CuriousQuestions
July 2019 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:NOTHERE in their entirety. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive as in the facts I stated and provided valid links (for the organisations own website) is not want to hear due to your bias on the subject! Please state your bias, where do you stand on the issue?CuriousQuestions (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn’t matter. Ad hominem arguments don’t make any of your questions any more on topic.—Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Try looking up what Ad hominem means (the fact you avoided your stance on the subject to show you have no bias and didnt not even claim you are unbiased, says a lot) , I did not ask questions! I stated facts direct from PETAs website with the links proving the facts I was suggesting should be added! You can claim anything is disruptive stating facts about evolution is disruptive if you ask an fundamentalist christian wiki editor! Stating facts will also been seen as disruptive either by the jewish wiki editor or the nazi wiki editior! They are still facts with links tho!CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Questions or not, it was off-topic. Coming to your own conclusions about a statement on the PETA website isoriginal research and not permitted. To try to discredit my comment above because of a perceived bias on my part is an ad hominem argument because it has no bearing on whether your suggestions are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
- Instead of arguing with me, you should look for plenty of independent reliable sources (not your own analysis of the organization website) that explicitly publish the same analysis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Try looking up what Ad hominem means (the fact you avoided your stance on the subject to show you have no bias and didnt not even claim you are unbiased, says a lot) , I did not ask questions! I stated facts direct from PETAs website with the links proving the facts I was suggesting should be added! You can claim anything is disruptive stating facts about evolution is disruptive if you ask an fundamentalist christian wiki editor! Stating facts will also been seen as disruptive either by the jewish wiki editor or the nazi wiki editior! They are still facts with links tho!CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
"Coming to your own conclusions about a statement on the PETA website is" I just stated facts what PETAs website says and their views stated on their website.
Lesson time "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character!" I have not attacked your character, to prove PETA have double standard, thats an Ad hominem. How you view the topic and your own personal bias comes into your decision making is a valid point! (it is impossible for most people to be unbiased and objective on matters - Another FACT PROVEN by SCIENCE)!
Heres a simple question for you to prove my point (which im sure you will not answer, again why state a fact thats against what you want to claim?) Is a PETA member/follower going to ALWAYS be unbiased when working on the PETA article? YES or NO? CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop your disruptive editing. Now. My finger is hovering over the block button. This should be understood as a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
