User talk:76.107.252.227

Just a heads up about COI violations

Hey, I just wanted to give you a quick heads up, since I noticed you had a somewhat unpleasant runin with SergeCross. Did you notice that you had a prior conflict with a user named Smuckola? This isn't a coincidence. There is a group of a few users here on Wikipedia that use Cross' administrative privileges to ensure that cases of wikistalking, outright vandalism and harassment go unpunished. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Wikipedia, these things are not something we have the capability of fighting against. If you want to continue contributing to Wiki, that's admirable, but be aware that there is a worm in the apple. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reticulated python size

Do NOT revert the reticulated python page again. Please examine the extensive discussion on the talk page. There is extensive evidence from FAR superior sources to Guiness that their supposed record is invalid and unreliable. This has been debated ad nauseum on the talk page, and the conclusion, based on the best sources available, is that Guiness is wrong. Please take any and all future discussion to the talk page before restoring this invalid record. HCA (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case multiple sources are needed. I don't consider that author reliable. I never heard of this person "Gabriella Fredricksson" in my life. There are probably better snake experts besides that person.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed scientific paper. Whether you've "heard of them" is utterly irrelevant. HCA (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is because there are other scientific report that can nullify it. Quit acting like your source is the only reliable one that's selfish and spoiling other users rights to edit and add reliable sources.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, then your next edit will only cite peer-review scientific articles, then. HCA (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia article that states that. Reliable sources can come from Newspaper, history books, science reports, or polls. If you remove my reliable source again I am having you blocked from wikipedia for edit warring and removing reliable sources.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, just read the damn talk page. That's what it's there for. This topic has been discussed before, AT GREAT LENGTH. This position is not just my whim, but the considered opinion of many editors after a VERY long discussion on this topic. Go. Read it. All of it. See *why* we say what we say, *why* we consider this 32 foot report unreliable, *why* the book I cited is a conclusive refutation of it. If you want to contribute, then take the time to educate yourself about the subject. This topic is prone to "big fish" stories, so skepticism is warranted. HCA (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Freeza

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Freeza. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Click on the category you're adding; its says "This category is for Fictional characters in animation explicitly identified as gay...", if it is not in the series it doesn't get added. Your interpretation of the character doesn't change anything. Xfansd (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)