79.136.43.37

Welcome!

Hello, 79.136.43.37, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Using article talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Paleolithic diet are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen on the talk page that you have very strong feelings on the subject and are very much dedicated to censor every critic of the article. However all I have written in the Talk page is about improving the article. As the article is now it is laughable. It's like an antivaccer and a flateerther had a baby. I am sorry if you are personally invested in the topic and get offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying; please sign your posts. What you are writing on the Talk page is your analysis and feelings about the content. Per the notice above, Wikipedia content is a) based on what "reliable sources" say, and b) generated according to the policies and guidelines.

So your analysis based on your own thoughts and feelings, has no relevance or authority here - and neither does mine. Sources, and the policies and guidelines, are the authorities. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So why aren't there any sources for the strawman that is being attacked?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• If you continue to edit war over the talk page, I will report it to the site administrators and either you will be blocked from editing, or the page will be protected so that you cannot edit. If you wish to use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, all such proposed changes must be based on what reliable sources have said about the topic. They cannot be based on your own arguments, logic, or research. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop the charade. There is no single source on the different strawman-arguments I have listed. You started the edit war because you know I am right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to pretend here, no one else will read this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject discussed

1. "and that in fact, humans have evolved to be flexible eaters" - No paleo-advocate disputes this - Strawman No source in the article.

− 2. "if humans had not been nutritionally adaptable, these technological developments would have been dropped" - Not if it was effective. Producing lots of excess food meant lots of excess labor and means to develop modern cultures. If this claim is true, then fast food and soda must be healthy, otherwise it would be dropped. No source in the article, only that retarded argument.

− 3. "10,000 years was "plenty of time" for an evolutionary change in human digestive abilities to have taken place" - The agrarian revolution did not reach all of mankind 10 000 years ago, it wasn't a majority of humans living from agriculture until 2-3000 years ago. And it wasn't ONE change. The normal diet in the western world today isn't even 100 years old. No source in the article and it contradicts other Wikipedia articles.

− 4. "Excessive food energy intake relative to energy expended, rather than the consumption of specific foods," - So? As stated in the article people eat less energy on a paleolithic diet. No source in the article on the strawman.

− 5. ""knowledge of the relative proportions of animal and plant foods in the diets of early humans is circumstantial, incomplete, and debatable and that there are insufficient data to identify the composition of a genetically determined optimal diet" - So? No paleo-advocate says otherwise. The once that state a specific composition do so based on mainstream nutrition. No source in the article on the strawman.

− 6. "It has been noted that the rationale for the diet does not adequately account for the fact that, due to the pressures of artificial selection, most modern domesticated plants and animals differ drastically from their Paleolithic ancestors" - Ah, you mean that fact that most paleo-advocates stress? No source in the article on the strawman.

− 7. "In general, any weight loss caused by the diet is merely the result of calorie restriction, rather than a special feature of the diet itself" - No shit Sherlock!? You mean a diet advocated partly because it makes you eat less calories has the same effect as calorie restriction!? Debunked it good there professor! No source on the strawman, only the raterded argument.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

each one of those statements is footnoted and the source that is cited is reliable. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No they are not. Stop playing a fool. Give me ONE of them. For example the source for paleo-advocates in general claiming that domesticated plants does not differ from their Paleolithic ancestors. The source in the article is about the changes in modern domesticated plants, which is not contested by paleo-advocates. (Look up strawman).

Have you found any sources yet?

Not found it yet?

No source found yet?

February 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What took you so long? This was for a project where I needed to prove that wikipedia was not a credible source. We could not agree on a political page to edit so we took this obvious strawman. Got the last piece of evidence in the last minute.

If you'd really been doing that (we both know you weren't) you could have googled "wikipedia is not a reliable source" and the first result would have been our own page about how wikipedia is not a reliable source. Rather ironically, you chose to be disruptive in a subject area in which Wikipedia has actually been cited in articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals, about the strongest endorsement of accuracy there can be. Furthermore, you chose to be disruptive in a manner that does absolutely nothing to prove your "point". Adding true-yet-controversial information to one of our articles to see if you get reverted would be the obvious way to "prove" such a thing, assuming you had to be actively involved in the effort (which is a rather ignorant assumption, really). So it really boils down to whether you're the least competent researcher ever, or just lying about your motivations. I generally go with the option that is less condemnatory of my fellow editors, so I'm going to believe the latter. But feel free to prove me wrong. Of course, since yours is a static IP, we'll simply block you indefinitely once you do. But that's on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't say anything there about censoring critique on the talk-pages, using strawman-arguments IN the articles and such. I have already done other tests like adding true yet-for-your-group-controversial information, but that was mainly on political topics. This was about if the same applies on topics were strong opinions or propaganda-purposes should not be the reason for censorship.

I have not been disruptive at all that is just the lie used for the censorship.

I am currently doing the same thing on other pages with other IP-addresses. It is going to be used in education, because the material I used to use was mainly on politically controversial subjects and was critiqued because of it. Feel free to block any IP.

I don't need to prove you wrong, you know I'm right. Or why would you use the disruptive-lie otherwise?

Please tell me what academic journal cited this shitty article.

Okay. I've been proven wrong. Uh, good job, I guess... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Read it again, even if English is not my strongest language this is easy to understand - I don't care what you think, you are my lab rat.

• two notes. First, see WP:NOTLAB. We are not your lab rats. Second, see experimental design - your "experiment" was incompetently designed and had nothing to prevent confirmation bias from influencing both the conduct of the experiment and the interpretation of the resulting "data". Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are my lab rats, and that's why I used you as lab rats. I (we) was not being disruptive and only made contributions to improve a very bad article. But it was on a subject that is controversial among a certain type of people (that have to lie about it). If I had broken any rules the labtest would have been of no use.

It was perfectly designed. But actually my expectations were lower. I theorized a defense of the strawman built up in the article, the censorship was more proof than I hoped for (it is clear the strawman is known by the people pushing their agenda in this article, defense of it would mean they might believe what they say.)

Thanks for explaining how badly you abused your editing privileges and wasted the time of volunteers. Volunteer time is the life blood of this place, and you have been a leech on it. That is terrible. Perhaps one day you will see this. And I do hope that one day you learn how to conduct an experiment. See Blinded experiment. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jayron32 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked this IP address for 1 week after reviewing your contributions to Wikipedia. You have been involved in edit warring, attempt to use Wikipedia to advocate a position, and a general combatitive attitude. Please reconsider your approach towards working collaboratively if you want to continue to be useful around here. --Jayron32 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  I've reblocked this IP address for one month, and revoked your right to edit this talk page as well, as it is clear you aren't here to be useful, based on the extended conversation above. If you would like to reconsider your purpose at Wikipedia, and have a reason why you should be unblocked, use the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System to request an unblock. --Jayron32 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

---