User talk:Truth21

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

NPOV
Please be aware of our neutral point of view policy- it's one of our key policies on content here. Friday (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
If someone disagrees with one of your edits enough to revert it, you should generally not just put it back the way you like it. We have talk pages for discussing article changes. Friday (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading these messages? Please stop reverting- if you do it too much, someone may come along and block you from editing. As to the issue at hand.. yes, the picture is a known hoax, but the status of the animal itself is still unknown. Fake pictures of George Bush are common on the internet, but it doesn't mean the man does not exist. Do you see the difference? Friday (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours, for repeated edit warring. I'm willing to unblock sooner if you agree to stop edit warring. Friday (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

=
=======

You say "If someone disagrees with one of your edits enough to revert it, you should generally not just put it back the way you like it.", this is nonsense; a 'revert' is just as much an edit as my changes are, therefore, my edits should not be 'reverted' without my permission.

You're not giving me any impression that your intention is to collaborate productively with other editors. If you continue to edit war, you'll probably be blocked again. Friday (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of collaboration seems to be I have to do what you tell me. The Main Page states "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Well I am someone and I made an edit - so why are you trying to suppress my views?


 * If you're honestly trying to understand what we do here, check out the links in the welcome message I left you. Wikipedia is most emphatically not the "encyclopedia where anyone can write whatever they want."  There is a key difference here- if you learn what it is, you may be able to edit productively.  Your views are irrelevant here- we use reliable sources, not the personal opinions of individual editors.  Friday (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But I am a reliable source, if you consider some other source more reliable then that is just your personal opinion - but I suppose you only consider my views irrelevant not yours?


 * "Reliable source" has a specific meaning here- see Reliable sources. See also Verifiability.  Beyond that, I'm not interested in arguing with you.   Friday (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at what Wikipedia:Reliable Sources states, and I quote "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.". So lets apply that test to the Loch Ness Monster article, and I quote from that "Many explanations have been postulated over the years to describe what kind of animal the Loch Ness Monster might be. These fall into three categories: (1) unknown species; (2) misidentification of known animals; (3) paranormal creatures.". So where is the reliable literature that establishes these three categories? Nothing is cited. "paranormal creatures"? Where is the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers that suggests that such a thing exists? What about other explanations such as some people simply lying about seeing "Nessie"? If "paranormal creatures" counts as an acceptable edit of scholarly worth then why is my assertion that cryptozoology is not real science censored. Taking the cryptozoology link in the article goes to a page that itself states "However, cryptozoology has never been fully embraced by the scientific community.". I think I should be unblocked and allowed to make such my edit.


 * Certainly you should feel free to add proper sources where ever you can. I have unblocked you.  But, please be advised: further edit warring will not be looked upon kindly.  Specifically, you can't just assert that the creature is "fake" because a particular picture of it was a hoax.  Friday (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, take care not to editorialize about cryptozoology in the Nessie article. The article explains what it is; there's no reason to do out of your way to say "the non-science called cryptozoology."  It just comes off sounding like you have an axe to grind.  Friday (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)