User talk:Ksparkler

November 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Arecibo message appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Arecibo message shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I am involved in an "edit war" does not make it so. I think you're being rather bullying. I invite an administrative mediator to this conversation. My last edit was quite reasonable. No one can prove the reply was a hoax; therefore it is not factual to ASSUME that it was one. The Arecibo Message page has voluminous arguments that state my case perfectly. I am only really removing the word "hoax" which cannot be proven - no matter how many articles choose to print that OPINION. The other changes I made simply alter "minor changes" to list which changes were made - to more than 50 % of the message's content. If hardly characterize that as "minor". I find your bulldogged gatekeeping to be not only rude, but anti-information. Ksparkler (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to contact you in a reasonable way. I have not "bullied" anyone, just pointed-out Wikipedia conventions, also your use of caps is considered shouting and there is no need for that, or your other comments, on Wikipedia. I have reported your edit warring to administrators. I appreciate that this is a subject which some a controversial, but there is absolutely no evidence that this was a genuine reply from off-earth.

This is my last word to you, unless you can use Wikipedia in a positive way - without name-calling. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Funnyfarmofdoom

Hello, Ksparkler. You have new messages at Funnyfarmofdoom's talk page.
Message added 00:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 00:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures

Wikipedia relies on collaboration. Being reverted is standard procedure here and people either have to handle it without expressing frustration or find another website. Please discuss disagreements at the talk page of the relevant article, not at the talk page of a user. You may have looked at the edit warring page but with more experience you would know that the edits at Arecibo message are edit warring. Any repeat of that or hints of a civility problem will result in blocks. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]