Jump to content

User talk:Snootcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snootcher (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 22 July 2012 (→Wrong place to put warnings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as fact and theory‎

Please don't do this again. Ironically given your edit summary, it was clearly both a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. You might also want to read WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory. 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. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory, you may be blocked from editing. — raekyt 00:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this was considered "disruptive editing." I was getting diruptive messages from people who were flaming and baiting. I decided to wipe the slate clean (since I started the slate) so that the points were more obvious for serious folks to read. Notice that the revision was intended to assist the author and the moderator. I do not understand your remark here at all. I was trying to make the Subsection less disruptive after it was assaulted. Please remove this citation. Thanks. Snootcher (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTFORUM discussion of the topic in general isn't allowed, talk pages are strictly for improving the article. So limit your posts to "I propose adding this source" and give a link, or "This source isn't good because" and give a link, or propose SPECIFIC changes to wording, by using blockquotes or some other way to highlight your changes from what is already there. But be warned, most of what you've already said makes it abundantly clear you don't understand what evolution is. Per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we represent that the general view is within the scientific field of biology in regards to evolution, in which virtually every practicing biologist accepts as true. Evolution has been observed and it's basic principles are facts. So before you start spouting off creationist baloney, learn about the subject first. Further disruption and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other WP:TE will be dealt with. Any addition of non-helpful content to the talk page will likely just be flat removed or hatted. — raekyt 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very abusive response and clearly publicizes your personal bias in favor of Evolution Theory. Your anti-Creationist words are of course insulting, inflammatory, and intended to harm. Please escalate this issue to another moderator so that they can read what you wrote here. I will copy this for them in case you feel embarassed by what you have done. You have crossed the line and have proven that radical Evolutionism is really just propaganda and agenda. Do you seriously believe what you wrote, or are you just into fighting words? That seems to be all that Evolutionism ever was. Please escalate this to a moderator who does not fight with people. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs)
There's no "abuse" in his response above. I understand that you are personally tied to this subject, but you are personalizing the discussion far too much. You're not on a good path, and this sort of interaction is going to very quickly result in sanctions. Please take a breather, and try editing in a less controversial topic for a while until you learn the ropes. We have a specific way of doing things on Wikipedia, and it is sometimes hard to adjust in this sort of environment. Some editors find editing articles for their local attractions, or favorite musicians, or famous cities is a less intense way of getting acclimated with things. You may also find a mentor to be helpful. Please do not continue the way you have been.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove comments on talk pages

Please do not remove comments from other users on an article talk page, as you did here. Please also read WP:NOTFORUM. If you have specific suggestions for the article, please pick one suggestion, and very briefly list it in a new section on the talk page. Your posts so far are way, way too long, and littered with attacks and personal comments which are entirely unnecessary. Please keep further posts to a few sentences, and keep them very focused on article improvement. Also, please provide sources for any change you wish to propose. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the cards are stacked here. First, I get insulted by a moderator. Then another says it wasn't abuse when clearly fighting words were used. I guess you are all tied to the topic of "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" And this is why you will censor those who question such a thesis and do not allow their works cited in the articles or by those who suggest fixes on the Talk pages. You yourself admit that "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" is a controversial topic, and yet you do nothing about it except thwart counterpoints. Again, the cards are clearly stacked here. I would advice you all to consider what people like Raeky, Dougweller, and yourself are doing to the credibility of Wikipedia. The bias is obvious and rather insulting. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you should talk to other moderators and see what they think. If Wikipedia is opposed to allowing suggestions for improving articles that they are married to, then that should of course be displayed for readers to know about. That said, I did not mean to erase a previous conversation. What I saw was that it was Closed or something like that, so I wanted to re-write it to bypass your censorship. I will re-post suggestions on how to improve that article again so that you folks can get to work on making it less controversial (as you admit) and make it more encyclopedic. That is "how we do things at Wikipedia," isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong so that I and others can know if Wikipedia takes stands on issues. That would be valuable information. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no censorship or abuse here. I gave you very specific and concrete suggestions for approaching the talk page. Please follow them. Furthermore, I never said "evolution vs creationism" was controversial. In science, there is no controversy whatsoever, and you are editing a science article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here with Jess, there is no abuse or censorship. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies. It's not us that is saying creationism is false, it's the entire scientific community and libraries upon libraries of books and papers proving it to be false. If you think this assessment is wrong, or that you have a specific problem with any specific source, then please point those out, or give us sources you think are good for inclusion. But just saying the whole system is biased against creationism and trying to represent creation science as having equal weight with real science, then you have a pretty big mountain of evidence to overcome. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's PLENTY of good online resources that will teach you modern biology and evolution, MIT has virtually all of their biology courses online you can go through, that would be an excellent start to get college-level understanding of these sciences. But if you want to limit your understanding of science to what people who don't practice science say (creation science) then obviously you'll have a severe misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. Yes this was meant to be a bit combative, because what your saying is demonstrably false and don't seem to realize it. SO please, take Jess's advice, and the advice I gave you, stick to SPECIFIC examples of how to improve the article, provide STRICT sources, and leave personal opinion out of it. — raekyt 00:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you guys are hilarious. What you are doing is obvious. Hasty generalizations, hyperbole, and of course ignorance. That is, you just ignore things. It is hard to believe that you folks are moderators, but it seems like your high energy and willingness to do the job are the only requisites for the position. I am just flabbergasted that you guys think you are arbitors of truth. Yeah, this is a losing cause for the open-minded. You will censor anyone who questions "the entire scientific community," as if you are protecting such a miraculous body. What a joke. What you are doing is not moderation. You have really let your position as moderators go to your heads. It proves that these Evolution articles on Wikipedia need serious improvement, but such a thing will not be done with the current moderation cadre's arrogance. You just don't understand science or biology for that matter. We will simply disagree on this point, but in the end, you get to use fighting words and make vaccuous assumptions and then censor others. I will go do other things. Wikipedia is lost. I hope one day you look back on your activities and words here and become ashamed. You are NOT representing "the entire scientific community," nor are your insults against those who disagree with you anything but abusive. Wikipedia is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs)
Obviously I don't understand the subject my degrees are in and that I've dedicated my life to studying. Totally ignorant in this whole biology and evolution topic. Yep. And where is this "moderator" stuff coming from? Neither me nor Jess are admins, we carry no more power than you do. We just happen to know about biology, evolution and the arguments creationists try to put up to refute them and we have a FIRM grasp on Wikipedia's policies. At this point I think with the above comments that you may be a bit off the rails, so trying to make rational sense to you might be a bit pointless. We've given you all the advice you need to make constructive and helpful comments on an article's talk page. We've given you all the warnings you should need to prevent anymore problems. From here you can either heed our advice, or keep headed down the road to a ban. It's your choice. Any claims you make need to be backed up with reliable sources and for a biology article they tend to focus primary on peer reviewed published scientific papers. What your saying isn't a new argument, anyone who has been editing these articles for any length of time has ran into innumerable editors like yourself who think the whole scientific community is one giant conspiracy against God's plan, and that all evidence for evolution, geology, cosmetology, etc.. is made up fairy tails us evil godless scientists tell each other so we can deny God's existence to keep living our depraved lives of sin. Can't get enough of that sin, you know. — raekyt 07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely convinced that after all the insults and threats that I am now fully aware of the culture that supports evolutionism. I now better understand from where evolutionists' claims and styles derive. Thank you, Raetky and Jess, for helping readers to understand what it means to be an evolutionist. May we all hope and work for better. To everyone else who has followed this "discussion," never forget that an open-minded society WILL overcome idealogical fascism. Know thy enemy.

