User talk:FenderstratGatorlord

Welcome!

Hello, FenderstratGatorlord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Fender Stratocaster did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will get right over there in a moment FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already cited sir. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed content from Intelligent design without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really remove content but I changed it and moved it around. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some content to try to fit it in with a neutrality policy. I also added criticisms from young earth creationists because there are many young earth creationist organizations that criticize it for being too secular. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the most essential, well sourced content from the article. - DVdm (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Intelligent design 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. McSly (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to end the edit war for now. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news. Please revert your last change. And for discussion, use the talk page of the article here. --McSly (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you can revert it yourself. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to move on to another page. But what I wrote about the YEC criticisms was true. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the good version before seeing this. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FenderstratGatorlord: I invite you to read the FAQ at the top of this page Talk:Intelligent_design as well as the numerous pages of the archive section as the subject of pseudoscience has been discussed at length in the past and that the WP:CONSENSUS for the current version of the lead is pretty strong. --McSly (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that it's pseudoscience I am adding information like criticisms from young earth creationists because all information needs to be accounted for. But anyways I have ended the edit war. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its a good article, nothing man makes is without flaws, even good things have to be enhanced. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am radical when it comes to neutrality, even pseudoscience needs neutral coverage. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FenderstratGatorlord! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at E. W. Jackson that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not really change the meaning, I just added facts and made the article read logically. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FenderstratGatorlord It didn’t meet the definition we have of minor edits. Please. Just don’t mark any edits minor. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what definition is there then? I hope you don't get involved sooner as I am going to stop editing it for now. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go to the Spanish wiki to contribute to my community. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to E. W. Jackson, 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. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why I changed it

I removed the pseudoscientific in the front and moved to "critics of Intelligent design" to make it more unbiased. I added the criticisms from the young earth creationist community because there are many YEC critics of the ID movement.

Also "pseudoscientific argument" does not sound very right as only theories can be pseudoscientific.

Your opinion is contradicted by reliable sources. Reliable sources win.

Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:GOODBIAS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's not my opinion it's just that it reads wrong whether or not its true or false or well sourced. Writing a "pseudoscientific theory" is more grammatically accurate. Grammar matters. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 19:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not show any special interest in fringe or pseudoscience. I just edit the pages that I want at any specific moment of every specific kind. I have only edited 1 pseudoscience page so can you please remove this message and give to someone else that deserves it? FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note these are routine and I have given them to myself. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only edited it because it was in my recommended section. I just removed what was confusing. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to make Joke pages or Joke edits so that they can be deleted/reverted later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenderstratGatorlord (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Not in articles. Joke edits will get you blocked in no time. See the warning templates {{uw-joke}}, {{uw-joke2}}, {{uw-joke3}}, {{uw-joke4}}. DVdm (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FenderstratGatorlord So no joke articles, and use article talk pages only to discuss the article, not the subject of the article, and not to make jokes. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I reverted your edit to Ideological bias on Wikipedia— fox news is not a reliable source on politics, and it was a badly written WP:BLP violation against your fellow Wikipedians. Do not do that again. Dronebogus (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

. But a source is a source and a bad source is better than no source FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not, and a bad source or no source is infinitely worse than simply not including the information. Dronebogus (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your come off as angry and uncivilized. All information that is true is to be included here. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how it works. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I am not being uncivil, but since you already have misbehaved and been corrected on a similar controversial topic in the past I’m being stern. Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a philosophical level I believe that there are no unreliable sources, only biased sources or not enough sources. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news is an extremely biased source and your philosophy doesn’t matter in the face of the fact that some sources are unreliable. Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now a Editor in the Spanish wikipedia

October 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emu War. 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. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was sourced fact FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source that fails WP:RS but that is insignificant compared to making what was a joke edit. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still was accurate information. And no I did not edit it as a joke. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others would disagree, and you'd need a better source and one that said no humans died. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

virtually all sources say this and this will be my last message on this topic. FenderstratGatorlord (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FenderstratGatorlord And yet you can’t find a reliable source saying no humans died. Ok, avoid the problem, that’s your prerogative. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Papyrus 75. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]