Hello, I'm
Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Ariel School UFO incident—because it 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
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Materialscientist (
talk) 02:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
TLJ7863 (
talk) 02:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand how calling a spade a spade is vandalism. Brian Dunning is a wealthy fraud and self-admitted con man who has no more scientific knowledge or training than many of the people whose claims he attempts to debunk. These schoolchildrwn were eyewitnesses to something. Is it appropriate for a white, wealthy, professional skeptic to attempt to debunk their stories by literally pulling something (a Russian booster) out of the air? Was he there? Did he see what they saw? Werkentagen ( talk) 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC).
- You seem to go from article to article for the purpose of attacking skeptic Brian Dunning by inserting unrelated incidents from his life as if they are his major qualities ("convicted wire fraud Brian Dunning"), and edit warring when you're reverted. If you read our article
Brian Dunning (author), you will find that he's a well-known author on the subject, and it's fairly far-fetched to suggest that he'd be "advertising" by editing minor Wikipedia articles anonymously, as you do
here. If you persist in this campaign, you will be banned from the subject of Dunning.
Bishonen |
tålk 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC).
- So Brian Dunning is the only skeptic worth quoting? Enlighten me, I am rather uninformed. I simply notice he seems to provide counterpoint for many UFO incidents although his evidence seems to be as ephemeral and gossamer as the sighting stories themselves.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- And btw, go ahead and strike me from the ranks of editors. You are all just as corrupt as everyone else. No wonder you can't find people to edit your ridiculous pages any more.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Did you get a ping to the discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? If you'd like to comment there, the discussion is here. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC).
- And btw, go ahead and strike me from the ranks of editors. You are all just as corrupt as everyone else. No wonder you can't find people to edit your ridiculous pages any more.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- So Brian Dunning is the only skeptic worth quoting? Enlighten me, I am rather uninformed. I simply notice he seems to provide counterpoint for many UFO incidents although his evidence seems to be as ephemeral and gossamer as the sighting stories themselves.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
Ariel School UFO incident—because it 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
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Materialscientist (
talk) 02:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
TLJ7863 (
talk) 02:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand how calling a spade a spade is vandalism. Brian Dunning is a wealthy fraud and self-admitted con man who has no more scientific knowledge or training than many of the people whose claims he attempts to debunk. These schoolchildrwn were eyewitnesses to something. Is it appropriate for a white, wealthy, professional skeptic to attempt to debunk their stories by literally pulling something (a Russian booster) out of the air? Was he there? Did he see what they saw? Werkentagen ( talk) 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC).
- You seem to go from article to article for the purpose of attacking skeptic Brian Dunning by inserting unrelated incidents from his life as if they are his major qualities ("convicted wire fraud Brian Dunning"), and edit warring when you're reverted. If you read our article
Brian Dunning (author), you will find that he's a well-known author on the subject, and it's fairly far-fetched to suggest that he'd be "advertising" by editing minor Wikipedia articles anonymously, as you do
here. If you persist in this campaign, you will be banned from the subject of Dunning.
Bishonen |
tålk 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC).
- So Brian Dunning is the only skeptic worth quoting? Enlighten me, I am rather uninformed. I simply notice he seems to provide counterpoint for many UFO incidents although his evidence seems to be as ephemeral and gossamer as the sighting stories themselves.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- And btw, go ahead and strike me from the ranks of editors. You are all just as corrupt as everyone else. No wonder you can't find people to edit your ridiculous pages any more.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Did you get a ping to the discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? If you'd like to comment there, the discussion is here. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC).
- And btw, go ahead and strike me from the ranks of editors. You are all just as corrupt as everyone else. No wonder you can't find people to edit your ridiculous pages any more.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- So Brian Dunning is the only skeptic worth quoting? Enlighten me, I am rather uninformed. I simply notice he seems to provide counterpoint for many UFO incidents although his evidence seems to be as ephemeral and gossamer as the sighting stories themselves.
Werkentagen (
talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)