User talk:89.127.20.88

WP:3RR

Read it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

read it 89.127.20.88 (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why haven't you taken it to the noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning wiki as we speak. First time ever using it. Just such a biased article that I had to edit it. Do you think the article is not biased? 89.127.20.88 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you now have the opportunity to 'learn wiki' without the distraction of edit-warring against a clear consensus, I'd suggest you start by reading User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. It is an essay, rather than policy, but it accurately reflects the way we work around here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, very condescending but ok. I read the thing you suggested me too. You are both biased for and against, I only find bias against. The article is clearly designed to discredit his character.

The clear consensus thing I do not understand? 89.127.20.88 (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just find out myself :) 89.127.20.88 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I looked into clear consensus, I assume you are a mod since you blocked me?

Not contradict each other. The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position and correct all the pages to reflect the community's view. This discussion should be on one talk page, with invitations to that page at the talk pages of the various affected pages; otherwise, the corrections may still contradict each other.

in cases where it is clear a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations.

Basically we should try to have constructive conversations.

Since we should not contradict each other the only way to do so is add more information.

Firstly can you explain why you think the article is unbiased?

Calling his failure to find aliens a hoax is like calling any research that has not produced results a hoax.

Specifically picking tabloid articles to discredit him is against wiki TOS, which is done on the last sentence of the last paragraph.

Honestly I'm bored, so why not see if you are willing to discuss it? 89.127.20.88 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in cases where it is clear a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. Which pretty much sums up why you are blocked. You have disregarded policy by giving undue weight to fringe theories, you have added your own interpretation of events, and you have mischaracterized sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added zero weight to fringe theory's? I just removed some clearly biased writing. Look I see arguing without links and clear talking points doe's not work here. My points are entirely valid, the way i conveyed them are not.

I do however, again point out bias when you claim I give weight to fringe theory's. I am no more qualified to report if they are real or not than you are. But people much more capable have looked into this. None of that information is provided. So when my 31 hours are up I can add this information with links and it not be deleted?

Of course this seems to me like a clear attack so I will follow the other guys advice and bring this to the noticeboard.

It's hard to argue a point while staying civil. This will be good practice. 89.127.20.88 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a 'mod'. I didn't block you. You were blocked by User:Materialscientist, who is an administrator (we don't have 'mods'), and was uninvolved in the dispute. As for the rest of your comments, you made absolutely no attempt to discuss anything. If you had done so, in the appropriate place (Talk:Jaime Maussan) you would very likely have avoided being blocked. And as for 'tabloid' sources, I wouldn't characterise Vox that way. And coming from someone who attempted to add entirely unsourced bullshit [1] to the article, I'm not particularly interested in lectures in policy from you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What unsourced bullshit did I add?

The rest of your comment I can pretty much agree with. Like I said literally my first time using wiki. Anything is easy to do correctly if you know how. 89.127.20.88 (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Maussan ‎

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Jaime Maussan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason, it is irrelevant. I would like to know the relevance of saying he has purported hoaxes when that is not true. He has not found aliens yet is another way to say the exact same thing. The article is only designed to discredit him. 89.127.20.88 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not another way to say the same thing. Please review WP:FRINGE, since ufology falls under the broad umbrella of fringe theories. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.