Hello, LordFluffington454, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teach the Controversy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Teach the Controversy, you may be blocked from editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to say looking at your edit history you look like a single purpose account. I suggest you stop editing pages relating to religion for a bit and take a look mat others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Why because I am pointing out that there is a bias against Christian ideas on wikipedia and its been going on for over ten years? I have cited two different studies by the pew research center showing a significant number of Americans have issues with evolution yet I'm constantly told anything but evolution is considered pseudoscience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I have read everything and am sad to say that I was correct wikipedia has a liberal bias. Intelligent design is called pseudoscience because liberal scientists don't want to admit there are things evolution doesn't answer. However I am done wasting my time on this. I am simply going to say that after reading the article about wikipedia academic bias I can say that wikipedia used to be a great website but now they want to stifle anything remotely controversial
I think it might be best for you to refrain from giving me any more advice since I am in the right on this subject since its been clearly proven wikipedia is biased against intelligent design
I already have and find in them further proof of wikipedia biasness. Oh and are you suggesting I will be banned for simply saying wikipedia is biased?
So you are saying I can't push my POV but that is exactly what the anti Christian evolutionists are doing no?
Considering I joined less then 2 days ago I find it humorous that you can say why I'm here at all
See WP:VERIFY. I also agree there seems to be a pattern in your removal of sources, ie you appear to be removing sources on the basis of your opinion of them, not whether they meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations you are the first person to admit that wikipedia is biased against creationism and intelligent design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah but in reality I can find information that say intelligent design is true and factual. I can't find that on here so nice try
No I understand the goal of wikipedia is to inform people of things. It is persecution because you are saying my religion is not true.
No make no claim to truth let each idea have its own article but don't say its pseudoscience
I am saying that wikipedia should simply say it's an alternative theory to evolution and take neither side— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington45 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Evolution is still just a theory. Despite how the article treats it there are still many unanswered questions about evolution. As for how you treat alternative theories I say wikipedia should be TRULY NEUTRAL and simply report without passing judgement by using words like pseudoscience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Evolution is still just a theorydemonstrates that you did not read or understand the above. It's actually the only well understood method through which life could have diversified. Sure, some details are being improved, just like more transitional fossils, genetic and embriology evidence are found (always leaving gaps). It also does not matter how exactly abiogenesis occurred (the origin of life from non-life which is less understood, but progress is being made), what happened after that point is still much better understood... But all that evidence can apparently be ignored or denied by some with a modern interpretation of traditional iron age texts. I can only help up to a certain point. Although personal user pages like this one are allowed more freedom to discuss those topics than article talk pages, and it was a pleasure for me to try to help, this is likely to be my last post here, but you're still welcome to query me if you think it's necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I have moved your message at WP:FTN#Creationism since it was placed on the wrong public page. —PaleoNeonate – 12:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi LordFluffington454! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) |
Hello. Per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not for expressing your personal views on the subject. Arguments in content discussions should be based in Wikipedia content policies, and I invite you to learn something about them before you participate in highly contentious topic areas. I have reverted your two edits there. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me I point out that I'm stating a fact the man IS a racist he has made several racist statements. What part of that is a personal opinion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing by removing proposed deletion tags, e.g. at David Alan Ditsworth, Andrew Hill Newman and Transitional living. Willondon (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice I will start giving my rationale for why I feel the article should be retained— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Article about a Catholic charity that does wonderful work
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I was pointing out obvious user bias and I love how I'm getting called out but people can sit there and mock and insult one of the subjects of the article with impunity. Plus this also comes very close to censorship.
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Courcelles (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)LordFluffington454 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
so apparently I have been blocked because I am not here to build them encyclopedia yet I am all I have done is point out antler's Inn Civility and people mocking certain points of view and being disrespectful calling certain things pseudoscience when it might be but millions of people believe in the steering and you are mocking the basically. However I would like to point out that every time someone asked me to do something that was actually a reasonable policy request such as don't make edits without first talking about it in the talk page or they said put the comments about discussing things on your I complied I never engaged in personal attacks even though I was personally attacked and my beliefs will personally attacked a website that supposedly is anti-censorship what's happening to me smacks of elitism and censorship you claim that there are no cabal's on this website yet it's clear that there are and I have fallen a foul of them because I speak my mind I don't think I will be on blocked because it's clear that the moderators and admins you would rather silence criticism and listen to it however I will point out that if you do not want to be accused of hypocrisy then you should allow me to speak my mind as long as I'm being polite not attacking people and being civil.. I have proof of people commenting on intelligent design one of which I think is some sort of moderator or has been in the past
Decline reason:
This unblock request profoundly misunderstands what Wikipedia is all about. This is categorically not the place for you to speak your mind. See WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Once you've read up on Wikipedia, you are welcome to make another unblock request. WP:GAB will explain how to craft a suitable request, which will be radically different from this one. Yamla (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would like to point out that my so-called advocating after my first few posts when I was done shown the page that was speaking on right now have all been for furnace or asking questions or advocating that a minority point of view not be treated with division or scoffed at that leads into my next point you say I am not blocked from My Views yet I find that the people who are making fun of a minority point of view watching minority point-of-use multiple are not blocked yet they are being rude and not neutral it is only I who am I arguing the unpopular thing that is blocked as for the deletion of articles I knew I made a mistake somebody said you need to put your reasoning I put my reasoning when Doug Weller pointed out that I wasn't in the right I immediately stop doing it as for you saying I'm wasting time arguing on the top pages whose time am I wasting if if people don't want their time wasted don't answer me.
I will be doing a more syllable apply to these comments since my blocked request when I can get to a computer and I can add links showing exactly what I'm speaking of and showing the proof of other Wikipedia users violating the same policy I am accused of violating when I was simply pointing out there violations. What I would like to say now is no this is not a First Amendment issue and your example is flatly incorrect and your example I was disrupting the store with profanity and I was not making valid points and it had nothing to do with the activity going on in the store here I was simply pointing out other users hypocrisy I use no foul language and unlike the people I was putting out I didn't even poked fun and maintain the Wikipedia policy of Civility at all times unlike like my opponents
As for the comments by yamla I would suggest keeping a civil tone and your comments because the snark and the comment above is quite obvious. I would also like to say that your suggestion that by appeal will be radically different from what I said is smug and and I will paraphrase what the Devil's Advocate said if you think I'm going to humbly come and kiss the throne and beg for you to let me back in. you're wrong. Plus to quote Captain America " this nation was founded on one principle Above All Else. The requirement that we stand up for what we believe no matter the odds or the consequences. When the Bob and the puss and the whole world tell you to move your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of Truth and tell the whole world no you move." Solo you will not see me apologize for pointing out the obvious bias of Wikipedia editors who are joking about intelligent design was insulting intelligent design and we're coming close to libeling intelligent design. Amongst other subjects
I would like to point out that there is rampant hypocrisy in the situations I have been involved was in the past few days on the other collab out the court case forbidding the teaching of intelligent design of the talk page there are numerous users making anti intelligent design comments poking fun at intelligent design slandering intelligent design and just generally behaving in unacceptable ways yet what I ate that out I am calmed down and band. I would also like to point out that I tried to edit the Donald Trump article and proposed inserting text calling him a racist on my own talk page I was called down and said that this is not Facebook and I can't insert my own opinions yet there are numerous sources calling Donald Trump a racist his own comments indicate he is a racist he is called illegal Mexicans rapists and murderers that is not my opinion that is a fact. According to two different my moderators I have been blocked because of my disruption on The Talk Pages yet all I have done is point out hypocrisy and the fact that certain subjects are not getting a fair Shake. Every time someone has suggested something that is fair I have complied. When I first came here I made a bold edit a few of them actually I was told that I should have said comment on The Talk pages and make my suggestions to which I did yet I'm now being called down for making those suggestions I would like to point out that Wikipedia is losing editors by the day because of these issues if I didn't think that certain people would completely Banned Me from the site for doing it I woulda link two different versions of Wicca Wiki articles on the topics I have been speaking of that show a much more balanced coverage and show that what I'm talking about is being adopted by credible websites LordFluffington454 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)