general comment on this on the Cryonics Talk page soon, kind regards - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! If you are WP:PAID please note that the terms of service require you to make a declaration on your User Page. (BTW, the reason I raise this is because this image uploaded as your own work, appears to be professionally produced material from the cryonics industry). Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that an accusation without evidence - e.g., Alexbrn supplies evidence with his there - would violate WP:NPA, so if you want to make one I look forward to working through the basis for your claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to believe David would have a related conflict of interest. The first indication is often single purpose accounts (you may want to consult the editing history to evaluate this).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I tried to reply to this but I messed it up - I reverted and will add my comment again - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, so what I said was the image is because of personal interest in the subject and a desire for clear public understanding of it. Just like you guys. I'm working on others (less humorous) which I hope we can have on the Wikipedia cryonics article - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Paleo Mate, Iv'e got precisely zero interest in going through the edit history of Editor David Gerard :) But a quick google search now reveals he has been running what looks like a multi year online campaign against cryonics, so he has strong feelings about it. Fair enough. It's good he is involved in keeping the article objective and I encourage that - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn, do you think I would upload that image to my user page if I was trying to hide anything? :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, Theo, why don’t you answer the question instead of sealioning? Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said you are "trying to hide anything". Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn Good :) also, "professionally produced material from the cryonics industry", hahaha :) took me a few minutes on MS Word.


 * Roxy, the dog . I have. Personal interest. Not professional. Not 'sealioning'. Would like to see the article expanded to include Gerard's valid observations on incompetence etc and other things but the quackery claim (if that's what you're referring too) is clearly a bit silly, I think it's there to make cryonics look 'bad' and hurt it so it's not really objective. Could you bring in other people on the opposite side to Gerard to address that? Give a proportionate minority opinion counter weighting to it to make the lede better? - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)