136.62.254.174

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Karl Popper, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 5 April 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.

@Chris troutman: Uh, it's not OR. Why are you construing it that way?

Popper -- in 1974 -- was speaking about how DNA had but one known function: encoding information to make proteins (which carry out activity in the cell). No one realized in 1974 that some RNA was capable of enzymatic activity. In 2018, on the other hand, it is known to be true. This isn't "research"; it's an objective fact.

I linked to the other wiki articles to give notice to today's readers that Popper was mistaken. It is to avoid the perception that "Popper thought X, and he was an authority on the subject therefore it must be true." 136.62.254.174 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia only writes what other sources say. We aren't writing solely what is fact or what we reason to be true, we write what sources say. Your assertion might be correct but you need to cite a source that actually says that. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, you seem to be taking WP:NOR too literally. Can you respond to the points I'm making instead of parroting the text of the OR article? The lead of the ribozyme article itself says, "The 1982 discovery of ribozymes demonstrated that RNA can be both genetic material (like DNA) and a biological catalyst (like protein enzymes), and contributed to the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that RNA may have been important in the evolution of prebiotic self-replicating systems."

How is what I wrote original research? Can you articulate that for me? As a counterpoint, consider the "Compiling facts and information" and especially the "Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors" sections of Wikipedia:These are not original research.

136.62.254.174 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"you seem to be taking WP:NOR too literally" Our policies, guidelines, and essays are composed of written words. Those words have meaning. You can only take them literally. They are not imaginary constructs. " Can you respond to the points I'm making instead of parroting the text of the OR article?" No. That's a mistake I've made before with other editors. This isn't worth my time to let you convince me that your point is correct. Either you cite sources that prove your claim or you don't add content. Also, be aware that (per WP:CIRCULAR) you cannot cite other articles because what they say today is not necessarily what they'll say tomorrow. Published academic journal articles don't change and they have cachet that self-published sources don't have. I'm assuming that your claim "modern developments have shown the possibility of ribozymes and the RNA world hypothesis. This is one way to avoid Popper's dilemma. See also the abiogenesis article." is only what you believe to be true, which is why I'm pointing to NOR. You provided no citations so I could have pointed you to WP:V instead. You need a source that discusses "modern developments" and the "RNA world hypothesis" and how that relates to "Popper's dilemma." It seems to me that you've reasoned these things out and aren't regurgitating what a published reliable source has said. I also posit that you have become deranged about publishing this "truth" that you believe because you insist on arguing about it here rather than the article's talk page while you have no sources in support of your claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Easy there, tiger. The name calling here and in your edit summaries isn't constructive or helpful. As another user mentioned on your own talk page, remember WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

I haven't been edit warring, I didn't revert your edits, and I've tried to tease out sections of the policies you point to to try to convince you my edit wasn't synthesis. I've only replied here -- and not on the Popper talk page -- because you reverted my edit and then immediately posted here. If you yourself had opened a section on the Popper talk page, I would've replied there.

Wikipedia:These are not original research is the consensus of the community, too, as is the plain meaning of related Wikipedia articles (such as for "ribozyme"). But if you don't find them compelling, OK. I'm not going to touch the Popper article. You win. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. 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 Dana Perino seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

NB: discussion continued on Donner60's talk page as he requested. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

---