User talk:ScienceOfSensation2005

Welcome!

Hello, ScienceOfSensation2005! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at American Airlines Flight 77, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Please stop adding unnecessary, unexplained, wording in page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC) David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mr. Freeze (roller coaster), you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding unsourced information —JlACEer (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. ScienceOfSensation2005 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NYPOST

Re your recent edit (diff) adding a review from The New York Post

There are a few activist editors out there who are determined to remove any references to certain publications, such as WP:NYPOST. They have decided excluding sources is the most important thing and that deprecated means they should remove everything even WP:RSOPINION clearly attributed opinions from film critic from those publications. (They don't even care if the film critic has a good reputation and is independently notable like Lou Lumenick they will delete the reference simply because it comes from that newspaper.) It is almost as if they aren't here to make a better encyclopedia.

Picking any of the other critics listed by Metacritic should normally be fine. Sadly your good faith addition of a film review is likely to be soon removed. -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NYPOST:

There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below.

This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942.
Peaceray (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some new Metacritics reviews! ScienceOfSensation2005 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify in general you should avoid using unreliable sources WP:GUNREL and use better sources where available but some overzealous editors have decided to treat them them harshly as WP:DEPREC deprecated sources and just delete them, with no care for the distinction between "factual reporting" and film reviews (WP:RSOPINION) which are opinions clearly attributed to a source. They just going around deleting anything they see from WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL. It's such bad faith but they do not care and admins do not seem to care to stop them either. Even if there is a good reason to include a review from the New York Post it just isn't worth the hassle of dealing with people who care more about deleting than even trying to improve an encyclopedia article. -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. No you're not. You're blocked for the 524th time. This has been going on for years? Wow. Mike Allen 12:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Bradley026258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ScienceOfSensation2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can help with good editing, I'm not a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.