2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to John Paul Jones has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: John Paul Jones was changed by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.964136 on 2017-11-14T03:15:38+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

July 2018

Hello, I'm Audacity. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to George Hackenschmidt seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Λυδαcιτγ 08:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

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

POV editing

Do stop your POV editing. I can easily get the articles WP:Semi-protected. And since your IP is highly suspicious, I might also have a WP:CheckUser look into that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

All I've seen from you are deliberate POV edits and reversals to give undue weight to widely discredited theories regarding sexology, often without any justification for your edits. You've reverted countless edits qualifying these theories as out of step with the scientific consensus in order to lend this undue bias. Merely being a long-standing user won't change this fact in any dispite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk • contribs)

"Widely discredited", etc. What reliable academic sources do you have stating such? ContraPoints does not count. All you'd be sourcing is one side, and it's unlikely that "widely discredited" would be in any of the sources. And regarding this? That's not cleaning up anything. Not to mention the fact that androphilia and gynephilia are terms used by many trans people for the very fact that they consider them less restrictive than terms like heterosexual and homosexual. But go on...keep editing Wikipedia from an activist POV. You'll see what happens. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Countless academic sources, ranging from Julia Serano, Daskalos, Smith et al, Veale et al, Moser, Nuttbrock, and countless others have repeatedly demonstrated unscientific flaws with Blanchard's proposed sexual typology through peer-reviewed academic publications. Not are you egregiously violating NPOV policy, you also are failing to adhere to Wikipedia's civility guidlines, including the assumption of good faith, avoiding personal attacks, and being polite and welcoming to new users. If there's a problem feel free to file a dispute resolution request. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You are citing people from the third paragraph of the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article and disregarding the experts in the second paragraph because they don't fit your POV. We go by the literature with WP:Due weight, and you clearly do not understand this. I would be wasting my time debating you.

And as for WP:Civility? Do save your WP:Assume good faith arguments. Editors are allowed to call out your POV-editing that goes against WP:LABEL, WP:Neutral and WP:Verifiability. It's no different than you supposedly calling me out, except that I'm right. We can note suspicious editing. I suspect that you are a logged-out editor. New users don't know about our policies and guidelines! Not unless they read about it in a source or forum.

Bye now. I won't be replying to you in this section again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Except that I'm right". Blanchard's theory is a minority view in the scientific literature on these topics, and "undue weight" would be to give it an equal footing to the consensus view. You apparently either don't understand undue weight policy or you have recieved biased information about the state of the literature uncritically. Finally, Wikipedia's policies are public knowledge. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:95 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Bryan, Texas—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

---