User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear app ktip.png Attention:
This IP address,, is registered to Novus Entertainment. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact Novus Entertainment to report abuse, which can be done here. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Novus Entertainment, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

block is unjustified. Per wikipedia definition: A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is prohibited....under no circumstances was any account used to circumvent any policy or to vote more than once in anything. The IP this account is accused of puppeting was not blocked and was not under any disciplinary action. There is no policy on wikipedia that forbids individuals from accessing wikipedia on different IP networks. Lastly, this post actually WAS two different people, true, we know each other, but George was out of line issuing a block on this IP when a) the other IP was not under any kind of punitive action, and b) neither IP was used to vote or intended for deception. I also request that the valid, non-insulting, non-disruptive comment this IP placed in the Intelligent Design be reinstated immediately.

Decline reason:

First, this edit] seems awfully similar to this one, made by the now-blocked other IP. But more importantly, you need to spend the time of this block rereading WP:SOCK. To wit: "Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations" and what's right up there in "In a nutshell":"The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.". No, there is no policy forbidding users from using different ISPs as long as they use the same registered account. I do it all the time. But anonymous contributors do not have that luxury. And as far as I can tell, you're doing this to avoid a block. The other IP, whose talk page you posted to, was indeed blocked earlier this week. In fact, that block should have been extended, or a new longer one imposed, for the sockpuppetry. I tihnk I'll go do that right now. —Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (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.

{{unblock|Excuse me, but at the time of the posting from this IP, the other IP was NOT blocked. That IP took a block for 24 hours...during which time, I made no attempt, and furthermore did NOT circumvent the action. Now, I am in another country (as you can see by doing an IP lookup on this IP)...what reason can I not contribute to wiki again? Is it against wiki policy that I, the human being, am forbidden from contributing on all IP's worldwide except There is no such policy. I waited until my block was lifted, and now my wife and I (we both contribute) are on business. Relaxing last night, and knowing that we am no longer under any disciplinary action for, we decided to contribute again. We violated no rule, please reconsider this block. At the time of posting, we were not under any violation whatsoever. Or are you saying that the only IP we are ever allowed to use for the rest of our lives on wikipedia is!! I assure you, if is under a penalty, I HAVE NOT NOR HAVE I EVER made any post using another IP. I waited until the penalty was lifted, and then attempted to contribute. What is my next step of appeal? I know the last step of appeal is arbitration, I do not want to take it that far, but I do want to appeal this again because I am certain this block is not fair. Unless you show me that I was under punishment at the time of this IP posting, or a rule on wikipedia that states users who contribute using IP's (without user accoutns) are banned from changing IP's, I have done nothing wrong.}}.


Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You have been unblocked because yes, you are correct, this IP's edit times do NOT overlap with any blocks on the other IP address. HOWEVER, that being said, you were previously blocked for disruption on your previous IP address, and such behavior can not be covered over by editing from multiple IP addresses. I STRONGLY urge you to create an account, so that you may edit under a single identity. If you continue to be disruptive or push a certain point of view in article editing, you may still be blocked again.

Request handled by: 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientists who believe in Creation[edit]

I think it is misleading to to equivocate the "scientific community" with NAS and a couple other narrow organizations. That is a fallacy. Less than 5% of US scientists are members of NAS, and these scientists *are* members of the scientific community. While only 7% of NAS believes in a personal God, 40% of all scientists (when you tally scientists who are not NAS members) do. This is a statistical fact back up by Gallup polls since the 1900's and a more recent poll in Nature. This article seems to imply that the overwhelming majority of scientists discount creationism (ID is related to creationism several times in this article). With 40-45% (depending on the poll) of all scientists believing in a personal God who answers prayer, the article, im my opinion, falsely equivocates the "scientific community" with NAS and two other organizations whom only represent a small fraction of the actual scientific community. I propose we make mention of the statistical fact that approx. 40% of scientists are creationists. While 93% of NAS members being agnostic could be labeled as "overwhelming majority", it misleads us to conclude that is a representative sample of the scientific community. Stating it is 'unequivocal' is certainly misleading. 40% of the scientific community is by no means 'unequivocal'. I propose we make the correction to improve the article. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose that, unless you come up with a (top notch) source for the statement "40% of scientists are creationists", we don't change anything in the article. Any seconds on that one? Baegis (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if we do get a source for that, you (the anon) are still equivocating yourself. You're implying that because a scientist believes in a personal god, they can't believe that ID is pseudoscience. There's no such link there. It's quite possible for a scientist to believe the universe was set in motion 13.7 billion years ago by a god who watched and let evolution take its course, and is now around to answer prayers. Or maybe they believe that the god planned evolution. In either case, they wouldn't accept ID. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)\
The article makes the statement "unequivocal consensus" in the scientific community. I believe that to be misleading as it is using a source for "scientific community" that is not a true representative sample. The organizations you listed as proof for "unequivocal consensus" actually do not represent an accurate sampling of the scientific community. How, therefore, can you claim "unequivocal consensus?" What I am disputing is the claim "unequivocal". I fail to see how that is an accurate reflection of the "scientific community", and the article does not justify that term, unless I missed something? I believe we can improve the article by removing the term "unequivocal" and replacing it with majority. I agree with the phrase "majority consensus", I disagree with "unequivocal consensus". The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim in the article and have not substantiated it. I believe the article can be improved on by making the change to "majority consensus"

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ALLOCKE|talk 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.