96.127.219.24

December 2020

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dilithium, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please review WP:IPCV as well. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2020 (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.

July 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at DARVO, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "I didn't remove any single thing", really? No, not true. Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, what did I remove? --96.127.219.24 (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't, I'm sorry; you removed it from the first paragraph, and I didn't realize the material was still there in a new second paragraph. You actually merely made the explanation less clear (whatever is a DARVO "proponent"?). Bishonen | tålk 10:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. Could you remove that "vandalism warning" then? 96.127.219.24 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You're free to remove anything you like from your own page, you know. I'd rather not remove it, since that would leave the replies to it hanging in mid-air. But I'll cross it out. Done. (Just remove the whole caboodle yourself if you like.) Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

I guess crossing it out like this works. I remember removing an administrator warning message is a bannable offense. Or at least it was not so long ago. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, it never has been. I've been here a long time, and I believe you misremember. Please see WP:REMOVED: The only thing you're not supposed to remove from your page is declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block (and, technically, a few other very unlikely contingencies). But doing so is certainly not a "bannable offense". All that will happen is that somebody will restore it, and will politely explain it's an exception to the general rule. People, especially new users, aren't expected to be aware of all these minutiae, honestly. Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

To clarify my hasty edit summary when I reverted your edit, although "gaslighting" is mentioned in the article, there is no body text that supports It's a very common poisoning the well, gaslighting and whataboutism fallacy used to make people look guilty merely for defending themselves against allegations and accusation made against them. You need a reliable source that supports that complete claim. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I might have done that, but I hadn't meaningfully edited on Wikipedia in about 3 months and then I spent 6 hours in the middle of the night yesterday defending myself against gratuitous vandalism claims, landing me in the cross-hair of two administrators and probably on some watch lists, all this because people didn't like the content I edited. People were so unhappy I shed another point of view that any excuse was good to summarily undo what I edited. And now comes the "unsourced material claim", on an article that relies solely on a single and heavily biased and self vested interested source. (And other works that actually doesn't say anything of substance except quoting that very single initial source. We used to call it "circular quoting" when I was attending university, but I've also read "incestual quoting" and other similar phrases.)

So I don't believe the "unsourced material" claims are the truthful or are the truthful reasons for editing away portions what doesn't fit the agenda behind the very existence of this problematic article. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

---