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:
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 Wikipedia: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 {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC).
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)
@ PaleoNeonate: Thank you PaleoNeonate, I will begin to study those links, much appreciated :) - Theodorus75 ( talk) 06:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:COI with regard to the topic of cryonics? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
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:
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 Wikipedia: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 {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC).
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)
@ PaleoNeonate: Thank you PaleoNeonate, I will begin to study those links, much appreciated :) - Theodorus75 ( talk) 06:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:COI with regard to the topic of cryonics? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)