User talk:Metaferon

Hi. I've reverted your edits to Manned mission to Mars for reasons I explain on the Talk page. If you want to add this material it must be properly sourced. It would be worth your while to read WP:BURDEN which states among other things that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Thanks. andy (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Manned mission to Mars, you will be blocked from editing. Two editors think you're wrong. Wikipedia policy says you're wrong. Stop making these edits please and follow the rules of wikipedia. andy (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you must sign your comments on talk pages by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~. Another rule. Which must be followed. andy (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

1. You obviously don't know what you are talking about and are definitely acting outside of Wikipedia policy.

2. You should read links first before posting them:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."

3. Your rationalizations are changing at a fast pace. First off-topic, then missing references, now vandalism, and each time you are contradicting yourself.

4. There are other examples how you act outside of Wikipedia policy. For example you undid parts of new text that you agree with just because you wanted to undo parts of new text that you disagree with. That is outside of Wikipedia policy and is defined as disruptive editing as follows: "disrupting progress toward improving an article".Metaferon (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but I regard your recent edit to my user page as intentional vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission, and given the nature of your edit it seems that you intended to cause irritation. You could and should have raised the issue on my talk page. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. andy (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You neither appreciated nor encouraged (let alone "strongly") constructive contributions, but rather answered them with disruptive editing, with some conflicting changing rationalizations as a pretense.

That aside, you should stay on topic instead of using further distraction. Metaferon (talk)

May 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Steven M. Greer, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing of "ScienceApologist"

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by deleting parts of articles just because you personally don't like them, as you did to Steven M. Greer, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe that parts of articles are commentary or personal analysis you have to produce a plausible argument. The changes of the articles that you somehow dislike are verifiable and NPV. Adress the topic. Be concrete, not abstract. Disruptive editing such as deletion of entire changes without any rational justification whatsoever will not be tolerated.Metaferon (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]