User talk:DrPaleontology

.

June 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dinornis, 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. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Dinornis. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove valid references to reliable, verifiable scientific journals and other such sources in order to try to lend credence to your theory which you apparently can not support with even a single valid, reliable, verifiable reference. See Wikipedia Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did with this edit to Dinornis, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: flagging a statement as dubious and worthy of extra scrutiny is not “deliberately adding incorrect information” DrPaleontology (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the information from a peer reviewed scientific journal dubious? Do you have any reliable reference that supports that assertion? Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking the third message so only two will stand since I challenge the edit but the message may be a little off point. However, I do not recede from my view that your editing is becoming disruptive, that you have no basis for challenging the entry as dubious and I still say that under Wikipedia guidelines you need to cite reliable, verifiable sources to modify facts shown in reliable, verifiable sources. Otherwise, I do not see how your assertion differs from Bigfoot sightings and other fringe theory cryptozoology. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before pursuing this quixotic crusade any further, I would ask you to have a look at recent exchanges on the talk page (Talk:Dinornis#"Still extant"). The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly (in fact practically unanimously) of the opinion that the entire clade is extinct. You will need extraordinary evidence to the contrary before it can show up in a Wikipedia article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Titanis. DVdm (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.