User talk:ThunderheadX

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ThunderheadX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, ThunderheadX. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi ThunderheadX! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can I edit the article "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence"?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tree planting; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi ThunderheadX! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What to do when someone is reverting your edits and claims that there is no consensus in the talk page?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

It's unfortunate that this warning is necessary but here it is: it is obvious that your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote, maybe as a result of a conflict of interest. Other than bludgeoning discussions and wasting community time, this degenerates into unacceptable attacks like "this is your problem with SENS", "making out ridiculous lies about wikipedia's rules", "that you just ignore the facts", etc. Relevant are WP:FOC, WP:ASPERSION and WP:PA, but also WP:NOTPROMOTION. Others have also explained well about WP:ABOUTSELF and its limitations. Unless you move on, you're likely about to be reported as WP:NOTHERE. Even if it was a WP:COI issue, there's no problem with posting suggestions and proposing sources at the relevant article talk page reasonably. It's not productive to repeat over and over and make claims about the motivations of other editors. It's unacceptable to suggest that they somehow must "have something against SENS" because they don't buy into the proposed arguments and PR, but care about the encyclopedia, its quality and its policies. The article is far from an attack page for instance, that would be evidence for some editors motivated against it (who would most likely also soon be banned as WP:NOTHERE). Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 01:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: The only one using personal attacks and making claims about the motivations of other editor is you, not me. I am not here to "promote" anything, in fact it doesn't even matter even if it was true because it doesn't change the fact that all the editors who are supporting the "criticism" section in the article about SENS are making ridiculous interpretations of wikipedia's rules in order to fit their own opinions. Seeing SENS as a fringe is one thing but claiming that SENS's website isn't a reliable source about the activities of the organization(like researching senolytics) is just ridiculous, do you think it makes any sense?. It is really annoying when people say things that doesn't make any sense and a large group of people support it and expect you to act as if it makes sense. You can say whatever you want about SENS but the fact is that many of the arguments used by the editors who see SENS as fringe are simply ridiculous and nothing but an excuse for their general mistrust in anything that seems supportive of SENS.

And repeating yourself in an argument were people ignore your arguments is just something everybody is going to do, including you and the rest of the editors here.--ThunderheadX (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]