User talk:TurokSwe

Some advice

Hello, TurokSwe. Instead of getting into an extensive WP:Edit war with an editor who is committing WP:Vandalism or other WP:Disruptive editing, as you did with User:GORIZARD, report the editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection after warning the editor. You don't need to warn the editor several times.

Also, if you need a Welcome template to better help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, just let me know here on your talk page and I'll provide you with one. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see here that you did report GORIZARD at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; seems that, despite being a fairly newly registered editor, you're familiar with some aspects such as that already.

Anyway, take care. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Godzilla

You should please stop adding false information about the American Godzilla (or officially, Zilla) and providing links to your own, biased Wiki. I won't remove any "American Godzilla" links or renaming the page to what it officially is known as (Zilla). I am warning you. You can add all the false information in the world on your own Wikia Wiki, but you cannot add it on a site that people will actually visit and believe in. Do not keep this behaviour going on, or there will be consequences. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm writing on the "American Godzilla" article is what can be verified. The supposed name change to Zilla is nothing more than a myth caused by misinterpretations by fans. I'm trying to give people the verifiable truth that so many fans wants to ignore. I havent done anything wrong, my friend, so don't try to threaten me. Unlike many dissatisfied fans I'm not vandalizing, I'm accepting and giving you all the truth you want to cover up for others. TurokSwe 09:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Godzilla 2

The only person in the entire world that thinks the Zilla name change is a myth is you (unless you have a few friends in real life who you've convinced as well). There are absolutely no sources that say it is a myth other than your biased Wiki. If it was true, don't you think better sources for Godzilla information like Toho Kingdom would list it? Don't you think that the ground-breaking fact that Toho actually let the American Godzilla be called so? A photo of a logo on a DVD re-release in 2006 that TriStar was too lazy to change does not count as fact -- you are just assuming, and assuming is not factual. Many thousands of people call GINO "American Godzilla", but at least they know the fact is that he has been officially renamed ZILLA™ by Toho. And no, Zilla is not a childish mockery of the American Godzilla. Why would Toho waste money in trademarking Zilla and saying in GMK that the Americans believed that it was GODZILLA® when it wasn't? Don't those two things count as enough proof that Zilla ≠ Godzilla? Zilla is the official name, and that is the fact, proven by Toho themselves in Final Wars and in GMK. You know man, I'm really sorry if I sound angry. Please just leave the page alone, please. Just don't revert the facts, you'll be doing all the American Godzilla fans, including me, a favor. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.32.91 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello, I'm Faizan Al-Badri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ceratopsia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HCA. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Perentie because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! HCA (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ceratopsia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been vandalizing, I just corrected false information. On Perentie, it should be mentioned that Megalania is the world's largest lizard, how is that vandalizing? On Ceratopsia, it should be acknowledged that the claim of extinction is nothing more than a claim. The extinction myth doesn't even have any supporting evidence, and therefore we should make clear that it's just a controversial claim. There are no evidence for extinction and everyone does not believe in extinction and there are often evidence which contradicts the extinction claims. How is my corrections vandalizing? You're overreacting.

And you're using sophistry to conceal your obvious cryptozoological agenda. By your logic, we should erase all the death dates from historical biography pages, since just because Lincoln hasn't been seen lately doesn't mean he's not alive. When you lose your car keys, do you spend all day searching just one room for them, no matter how many times you come up empty, because no number of failures is ever enough to prove they're not in the room and therefore you should search a different room? If something hasn't been seen in thousands or millions of years, it's probably dead or non-existent. Yes, rare exceptions occur, but the vast majority of extinct species really are extinct. And I notice you aren't flogging this position for conodonts or Bothriolepis, just the "cool" animals - selective reasoning in the extreme. Science isn't philosophy; that's why it's much more successful and useful. We don't endlessly look for absolute proof; we test a hypothesis and if the odds of our results being inaccurate are miniscule, we accept it and move on until and unless evidence prompts re-examinating. If you're going to argue for the survival of something after a very long gap in evidence, you need to actually provide evidence (good evidence, not drunken eyewitness accounts). HCA (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lincoln example was very bad. Lincoln was one man (not an entire species) and he lived and died in recent times. We don't even know how long all organisms or even our world has been around, that topic is a matter of opinion/belief and controversy. We don't know if any animal or plant or a planet have been around for tousands or millions of years. But using your logic, since Coelocanths werent seen alive until about the 1930s or something, then they would probably be dead or non-existing right now? Yet we know they are alive and well. Personally, I tend to believe more in reality and possibilities than what you believe in, I don't just swallow someone's claim that a species is extinct without tasting the claim first. I question everything. And I certainly question extinction claims, especially since there really arent any evidence for extinction (although I know that extinction doesn't leave evidence), anyway, I never see any reasons to assume that a species is extinct. Just because I havent seen a specific species alive in the flesh that does certainly not give me any reason to believe that this species would be extinct. Extinction is possible, but many times unlikely, especially when there are (cryptozoological) evidence against the extinction claim. I don't have a paradigma like you, I don't hold on to traditions of simply believing everything that you're told that has the word "science" in it. I'm living in reality and treats reality as it should be treated, I never expect that I know more about reality than reality itself does. Science is truly philosophy, even I can't ignore that, practically anything is philosophy. Eyewitness accounts are also evidence, it's also thanks to eyewitnesses that we even know anything about our world, it's thanks to eyewitnesses that even have science. Eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they can also be very right. And even when I do provide anything more thats close to conrete evidence it is just ignored and removed, I would guess mostly because of people with biased and ignorant minds, don't take it as an insult. And your attitude and behaviour about all this shows evidently a very bad and biased way of thinking, my friend. Don't play God. TurokSwe 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word "known", how is that even vandalizing??? You're clearly overreacting and/or ignoring me and the obvious. There's no need to warn me just because of that word, my silly friend. Shall I maybe give you a warning too? Is that what you want? TurokSwe 20:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settle your conflict at Talk:Megalania. Don't edit the article until you have formed consensus. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

(edit conflict) When i posted my comment on WP:AIAV you were already far past the WP:3RR mark on the Megalania. As Mufka already warned above - don't edit (revert) the article unless you have consensus which is clearly not the case here - hence the 24 hour block for 3RR and edit warring. If you are in an edit war you discuss the issue, rather then reverting over and over. In cases where there are multiple editors disagreeing with you, at times the only thing you can do is drop the issue and move on. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come I've been blocked but not HCA (talk)? TurokSwe 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HCA has not steppe over the 3RR line. Several other editors - including you - did pass that line though. Par 3RR that is a valid reason for issuing a block thought i initially opted against that measure since i hoped that everyone could leave the article's alone and head to the talk page instead. Yet even after my and Mufka's warning to leave the article alone you made another partial revert continuing the edit war. Since you were already far past 3RR that resulted in the current block. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!

This is a warning. Please, stop vandalizing the content from the page Zilla! 66.26.66.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being ridiculous. You can't give me a warning for reverting the content into your vandalism (I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this word). The content you're providing is unsourced and highly questionable and your edits can easily be seen as vandalism, not only according to me. For the record, the page is named American Godzilla, and not "Zilla" as you'd want it to be according to your opinion. TurokSwe 23:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megalania

You edits there are disruptive, and need to stop. Consensus is clear, and further discussion is just wheel spinning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, I should be clearer: do not make any substantive edits to this article until you have consensus for them on the talk page. i.e. don't be "bold", gain consensus first. Failure to do so will result in a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Godzilla 3 and Final

I have given you explanations why I keep reverting your bias: because it's pure, blatant bias. I tried to reason with you but you want things done only your way. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]