Zsnell443
Welcome! edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, Zsnell443! Thank you for your contributions. I am 1990'sguy and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 1990'sguy (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Bennv3771. 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 Ken Ham 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. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (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.EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017 edit
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ken Ham. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ken Ham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ken Ham. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. McSly (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @McSly: I apologise, I was out of line. But in all fairness, I was only trying to edit the article, which states that evolution is the absolute event, while Ken Ham believes something else. Whilst Ian.thomson was reverting it, which is mainly because he has a personal bias toward it. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I dare you to edit the Evolution article with the same goal. You might want to read Psychological projection and look in a mirror. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's not very fair. Ian.thomson only reverted one of your edits. The other 4 edits were reverted by others including me. I think that's what Ian.thomson was trying to say re "Psychological projection"... if others are reverting your edits, maybe you're the one with the bias, not everyone else. Regardless, please discuss controversial changes in the talk page instead of edit warring. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: I would gladly edit Evolution if I had editing rights. And I love how you just used Psychological projection while trying to blame me for it. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- You can still place edit requests at Talk:Evolution.
- Imagine that a user came into the Maharishi Effect section of the Transcendental Meditation article, tried to remove the material regarding causal bias and cherry picking, and then tried created an artificial bias by misrepresenting the findings of a source. That user then accuses everyone else of being biased against Parapsychology, and accuses a Buddhist editor of being a materialist who has never meditated. Who would you say is biased in that situation? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Zsnell443, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Zsnell443! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |