User talk:Hassandoodle

Welcome!

Hello, Hassandoodle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Creation appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.. Please have a look at the article's talk page. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Creationism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - There was no consensus on the talk page about this edit. DVdm (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that you're approaching three reverts. — Scientizzle 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Creationism. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was reverting falsely made changes by Scientizzle who marked several reverts with a Minor Edit, which were not in fact minor. Additionally, as per the discussion page on the article in question, there appears to be an agenda by some to prevent my change to the article, several other editors are in agreement or somewhat in agreement with me.

Decline reason:

You are in violation of the three-revert rule; that rule applies to all of us, no matter how strongly we believe ourselves to be right. When your block expires, try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE rather than edit-warring, but if consensus is still against you, you may have to accept that your preferred version will not be the form the article takes. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (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.

Personal attacks

Hassandoodle, it is inappropriate to be making negative comments about the religion (or assumed religion) of other participants here.[1] Please review our policy on "no personal attacks". If you make other comments of this nature, it could result in another account block. So please, could you focus your energies on article content, and not on the contributors? Thanks, --El on ka 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Creation-evolution controversy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was most certainly an attack on your fellow editors. And no, I cannot block you, but if you continue, an administrator certainly will. And insinuating that you plan to evade any block by IP socking will not set you on a good standing with the community. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hassandoodle, you are digging a hole here that is getting deeper. If you ever intend to make any positive contributions to Wikipedia, this would be a good time to make that clear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. On another note, I am perplexed as to why user Scien tizzle was able to make at least two falsely marked Minor edits when reverting my entire edits in article Creationism on Nov 10th at times 17:07 and 16:56, and it seems he received no warnings or repercussions? Hassandoodle (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are at Wikipedia to promote your specific point of view regarding creationism, especially considering that it is a point of view not widely held by scientists in the field, and if you're unable to stay calm and relaxed enough to edit in a neutral way, cooperating with people who disagree with you, and not doing any name-calling, then that just isn't going to work. If you really do want to help write the encyclopedia, you might decide that this subject is one you're too passionate about to edit appropriately, and just choose to edit in other areas. There's no shame in that; many of us have subjects we try to stay away from. I try to avoid Reparative therapy, myself. There's still plenty of work to be done in other areas; I've often thought our articles on toast and puppies could both use some real expansion. If you aren't really interested in writing the encyclopedia, though, and just want to promote your ideas about this one issue, it might be better if you gave up on Wikipedia and wrote about the issue on your own web site, where you won't have to worry so much about restraining yourself and remaining neutral. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]