User contributions for RKOwens444

For RKOwens444 talk block log uploads logs global account filter log
A user with 23 edits. Account created on 26 June 2020.

This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

Search for contributionsshowhide
⧼contribs-top⧽
⧼contribs-date⧽

8 January 2021

  • 07:0207:02, 8 January 2021 diff hist +19‎ Alien abduction ‎ Finally someone has the courage to provide an actual explanation for their reason for removing this sentence. Not good for the intro? Fine, but it still doesn't excuse the wild and unsourced allegation that there have been no notable abductions since 1994 (in reality there are TV shows and documentaries on hundreds since then). This is like saying no one on Earth has claimed to see a ghost since 1994. Like, seriously?? What a wild and ludicrous claim. Tag: Reverted
  • 04:2004:20, 8 January 2021 diff hist +423‎ Alien abduction ‎ Undid revision 999027394 by ජපස (talk) You have provided no explanation to your objection to this sentence either in my talk page or in these edit summaries. Why is that? All this sentence does is say David Huggins claims such and such. The sentence immediately before it says Barney and Betty Hill claim such and such, but you have no problem with it. The sentence in place now has ZERO sources. Provide your logic and I'll stop changing it. Tags: Undo Reverted
  • 03:5503:55, 8 January 2021 diff hist +15‎ Haim Eshed ‎ Well, I offered to leave the wording such that it simply stated what the person says while leave personal opinion aside, but since we keep insisting on applying personal opinions, so be it. Tag: Reverted
  • 03:5003:50, 8 January 2021 diff hist +423‎ Alien abduction ‎ Undid revision 999020907 by ජපස (talk) Still can't think up a logical excuse for why it's okay to deny a strongly-sourced fact while at the same time peddling wild and baseless claims with zero sources, I see. Maybe you need to have a conversation with yourself as to why that is. We've seen over the last couple days what a disdain for facts and an insistence on peddling unsourced falsehoods can lead to. Facts and truth matter. Tags: Undo Reverted
  • 02:2202:22, 8 January 2021 diff hist +423‎ Alien abduction ‎ I'm calling on any moderators here to take action against users habitually violating Wikipedia's policies by allowing wild and bogus claims with zero sources while repeatedly deleting factual statements supported by not one but two reputable sources (New York Times and Vice) due to their personal biases. This behavior has no place on Wikipedia. If you can't even cite your reason for deleting this sentence while allowing the bogus unsourced one, you have no right to be editing on Wikipedia. Tag: Reverted
  • 00:0600:06, 8 January 2021 diff hist +2‎ Alien abduction ‎ fixed error in brackets for source Tag: Reverted
  • 00:0400:04, 8 January 2021 diff hist +421‎ m Alien abduction ‎ Medium.com is not a self-published source. The sentence about the media being less tolerant of the abduction phenomenon and there being no notable cases since 1994 has zero sources anyway. Ethical Wikipedia editors shouldn't be ignoring well-sourced objective statements while allowing dubious ones with zero sources based on their personal beliefs. In any case, I replaced Medium.com with a New York Times article on Huggins from 1996 and a Vice.com one from 2018, neither of which are WP:SPS. Tag: Reverted

7 January 2021

  • 23:3423:34, 7 January 2021 diff hist −6‎ m Haim Eshed ‎ Are we going to keep applying our personal opinions to whether his claims are sound or extravagant? Or are we going to agree to abide by Wikipedia's standards for objectivity and simply state what the person said?

6 January 2021

  • 01:4501:45, 6 January 2021 diff hist +1,664‎ User talk:RKOwens444 ‎ →‎False balance on Wikipedia
  • 01:1001:10, 6 January 2021 diff hist −28‎ m Haim Eshed ‎ Stop vandalizing the page by inserting your personal opinions on matters. If you're going to undo this change, leave a note as to WHY. Why should we allow you to express your personal opinion by labeling a person's statements as "extravagant" or "believable"? Just state what he says. Same with saying NASA "affirmed the fact" that there's no evidence of ET life. You're inserting your opinion saying it's a settled fact. It's a debated field with scientists supporting sides. Stop opining. Tag: Reverted
  • 01:0201:02, 6 January 2021 diff hist +463‎ m Alien abduction ‎ Undid revision 998385093 by ජපස (talk) State your problem with this sentence or stop vandalizing the page. Everything in the sentence regarding Huggins is in the source provided. You are deleting the properly-sourced additions of others just because of your personal beliefs and biases. Tags: Undo Reverted

