User talk:Mkmatthewkoehler

Mkmatthewkoehler, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mkmatthewkoehler! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your Teahouse posts

Hello Matthew. You've posted some very thoughtful comments at the Teahouse, but in general, I think it would be best if you limited your comments to either sections started by you, or comments directed towards the OP aiming at helping them. Specifically, comments asking questions to Teahouse responders are rather tangential to the discussions at hand and may end up confusing the other users. If you have questions about how I or someone else responds to a question at the Teahouse, I think they would be much better placed at that editor's user talk page rather than the Teahouse. I've answered your two questions towards me at the Teahouse itself as a courtesy for now, but in the future, please limit such questions to the user talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   -Ok thank you, I will keep that in mind. 
Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific method" not the right concept. Think more like scientific consensus, as supported by references. Especially in medicine and health articles, contributions based on pre-clinical experiments (cells or animals) and even individually reported clinical trials disallowed. Instead, only review articles of multiple human trials. As an example, the Vitamin C article has a section on disease prevention or treatment. The references are all reviews. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok yes thank you for clarifying and that is kind of what I meant to say. I should have taken more time to edit my contribution.

I am a little confused in your reference to what can be reviewed. I understand that it would make sense not to cite pre-clinical trials however are there not many reliable scientific studies that are performed on cells and animals. So you were only referring to studies perporting to explain something relating to human health correct?

Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mkmatthewkoehler! You created a thread called Thank you to editors at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please lay out your argument as to how my contribution is not a valid interpretation of the phrase 1000 points of light. In my last edit I made it clear that this was a hypothesis and laid out sound logic to support this viewpoint. You are simply removing the content without any support for your deletion and I believe this is unjust. If we are unable to come to some sort of compromise I will indeed be asking for a third opinion. One could also note that Bush Sr belonged to Skull and Bones and his code name there was Magog a biblical name given to an ally of Satan's. Further evidence supporting my hypothesis. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You're edit warring to add content that's not supported by a WP:RELIABLE source. Also, your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is not acceptable to support controversial or fringe theories. Feel free to request a third opinion at any noticeboard you like, but if you continue to add the content in question without proper sourcing, I'll ask this account be blocked, and/or the page be protected. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is unreliable about the source? I literally referenced the organization that coined the phrase in 1945. This is a primary source. I couldn't possibly source a better website. Also the Satanic beliefs of the elite are supported by a wide range of facts. Which I could provide. Although they do not belong on the points of light page. Also I don't understand how you believe that I am warring yet fail to realize that you are as well. You are in no more justified of a position than myself and as such I do not agree that the content should be removed until a third opinion has been given. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read my sources as they are both very reliable and provide supporting evidence. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Thousand points of light) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text you have repeatedly added with "evidence" appears to be synthesis of sources, combining them into something neither of the sources actually said. This then is original research, the repeated addition of which can lead to further blocks. During your current block, you can still edit all other pages including the talk page of the article, Talk:Thousand points of light, where you'd be welcome to start a discussion to obtain consensus for the inclusion of the material. Until such a consensus is found, the material remains removed (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should then be able to at bare minimum include the points of light history from the Luci's trust source without making further inferences from there, no? Since the history section of this page is nothing more than a collection of notable uses of the phrase and considering the fact that the Great Invocation is of widespread use among Satanists, and as such is a notable historical use of the phrase. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do feel free to propose specific changes on the talk page of the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]