User talk:Fedfan0001

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ark Encounter, 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ark Encounter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

Hello Fedfad0001. I noticed your request for pseudoscientific be added to Hindu temple articles. On Wikipedia we consider this a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and this would simply depend on if reliable sources about the topic do. If you have visited the attraction, or have read the material posted everywhere on the walls, it should be obvious that much of it contains pseudoscientific arguments to deny evolution (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence) or to contest history with pseudohistory, archaeology with pseudoarchaeology, etc. Many have noticed that and have reported about it, including reliable sources (please see other mention(s) of pseudoscience in the article and follow the citation blue links; as for the WP:LEAD it is a summary of that article). Wikipedia has policies about representing topics using independent sources and describing pseudoscience as such (WP:RS, WP:PSCI). —Paleo Neonate – 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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.

—Paleo Neonate – 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]