User talk:BronzeAgePuffin
April 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Wretchskull. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Strafgesetzbuch section 86a—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 Help desk. Thanks. Wretchskull (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: In what way was it unconstructive? Was it factually incorrect? BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BronzeAgePuffin: It doesn't matter what you think of the law, it was disruptive editing. You added something that would require tremendous backing by reliable secondary sources. I will keep an eye of your edits. Wretchskull (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: Stating an obvious fact is disruptive editing? Exactly how? I make one edit and now I'm on a 'watchlist'? BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Obvious fact" - not only is this subjective, you are admitting to disruptive editing. It doesn't matter how "obvious" or not a statement is, if it isn't supplemented by reliable sources, you cannot add anything. Wikipedia isn't a reservoire for opinions, it is an encyclopedia that summarizes trusted, reliable sources. Wretchskull (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: How is it disruptive? If two people disagree isn't that for the talk space, not your knee-jerk decision that I am 'disruptive'? I ask you a question and you say you're gonna be monitoring me now. How am I the one being disruptive? You make such a fuss over one edit of a new user. BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is disruptive, and yes I have watchlisted you. I'm not making a fuss but I am explaining that you added it without any reliable sources backing your claim. Adding "is an anti-free speech statute which" without any sources is definitely disruptive. Wretchskull (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: How is it disruptive? If two people disagree isn't that for the talk space, not your knee-jerk decision that I am 'disruptive'? I ask you a question and you say you're gonna be monitoring me now. How am I the one being disruptive? You make such a fuss over one edit of a new user. BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Obvious fact" - not only is this subjective, you are admitting to disruptive editing. It doesn't matter how "obvious" or not a statement is, if it isn't supplemented by reliable sources, you cannot add anything. Wikipedia isn't a reservoire for opinions, it is an encyclopedia that summarizes trusted, reliable sources. Wretchskull (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: Stating an obvious fact is disruptive editing? Exactly how? I make one edit and now I'm on a 'watchlist'? BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BronzeAgePuffin: It doesn't matter what you think of the law, it was disruptive editing. You added something that would require tremendous backing by reliable secondary sources. I will keep an eye of your edits. Wretchskull (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Wretchskull: Well you've just driven away a well-intentioned new user. Good job buddy. BronzeAgePuffin (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've made it crystal clear with three (now four) replies that what you did completely goes against what Wikipedia relies on, but instead you display textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-behavior. Learn what you are here for and do not disrupt Wikipedia. I highly recommend you learn how to edit through Help:Introduction. Wretchskull (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)