5 January 2021

4 January 2021

  • 23:5423:54, 4 January 2021 diff hist +463‎ Alien abduction ‎ Undid revision 998084347 by ජපස (talk) (every single thing stated in the sentence is provided in that source. You are suppressing a well-sourced fact because it goes against your theory that no notable abductions have happened since 1994, which has been thoroughly debunked by the source provided. Facts matter. State your problem with the sentence or stop deleting it just because you don't believe Huggins or whatever. All I say is he CLAIMS this.)) Tags: Undo Reverted

3 January 2021

  • 17:1917:19, 3 January 2021 diff hist +463‎ m Alien abduction ‎ Please stop saying there have been no notable cases of alleged abduction since 1994, when I am literally providing a source from a major and reputable source written in 2020. We can include more sources if you prefer, like loveandsaucers.com. Shows like Ancient Aliens and Unsolved and Paranormal Witness and even mainstream news channels regularly cover the phenomenon, but can we agree to at least leave it saying coverage had declined in recent decades? Fair? Tags: Reverted Visual edit
  • 03:5903:59, 3 January 2021 diff hist −23‎ m Haim Eshed ‎ Would you like me to edit it to say Eshed makes "...logical, fact-based claims..."? No, that would be my opinion. So is calling them extravagant. Let's agree to settle on this unopinionated form. Same with saying NASA "affirmed the fact that..." This is certainly no universally accepted fact. Saying one side of an extraordinarily debated topic is a "fact" has no place on Wikipedia or in journalism in general. Should I say NASA made "the outrageous claim that..."? No. This is the proper wording. Tag: Visual edit
  • 03:3803:38, 3 January 2021 diff hist −170‎ m Alien abduction ‎ Please stop re-adding this sentence. If anything, the mainstream media's tolerance of abductions (and the broader UFO phenomenon in general) has exploded in recent years, with the many many TV shows and regular coverage on CNN, Fox, and others. In addition, there are hundreds of notable cases of present-day alleged abductions. If you have a problem mentioning David Huggins (which I sourced), okay, but don't include the outlandish claim that no alleged abductions have happened since 1994. Tags: Reverted Visual edit
  • 03:3103:31, 3 January 2021 diff hist +12‎ m Haim Eshed ‎ Please stop violating Wikipedia's stated standards for journalistic ethics or you will no longer be welcome to edit its pages. Biased, opinionated labels such as calling someone's statements "extravagant" or claiming that NASA "affirmed the fact" that there's as of yet no scientific evidence for extraterrestrial life has no place on this page under Wikipedia's terms. This is a debated and unsettled topic among scientists in many fields; therefore this is the correct unbiased terminology. Tags: Reverted Visual edit

31 December 2020

  • 21:4621:46, 31 December 2020 diff hist −12‎ Haim Eshed ‎ As with my previous edit, the statement that Eshed's claims are "extravagant" is unjournalistic and places too much of a personal, biased interpretation on Eshed's claims. Proper Wikipedia terminology should simply present what the claims are in a purely objective manner, without saying whether the claims are extravagant or believable or any other such personal opinion of the claims. Tags: Reverted Visual edit
  • 21:4221:42, 31 December 2020 diff hist +24‎ m Haim Eshed ‎ The previous phrase that NASA "affirmed the fact that" there is no scientific evidence yet for extraterrestrials is unjournalistic and inappropriate for Wikipedia since it's implying that it's a universally accepted fact that there's no evidence yet for extraterrestrial life, which as this very section shows is highly debated even among government officials. The more unbiased and journalistic terminology should be that NASA's official position is that there is no evidence yet for ET life. Tags: Reverted Visual edit

30 December 2020

  • 02:0802:08, 30 December 2020 diff hist +255‎ m Alien abduction ‎ Replaced sentence alleging the last notable abduction case occurred in 1994 due to the mainstream media having a reduced tolerance for the subject. It's debatable that the mainstream media has reduced its tolerance (due to the recent surge of abduction-related shows and frequent news reports), but the main flaw was the sentence's claim that no notable abductions have occurred since 1994. David Huggins is but one of dozens of present day ones I could cite. Also fixed typos in subsequent sentence. Tags: Reverted Visual edit

26 June 2020

  • 19:4619:46, 26 June 2020 diff hist −41‎ SSE Composite Index ‎ Image used for this page is remarkably out of date and misleading, only showing progress of the SSE Composite Index up to 2016 which was four years ago and giving the impression that the SSE Composite is on a growth trajectory, whereas in reality it has been on the decline for the last four years. The image needs to be replaced with a more updated graphic accurately reflecting its steady decline over the last four years. Tag: Visual edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RKOwens444"