User talk:Second Quantization

Archive 1,2,3,4, 5 /Suggestion Box

The TM topic

Hi IRWolfie and welcome to the TM topic area. I’ve noticed that you have removed significant amounts of sourced content without discussion or consensus. Being new to the topic area you may be unaware of the TM ArbCom and that the articles in the topic fall under its discretionary sanctions including Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational. In light of this you might consider self-reverting the edits below and discussing them on the talk page before removing the material again.

• In this edit you removed text along with 7 sources.
• In this edit you removed text and 3 sources.
• In this edit you removed a large amount of content along with 4 sources.

Thanks for your input and good faith efforts to improve the articles in and around the TM topic. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the issue, specifically material that violates WP:FRINGE or WP:NOR, address my specific concerns on the talk page. You are also inadvertently misrepresenting the arbcom statement. It is a statement of principles that hold for all of wikipedia and refers to material removed during the initial collaboration process; not material which has been in an article for some time. It also does not indicate that it is a specific sanction in TM, you have misrepresented this.

I am well used to editing fringe articles, I am a WP:FTN regular, and Fringe topics are the bulk of my edits. Thus I have much experience with WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:RS P&G and its applications. In light of the fact that you provide absolutely no rationale in policy for why I should revert myself I am going to ignore your request. I also suggest if you want to challenge my edits, provide an actual reason; saying my edits are too bold is itself not a valid rationale for a revert Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.". Note that fringe topics are themselves under discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)