User talk:Mrfivethirty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

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:

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)

WP:NPA garbage, nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talkcontribs)

As you do not recall, I assume, here is the note you left on your argument:
== Notes ==
It's claimed by the author that The Elliott Argument has never been defeated and that in over 100 formal online debates it remains unrefuted and virtually unchallenged. Mr. Elliott has an open debate challenge for any atheist in the world that can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DtnkBxCI4)
This is considered Soapbox! Insulting me will not help your cause. You have been warned multiple times and you are currently blocked! Do you wish to have yourself removed from Wikipedia all together? OptiPest (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
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.

October 2012[edit]

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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument[edit]

Hello Mrfivethirty. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Elliott Argument".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)