User talk:Mrfivethirty

Welcome!

Hello, Mrfivethirty, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cindy(talk to me) 04:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE TITLED THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT IS VERY WELL SOURCED, NOTEABLE, HAS TONS OF REFERENCES, AND SEEMS TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA. IT IN NO WAY IS ATTACKING ANY GROUP BUT RATHER IS A FORMAL ARGUMENT THAT IS NEUTRAL AND HAS A STRONG FOOTING IN THE CREATIONISM VS ATHEISM DEBATING SCENE. IT WILL UNDOUBTABLY BE SWAMPED BY ATHEISTS TRYING TO TAKE IT DOWN AND SITE REASONS WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ON WIKIPEDIA. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP IT UP IN ALL FAIRNESS AS A LOT OF WORK HAS WENT INTO THE CREATION OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE FORMAL ARGUMENT ITSELF. REMINDER : IF IT WASN'T WORTHY AND NO ONE CARED ABOUT IT, IT WOULDNT BE SUCH A TALKED ABOUT TOPIC/ARTICLE OF CONVERSATION. THANK YOU, AND I HOPE I HAVE MET ALL YOUR STANDARDS. ALSO, ATHEISTS PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OR ATTEMPT TO CENSOR THIS ARTICLE, BUT RATHER IF YOU CAN FEEL YOU CAN DEFEAT THE ARGUMENT LEAVE IT UP AS PROOF THAT IT IS FLAWED...THANK YOU AGAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs)

First off you need to sign your talk page with 4 tildes (~~~~). Second, yelling in all caps does not make your article anymore valid and will not make it get approved any faster. Maybe you should try putting it somewhere else, like Conservapedia. OptiPest (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FIRST OF ALL...I DONT KNOW WHAT 4 TILDES ARE LMFAO.......AND SECONDLY I ALWAYS TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND I HAVE YOUTUBE VIDEOS ABOUT WHY I DO THIS...I SUGGEST YOU NOT WORRY ABOUT IF MY CAPS IS ON OR NOT AND GET TO WORRYING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLE WHICH IS NOT IN ALL CAPS....LOL....AND WHY WOULD I PUT IN ON CONSERVAPEDIA WHEN WIKIPEDIA SEEMS TO HAVE PLENTLY OF APOLOGETIC ARGUMENTS ON IT??? ANSWER ME CLOWN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs)

According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, you need to sign all posts you make on your own Talk page. As for your article, it does not meet any of the criteria to be here, Conservapedia is a wiki site that would actually somewhat look at your argument with a slight bit of merit. You also, talk too much about yourself and that is not allowed here. You need to read the complete WP:Help section to know what you can and cannot post. If you want to have any chance of not being SALTED and banned, you need to follow the rules! Have a good day! OptiPest (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

THATS A lie!!!!! you are a clown and a pathetic lying coward....i never self promote in the article...i just talk about the elliott argument and the sources and references pertaining to it...even in the history of the argument i dont go into who chad elliott is...i could say he is an all american qb, on the side of buses, has bobble head dolls, sold thousands of records etc etc etc...but i dont...i only talk about the important information as it pertains the the elliott argument...quit censoring me you pathetic trash...and act like im on wikipedia all the time and i know your stupid rules about signing posts lol...your a clown!....and my article MEETS ALL guidlines...its extremely noteable..very well sourced, with citation up the wazoo and references...you clearly have an atheistic agenda here and are attemption to hide an irrefutable argument...thats why you should be banned from this site...you are not neutral or fair...as there are tons of apologetic arguments all over wikipedia...you are a joke! 67.181.116.40 (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC) (like the signature clown?) lol

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Yunshui 雲‍水 06:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks (see above), having a battleground mentality, and general failure to get the point. I see no evidence that you are here to contribute constructively. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)