User talk:IndigoAdult

Hello, IndigoAdult! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Indigo children

Please review our policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, fringe theories and particularly the section on pseudoscience. Please do not remove sources without good reason and consensus. The page is well-sourced, complies with our policies and guidelines, and deals reasonably with a pseudoscientific topic. There's certainly no reason to remove the large number of criticisms of the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou WLU I see the error of my ways and actually prefer a few of your changes, so thankyou, Ive just fixed your errors however... p.s. fear not Im not one of those Indigo murders you mention in the discussion section, lol. In life you should try to be a little more open minded, you might actually learn something this time around...

On a final note you may do well to remember that often it takes science sometime to catch up with ideas that they could not previously prove and these are put in the " airy fairy " or superstitious basket. Things such as meridians, the Chinese spoke of them over 3000 years ago, documented them, and used them in a practice known today as acupuncture. Science went looking for these meridians (or path ways of energy throughout the body) for over seventy years before finding them, now they appear in modern medical text books as they have been found as previously described. Who knows, in a few thousand years maybe you would have had enough time to evolve yourself and learn to think for your self as oppose to regurgitating someone else s knowledge and taken it as gospel. Kind Regards IndigoAdult.

That's a pretty bold claim (that science has found meridians). Please provide reliable sources for this claim. Please provide recognized and widely used anatomy textbooks that contain such information. As a medical professional this is certainly news and the article would need to be updated with this radically new discovery that hasn't even hit the headlines. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the page against consensus, remove reliable sources, or {{infobox}}es, and please justify your edits via the policies and guidelines. Please also include an edit summary to show why you make the changes you do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Indigo children has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indigo children. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Note that until you substantively engage on the talk page about your edits, justifying them with reference to the appropriate policies and guidelines as well as reliable sources, they will continue to be removed, reverted, undone and opposed. Please discuss on the talk page, or your editing will never stand any chance of remaining more than a couple hours. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC) ᾪ[reply]