User talk:49.180.155.141

Hello there!

Thanks for your recent edits to the Wells and Wellington affair article. I've had to revoke them because they introduce a good deal of uncited information and they do so in a way that is worded in violation of Wikipedia's core policy of a neutral point of view reflecting the aggregate of published sources. Your edits are reminding me that there is a published source from last year that I've been meaning to bring into the article, but for any edits (mine or yours) there has to be a source and that source should be reliable. Also, based on the information you introduced to the article, it seems like you may have a personal connection to the topic. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and declare any relevant conflicts on the article's talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Welcome to Wikipedia! —⁠Collin^{t c} 02:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colon, I am Ross Wellington I have been demeaned band defamed by this article for decades and you are preventing my corrections about me and the actual truth. If you are part of the false academic narrative wishing to maintain this article and its current defamatory tone obviously I cannot change that. It will demonstrate my current view that Wikipedia cannot be trusted to provide the truth nor a balanced view of reality. 49.180.155.141 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin who wrote this original diatribe? It was clearly written with a defamatory tone and a false vested interested narrative to promote and provide.

you suggested that my earlier comments did not conform to a neutral position on a controversial subject. I’d like to point out that the original article falls way short of that.

the article portrays Richard Wells as some sort of novice undergraduate operating way above his means. It conveniently portrays us both as having donated a couple of specimens to museums. Wells is the single greatest benefactor of scientific specimens to the Australian Museum in its 150 year history the oldest museum in Australia. He donated 25,000 specimens to that institution collected from across the vast continent of Australia, almost as large as the entire USA. He was denied access to these very specimens he’d collected for his own research. Why do you see fit to maintain the falsehood of your article.

You go to lengths to demean the production of the Australian Journal of Herpetology and portray the publication of W&W as being from crack pots. Most of it has now been vindicated but no correction of your false story!

King and Miller were never editors of AJH yet resigned from positions they never held and presented that to an in-house unrefereed journal called Herpetological Review to gain some sort of collegiate support for the actions of a few to suppress knowledge and formal recognition of species needing urgent conservation efforts.

you maintain the false defamatory narrative as though you are a formal changer of history.

who are you, one of them?

hopefully Wikipedia will eventually go bankrupt and disappear with its adulterated version of history. 49.180.155.141 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FPTI. 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 Wells and Wellington affair seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FPTI (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Wells and Wellington affair. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]