User talk:Vrence

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

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

Request reason:

I was notifying the reader on what angle the rest of the article was. I don't have to be blocked. Tell me why I was. Vrence (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're definitely here: 1) not to contribute to an encyclopedia 2) to promote an extreme point of view 3) not with your first account. Stop wasting everybody's time, including your own. Max Semenik (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Agree with MaxSem. Nothing productive from this account. only (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

You called my point of view extreme. The funny thing is that I did not even state my point of view! How can you block me from encouraging one side when I didn't even say what side I was on. The article was extremely biased, and I let the reader know that. I am CLEARLY here to help make an UNBAISED encyclopedia which treats one side of the argument as true. If you guys don't want me to edit on this website again, that is an extreme joke. The article was and is partisan and that is what I made an effort to fix. Thank you for your time, and this IS my first account. It wasn't me, must have been someone I live with. So yeah.Vrence (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For the same reasons as above. I also suggest that if you can't do anything other than keep insisting you are right, you are likely to lose the ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

So I'm blocked because I am promoting an extreme idea I didn't mention? Fantastic. It's not a big deal anyway, if you guys think it's best for the website, so be it. It's still great I can use the website for information. I know you guys try to do your best as admins and don't need people like me making your job harder, so I guess I will, from this point on I guess I won't edit on the website. Thank you for your time. vrence

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

reason So I'm blocked because I promoted an idea that I clearly DID NOT EVEN STATE. Could someone respond with an answer other than: "not an unblock request" or "I agree with above". I mean, how is the article I edited even fair? You people don't take the time to listen to the argument! You think that you are right, so you go ahead and shut me down. I mean seriously, it says that people "dispute the obvious evidence" of a theory that is, in fact, A THEORY. It is not "scientifically proven". You people disgust me that you would shut someone down for trying to give a fair point of view. I am here to contribute to an encyclopedia, I am not here to promote an extreme point of view, and this is MY FIRST wikipedia account. Mine, not someone that signed up under the same IP. So go ahead, block me permanently. Go ahead, shut an idea down because you find it preposterous. And I am NOT wasting my time. And so you can't tell me that this "isn't an unblock request", I say please unblock me. I know I didn't do anything, and if I did, tell me WHAT. Happy new years :/.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. You don't appear to understand the problems with your editing, so let me try to explain:

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory" in scientific terms and seem to think it just means an idea, speculation, a bit of a guess. But we have an article here that explains it well, Scientific theory, which says "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". Gravity is still a theory, but I'm sure you won't be arguing that our article about it should give equal space to people who claim that apples fall upwards off the trees.
You say that the Creation–evolution controversy article is not "fair". Well, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be "fair" to all people with competing ideas - certainly not in a "give everyone an equal say" kind of way that I think you're suggesting. No, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the balance of academic opinion as published in reliable sources -- and that is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution as opposed to creationism.
You say "You people don't take the time to listen to the argument!", but you have not presented an argument that has not been done to death and soundly demolished many many times before. We simply cannot re-run the entire creation vs evolution argument from scratch every time a creationist wants to challenge Wikipedia's coverage of the subject - as far as academia and the actual evidence goes, it is settled, and we will not re-examine it without some significant new evidence published in reliable sources.
In one of your changes you added the completely unsourced claim "But there is also an equal amount of evidence for creationism", which is blatantly false. In reliable academic sources, there is precisely no scientific evidence for creationism that I've ever seen. The mere fact that you make this claim amply demonstrates that you are here to push a creationist view rather than to help us build an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's clearly defined WP:NPOV policy.

I don't know if any of this will help you understand the problem, but you are not going to be unblocked if you cannot recognize it and cannot make a convincing commitment to not pursuing your line of argument further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, and I know that I was wrong. I will not do anything of the matter again, and instead, I will make my best effort to make helpful contributions instead. I'm sorry, I just wish to be unblocked. Thank you.

Accept reason:

Ok, you made one wrong edit, but I'm giving you a second chance. Be aware that your edits will be watched and any similar behavior will certainly take you to another block. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page. If you want to make any controversial edit, discuss it first with other editors on the article talk page and do not make an edit until you reach WP:consensus with other editors. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you understand why you were blocked and what you did wrong. Now, please, tell us in your own words what was wrong in your edits. Show us that you really understand the reason of your block. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I did wrong was that I was trying to give, what I thought at a time, a fair view. Now I understand that Wikipedia is here to promote the most academically realistic ideas science has to offer. From now on, I will only promote the ideas that are scientifically accurate. Boing said Zebedee was talking about this and it really helped explain it clearer to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrence (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
How do you understand the WP:Verifiability policy? What do you think about the WP:Verifiability, not truth definition? Are you aware that you are not allowed to insert data into articles unless it can be verified in reliable sources, even if you are 100% sure it is true? Please, give a detailed answer. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I believe "Verifiability not truth" was abandoned some time ago as having any real status, as it gave precedence to obviously-wrong sources - it remains as an old essay. Verifiability for true statements is, of course, still a policy, but simply being sourced can now be challenged - there are often untruths that become circulated and stick. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
No, I cannot, with 100 percent verifiability, say that the data I inserted is true. I did not state a viable source.