120.21.232.28

January 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The page-revert's complete lack of content-dispute communications, IN THE talk page, is the very reason why i've tried to get outside help - responding to a blanket-new-post wipe via page-reversion without communications/with-communications-dispute , can go straight to mis-use of powers / inappropriate use of reversions. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

similarly, to call my talk-page contributions, as-disruptive with your own judgement without-process, is arbitrarily jumping to the conclusion that my edits ARE disruptive - how exactly is that MEANT TO BE DETERMINED?

every admin has a judge/jury/executioner say,

on what is or is not?

the very process, (dispute resolution) you're suggesting should've been initiated, has ALSO NOT been initiated AND completed, in terms of identifying 'disruptive editing'.

i've had no chance to DEFEND my contribution... how / where is that identification, supposed to've been completed?

This is precisely what is WRONG with wikipedia, when it comes to how you guys act THE SAME WAY, in relation to talk pages, compared to MAIN CONTENT pages.

you've all forgotten the difference, and just get sick of the quantity of reading burden, and like to resolve things, like telecommunications call-centre rates-of-resolved-inquiries , minus someone getting performance-pay bonuses - it's similar though - many of you REGULARLY do not HONESTLY try, to see the value in debate / suggestions, in talk pages, and PRETEND, as though the policy is the same as for main content pages,

when it is NOT. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

noticing that the individual who'd reverted the page, had multiple criticisms and reactions per edit-war patterned behaviours, impatience and non-commitment to actually reading&understanding what NEW posts in talk pages deserve of fair-consideration, is not outside breadths of REACTIONS, to blanket-wipes like he did on this occasion - no communication, no debate, no notes explaining why he did it, and no addressing of whether or not the talk-page-contribution was or was not of NEW points, as-opposed to more "along the same lines".

the prompt about inferred russian/usa governmental omissive/misleading information policies putting people at risk, was a guess, and personal, yes, sorry, but i had just spend probably over 1/2 hour writing all that up, and all they seemed to do, was delete it without note or justification! no wonder wikipedia has got a reputation for abuses-of-power and lack of leadership! 120.21.232.28 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

it was a suggestive-criticism,

by the way, not an "attack".

if it's incorrect, then my suggestive-criticism, is a incorrect criticism - that does not make it an attack.

i genuinely, and still do, think, that many Wikipedia admins, are USA biased, or neo-cold-war reactionary / over-professionalist, when it comes to the talk pages (blurring what's defending a sense of professionalism with defending national-agenda,.. ABERRANT-behaviour). 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

correctly guessing when someone's reversion of a page, has been OVER-used on talk pages rather than main-content pages, when it would come to (reasonable) reaction to sensitivities in relation to USA-bias / cold-war sensitivities / national-agendas,

would not 'BE AN ATTACK' ... if i were guessing correctly, would it? 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

by contrast, A REQUEST,

for me to be more SENSITIVE, or exacting-IN-my criticisms,

like i just have been with detail of potential bias or reactionism or national-agenda corruption

( wikipedia does not accept that the USA's national agenda comes-FIRST, over truth , does it not? )

would've been reasonable.

nothing in this universe, will stop people from guessing at neo-cold war cover ups and embarassing-for-a-country information damage-control.

Such should not come into something as incidentally-IRRELLIVANT,

when the main point of addressing what they did in reverting the page,

SHOULD STILL be,

but none of you are willing to even discuss it,

whether or not accumulative-EMF/EMR does affect cellular functioning,

and the answer to that reality's APPLICATION, to a prospect-new acceptable definition,

to EMS say,..

EM-aversion or something, EMAS, (electromagnetic aversion syndrome))

is the kind of RESULT, of my proposed 2 types of EMS,

but you lot only care about your speed-of-dealing-with pages that-look bad,

sloppy, casual,.. whatever.

FEW of you ACTUALLY READ, and try to understand, the critical differences and their importances of what (some) people post in talk pages!

Talk pages are not meant to-ONLY,

be a noticeboard for spacing/spelling/URL updates & similar! 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Original research

Hi. Your contributions here seem to suggest you are not aware of the fact that on Wikipedia content needs to be based on a reliable sources, rather than editors' own research. See WP:Original research for details. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

i am very much aware,

thanks for the further-simplifacation / scapegoating of a 'problematically complicating' user,

although i get sick of having to say this,

unfortunately, TALK PAGES, as contrasted with main-content pages,

are PRECISELY-where, ideas, suggestions, refinements, refocusings, etc,

are to be discussed, and that is exactly what i was trying to do.

knee-jerk neo-consensus indiscrimination upon WHOME to apply neo-consensus rules,

is failing to APPLY, neo-consensus applicability.

tell-the-difference please. - i.e. applying neo-consensus rules TO FURTHER defending of,

EMS as-is,

would be,.. and a knee-jerk application would not be inappropriate,

but as i've said, defending EMS as-is ... is NOT what i was doing, nor-posting, at any point! 120.21.232.28 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

suggestions CAN include technical detail/relativities / applications, without needing sources - scientists use assumed-knowledgeamongst themselves, on a daily basis. if you constantly had to create links to everything you're including in-meaning in your speech, you'd be even stop-start than you are when getting technical - is that what you're sugegesting?

It's inevitable that sometimes pages will have complications/applied-technical detail, that will be above/beyond most's heads. Constantly inserting links to TRY-BUT-FAIL to help everyone to understand it, is neither practical, NOR reasonable, to ask, and my post there is far from the only one, where not holding everyone's hand every-step of the way, SAVES TIME, for needed-debate.

That's not a reason to flag such as inappropriate. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

oops - typo. "even stop-start"

that was meant to be;

even-MORE, stop-start 120.21.232.28 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that-i-thought,

my debate-prompt / suggestion,..

should go straight into the MAIN CONTENT page,

then you're just assuming wayyyyy too much about me - i wanted no such thing - PROMPTING ideas, is only that, and that is exactly what the talk pages are FOR. time to go back to basics, about the DIFFERENCE between main-content pages CONTRASTED WITH talk pages, and visa versa. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

you're not correct (in potentially inferred EXclusivity? ) about "editor's own research", either. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

oop! ignore/delete that last one. i momentarily mis-read what you'd written.  :) 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

momentarily though you'd meant that they have to ONLY-consist, of one's own research! ha! wwwhat? i can't delete those 2, and now this 3rd response because i'm not logged in, sorry. 120.21.232.28 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's too much text to work through. Your comment at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity was also a wall of text and didn't refer to a single reliable source. You're making it very hard for others to sensibly engage with whatever you're trying to achieve. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---