User talk:Juliendion

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Web traffic has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Web traffic was changed by Juliendion (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951038 on 2018-01-05T11:10:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Slate Star Codex, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried afterwards, but now it indicates there is a conflict of modification...

Sorry this is my first contribution! How can I add it back !? Juliendion (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable independent source that covers the leaked emails and calls out the Slate Star Codex post as being significant. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you following the news ?

I placed real sources, the real data. I don't see the point to add the commentary from a third party.

This behaviour is discouraging me from contributing more here.

Start by asking for sources before deleting the contribution from a well intended user. Juliendion (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have independent sources, please add them to the content. There is no good reason to add content without them. Right now, you're the only one who finds it significant that the leaked emails mention an SSC post. Unless secondary sources place significance on that fact, it's completely inconsequential to an encyclopedia article about SSC. Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. Juliendion (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

There are tons of articles about reference of X subject in Y movie.

The # of visitors on SSC most have more than 100x since it happened.

But good police job. You must be very proud. Sleep well. Juliendion (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]