User talk:C0NPAQ

Graph

Do not remove it again without clear consensus. Thanks . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then please use a different one. Its nonsensical, contradicts other data, the source is gone (despite that it doesn't mention any sources of the data at all, looks like it was just made up) and wasn't exactly reliable to begin with. C0NPAQ (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus for your changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Off to a rough start

Hello C0NPAQ,

I see you're off to a rough start editing Wikipedia, and per your User page it looks like you know that to be true already. I need to point out:

1. No personal attacks. This includes calling a fellow editor a "fucking dipshit" like you did here at your Blogspot blog, and then linking the subject of that personal attack directly in a message to him on his User Talk to it as you did here, and at least two other places on-Wiki. I am considering doing that the same as if you called the editor that here on-Wiki, no difference as far as I'm concerned. Don't do it again.
2. Also on your User page, it looks like you're taking issue with Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources (WP:MEDRS is part of that) and NPOV (WP:FRINGE is part of that). If you'd like to edit Wikipedia you'll have to accept and work withing these policies and guidelines.
3. Please pay attention to WP:FA articles and edit carefully, if you're removing a graph from the high-profile Lung cancer, an FA, you'll need better justification.
4. Reverting a good-faith, friendly Welcome message without comment as you did here doesn't give me confidence that you're going to edit collegially.

Zad68 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am an asshole, but all I tried to change was in good intentions and is not criticizable, yet alone not just undoable (except for the smoking graph, I should have replaced it instead but I am new and it takes time to source proper information ... anyway, better no information than false information). I care about content and not manners. If removing an automated bot message doesn't give you confidence that I edit collegially then this is truly not the right place to be. C0NPAQ (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about your style of editing so far indicates that you're going to be a good fit for the Wikipedia editing environment. It's up to you to decide how you'd like to move forward from here. Zad68 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am raged. Look at the guy I called fucking dickshit (whatever his username), he is just undoing all my changes without discussion, although I referenced him to the issue and asked to discuss it before further removals. You seem to have some social hierarchy here which I can't and won't follow. That plus the other issues with wikipedia: The end. Maybe you figure it out in 10 years, maybe it gets worse. Can't tile any more windmills. C0NPAQ (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If editing Wikipedia makes you enraged, if you have a difficult time with WP:BRD, if you state outright that you won't follow Wikipedia's rules for collaborative editing, and if you consider Wikipedia doomed to failure anyway, these are all good indicators that you probably shouldn't invest your time here. Zad68 22:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is time people start ignoring those rules and look over their own heads. See the graph Talk page. As far as I can tell the 'discussion' has been going on for 2 years in just one very clear direction and nothing ever happened. Wikipedia is a great thing but now it turns into the victim to its own policies. You can't have a giant thing and then a few universal rules that govern it all. You end up with bureaucratic nonsense and people will exploit the system. Just like real politics. What is so difficult to just look at stuff and say "Oh I see, after looking into the issue that makes a whole lot more sense!". Its stuff you need to change towards. But it is not my place to make you go there. I just bump into everything everywhere I go. C0NPAQ (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Autism

Greetings! You are hereby invited to WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of autism, Asperger syndrome, and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. As the project emphasizes contribution from autistic editors, it is especially interested in you, who have chosen to list yourself as a Wikipedian with Asperger syndrome. Muffinator (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #251

heads-up

Conpaq,

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've finally posted a working draft response to your questions re: the escalating trends of mercury (lead, cadmium, arsenic) in the food chain.

(It's a belated follow-up to the conversation we were having a while back on the thimerosal controversy talk page.)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

(And wishing you and yours the very best.) Seipjere (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Morgellons that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Try to bully me out with your cyclons of nonsense wrapped in specious justifications. Remind you, some societies consider humor to be a human virtue. I am on to you, shitbird. 12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)~~ shoa

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at NSI-189 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)