Abuse

It looks like I am currently the victim of abuse from two editors engaging in "drama editing," an edit war (they are simply insulting me and then erasing my edits on a Talk section located at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory page), and are just trolling and baiting. I would like this to stop and have told them each. Their names aer Mann_jess and Raeky. You can see what they have done to my User Talk page, even. I would simply like my four suggestions to improve that Evolutionist to be considered, rather than putting up with trolls who can edit my words so easily. Any suggestions? And, can you take action against those folks to prevent them from doing this to people? Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but you are not a victim of anything. That talk page is not a forum, as was pointed out to you a few times. Calling them "trolls" is actually a personal attack, and I would urge you to refrain from such language. No action against them will be taken, and I urge you to edit more constructively and to not turn article talk pages into discussions on different topics. Without insults. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning regarding WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA

This is your final warning regarding WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:PA. You're being increasingly hostile, and refusing to take the advice of a swath of independent editors. Please stop editing in this way immediately, and take a breather. When you come back, ask for help using the {{helpme}} template, or consider WP:Adoption. If this behavior continues, it's going to be escalated, and sanctions are likely. Please stop and seek help from others.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Evolution as fact and theory, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Second time you've deleted other people's comments [1], this is your FINAL warning. — raekyt 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Evolution as fact and theory, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This also is your FINAL warning of not complying with talk page policies. — raekyt 03:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________

Due to your poor behavior on Wikipedia, you have been reported to ANI. This is your notice. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wrong place to put warnings

I removed your warning on User:Raeky and User:Mann jess as that is the wrong place to put them. You have not properly notified them until you put the notice on User talk:Raeky and User talk:Mann jess. Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed put them on both their pages. Please check them out. Snootcher (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have both removed the Notices. Please view their Edit History. I did what was required. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Snootcher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to suggest improvements to the Talk page of Evolution: Fact and Theory. Why am I being barred from making those suggestions? Snootcher (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like to suggest improvements to the Talk page of Evolution: Fact and Theory. Why am I being barred from making those suggestions? [[User:Snootcher|Snootcher]] ([[User talk:Snootcher#top|talk]]) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to suggest improvements to the Talk page of Evolution: Fact and Theory. Why am I being barred from making those suggestions? [[User:Snootcher|Snootcher]] ([[User talk:Snootcher#top|talk]]) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to suggest improvements to the Talk page of Evolution: Fact and Theory. Why am I being barred from making those suggestions? [[User:Snootcher|Snootcher]] ([[User talk:Snootcher#top|talk]]) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

,

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snootcher&oldid=503541155"