First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Even though you've been an editor for several months, it looks like nobody has yet formally welcomed you. Some pages that you may find helpful, if you haven't found them already, are:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I have some comments about this revert of my edit to Mermaid. First, I feel that the edit summary, which calls my edit "nonsense", is dangerously similar to a personal attack. So I would suggest you phrase edit summaries a bit more carefully in the future. This will defuse a surprising amount of wiki-tension (which we have here in Wikipedia in quantity these days).

Second, Starbucks consistently describes its logo as a siren, not as a mermaid or even a melusine. Now their interpretation may well be odd, but unless there is a notable critic who says that the logo is really a melusine, we don't have any ground to assert in the article that it really is a melusine (since Wikipedia articles are not permitted to promote particular interpretations).

I hope this makes the reasons for my edit clearer to you. Michael Slone (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll check our project page, you'll see that Cryptozoology is covered under our project criteria, and thus any page, such as the St Augustine Monster, suspected to be the carcass of the Giant Octopus cryptid, is within our area. Additionally, I don't at all appreciate your implication that my tagging has been 'indescriminate'. --InShaneee 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Paranormal Wikiproject has by nature of the similar draw of the subjects of Anomalistics and Parapsychology...that is to say, the Unexplained aspects of both forms of study...been drawn into incorporating both into its sphere of subjects. The monster you state was in fact mundanely explainable was, indeed, in fact just that...but that does not take away from the need of the Project to give a encyclopedic reference to the subject, as someone may hear about it what with it being labeled a "monster." Be aware likewise that "Paranormal" literally means "other than normal" to society's eyes and that whatever other definitions a page or pages may fall under, they are most certainly those in the end. --Chr.K. 15:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you are getting into the same problems that I have had with hard-core skeptics on that article. Part of doing science (and loving it) is keeping an open mind. I want to make sure that valuable editors like you are not brushed aside into a conflict that eventually gets them banned for being "disruptive" (this almost happened to me when I began editing Wikipedia and I didn't know how the politics go). Fortunately, the vast majority of Wikipedia is about the "little stuff" that nobody argues about. If you want to help with other Cryptozoology articles that are not as contentious feel free to try joining the above WikiProject. If the debate on the talk page has already made you sick of the whole subject, Taskforce Jupiter could really need critical editors like you to work on Jupiter articles. If you want to chat with me just click on my talk page and I will be more than ready to discuss any subject that you have comments or questions about. Again, welcome, and please don't be discouraged by some of our less-civil editors.--Novus Orator 08:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just read you comments re Global warming pause. You will notice the "it must be a consensus of the editors who edit this" ... what they mean by "editors" is that the academics who use wikipedia to try to ensure the government are scared enough to keep giving them grants to study this problem - must all agree that warming has stopped and they are no longer needed (it will never happen!)

So, just accept that most people know wikipedia can't be trusted on climate. And, the best way to ensure that anyone reading the article knows its a load of carp is to have it say "continuing warming" - because it is so easily disproved by a quick look on the internet.

Please don't change it - it avoid anyone being misled that the whole article is distorted lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.16 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just claim that folkloristics is a pseudoscience and cryptozoology is not? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am saying claiming folkloristics is "scientific" is a pseudoscientific claim as it clearly is not science unless you can produce examples of folkloristics in science journals. As for cz, my position is some of it is pseudoscience and some is not (i.e. the peer reviewed stuff in scientific journals). This position is supported by prominent writers for Nature (Henry Gee) and Scientific American (Darren Naish).Tullimonstrum (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert the universities, folkloristics is a pseudoscience and cryptozoology is the truth! :bloodofox: (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed at Talk:Cryptozoology that you were personalizing disputes (i.e. "the ultraskeptics have convinced themselves that anything other than total dismissal of cryptozoology is somehow POV") yet what must be done is focus on content, the selection of reliable sources and how to summarize them (WP:FOC, WP:NOTFORUM). —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PaleoNeonate, we need to focus on what reliable sources and Wikipedia policies say rather than our own opinions or desire to present "both sides" (which, by the way, is not what WP:NPOV means). Your recent comments [1][2] in particular continue to use language like "foulness of cryptozoologial thought" and "God forbid, we actually allow the heretics to describe what they do without sanitising commentary by the orthodox" which do nothing to demostrate how the cryptozoological perspective is supported by reliable sources or which policies actually support its inclusion. We're not trying to demonize anything, we're just trying to write an article from the mainstream perspective. If you tone down the language and stick to policy-based reasoning, I think you'll find editors more willing to engage with your point of view. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bilby (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rickmat and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31 § Rickmat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]