User talk:Snootcher

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.
You are talking about the 'scientific culture' then, as that is the culture that supports evolution - note that scientists don't use the word evolutionism, today that is a Creationist term -- see our article Evolutionism. And all you have learned, or perhaps failed to learn from this, is how Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's Dougweller, chiming in. Yeah, I know how Wikipedia works now - you guys are amazing. I also know that Wikipedia is generally regarded as low to no credibility, which is why nearly all academic institutions reject it and some ban it. (Like at my schools.) The site is administered poorly; and the editors, well... Yeah, just read what you cited there. You have shown me the error in my ways of coming here to make it better, and I accept that. That was before I knew how Wikipedia works. Have fun in your crusade against all those "creationists" out there. Way to go, Wikipedia! Keep that reputation alive. I'm out. Snootcher (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse[edit]

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]

Drmies, I do not know who you are. You clearly have read the insults, trolling, baiting, and hostility that was done to me on both my User Talk page and the Evolution: Fact and Theory talk page, right? I am very surprised to read what you have just written to me. I have insulted no one - the Edit History is right there. I cannot believe this is how things are done at Wikipedia. This is amazing. Please stop allowing attacks against me, and please stop trying to pin stuff on me, for Heaven's sake. I did nothing to warrant this abuse. Please... read the insults on my User Talk page. I did nothing like that. And again, who are you? Snootcher (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am someone who has been granted the buttons to enforce this website's policies, that's all. I read the whole thing, but I did not read what you say was there. The edit history reveals that two editors have tried to close an inappropriate discussion (inappropriate per guidelines at WP:TPG), and that you have reverted this a number of times--the definition of edit-warring. In addition to violating talk page guidelines and edit-warring over the closing of a thread, you removed another editor's comments and reported your two opponents, speciously, at a noticeboard. If you had followed the links those editors provided for you and had actually read the policies and guidelines, you probably would have stopped earlier and you wouldn't have been blocked, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I was being treated hostily, so I reverted their edits due to lack of etiquette and proper behavior. They kept closing and deleting my material. That is what I thought an edit war was - where someone continues to censor you, especially in a hostile fashion. If you honestly think Raeky and Mann_jess were communicating with me properly, and that somehow through their insults, trolling, baiting, and sarcasm that I was supposed to care about what they had to say to me... then I think your judgement is poor. But since you have the buttons, and Raeky and Mann_jess have you ear, I suppose there can still be a public record of what took place here these past couple of days. Seriously, none of this was handled appropriately. Read my frickin' User Talk page - look what they did to it. I can't believe you just told me to do anything besides help get rid of those creeps from the community. This is clearly an act of censorship and an act of indecency. Supporting Raeky and Mann_jess after all that... You gotta be kidding me. My appeal request is below. I'd like someone besides you to review it. I am still shocked that you would support those two abusers. Snootcher (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I explained to you, below, how you can edit the unblock request template so it actually addresses the reason for your block. Since then all you've done is rant. I have explained to you a couple of times what the problem was with your edits and you're just not listening, so I'm not going to look at your talk page anymore. Some other administrator will come along and look at your unblock request, but unless you amend it they will probably just turn it down since it does not currently address the reason you were blocked. For now, all we have is a clear case of edit-warring prompted by, and then followed by, a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Good luck to you. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that you are not qualified for this position, Drmies. What you have written to me only emboldens the insulting folks that use this website like Raeky and Mann_jess. They are even poking fun at this conversation here right now, in fact. You are probably friends with them at some level. You have not listened to my pleas for fair treatment, as I have done nothing to warrant this behavior, nor have I engaged in the behavior that Raeky and Mann_jess have. Look at my User Talk page. How can you support that? You have made the hostility worse because you simply refuse to accept that it is happening. Wikipedia has had problems with its credibility for some time now, and it continues. I am sorry that you are not an effective administrator. It is not good for business.

Final Warning regarding WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PA[edit]

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]

  • Seriously, enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here is the third time you've blanked users comments on a talk page AFTER a final warning. — raekyt 04:23, 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.

______________________________

Drmies,

You can see that I have done NOTHING like what Raeky and Mann_jess have done here. You have got to be able to see what everyone else can. Please tell me this is not some kind of joke, as I am a bit perplexed. This is all one-sided abuse here. Clearly. When you say, "Seriously, enough is enough," I am assuming that you understand my complaint here. Please affirm that you do! Snootcher (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place to put warnings[edit]

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'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).

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]

Decline reason:

I've reviewed your contributions, and this block was clearly justified. In fact, the duration was very lenient given that you replied to polite responses to your posts with rude comments and accusations of bad faith. As these have continued since the block was imposed, I'm extending its duration to indefinite. Please note that this is not a permanent block, but rather a block which will remain in place until you can demonstrate that you'll edit productively and treat other editors respectfully. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2012 (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 is not a valid unblock-reason. Be advised that abusing the unblock-template with spurious request will eventually get this page blocked as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to amend the wording to that appeal, but it won't let me. I need to know why these hostile people are able to censor my words, when it is clear that all I want to do is have someone introduce opposing viewpoints to the main thesis of this article at Evolution: Fact and Theory. In no way did I treat anyone like Raeky and Mann_jess did. They went over the top. This can be observed at the two places I linked for you. Reverse this, as I did nothing to deserve such hostile treatment. Snootcher (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All you need to change is click "edit" for the section and amend the reason. Also, there is no censorship: Wikipedia is not a forum or a free-speech zone. You were blocked for repeatedly reverting the closure of a discussion that was not on the topic of the article, not because of some opinion you or I may or may not share. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I did that and it didn't work. Anyway, I don't understand why someone as abusive as Raeky or Mann_jess can delete my words or even close my subsection, and why I cannot undo that. This is all very one-sided, so reprimanding me makes me question your judgement. I provided four suggestions to improve the article, and they were deleted/closed/whatever. I undid that because there was no good reason to do so, and it was all done very inappropriately from two abusive users. I know you read what they have said and done. I did nothing like that. I am asking for someone to review the blocking of my account because this clearly makes no sense. I did not bring what Raeky and Mann_jess did to me upon myself. I did not treat them as they treated me. Why are you allowing them to abuse me? This is why I am asking for an appeal and for you to monitor that talk page. I want to make four Suggestions to Improve This Article without being abused. That is not too much to ask, and hence the reason why I reported the infractions. Please deal with Raeky and Mann_jess so that they do not treat people like this. Look at my User Talk page for Heaven's sake. After someone reviews this blocking, then I guess we are done here. Do this right, please. I can't believe you let people like Raeky and Mann_jess do that to people. Snootcher (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk about "abuse" when there was none. It's really quite annoying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very inappropriate response from Seb az86556. You people are amazing. I cannot believe you treat others this way and support others who do worse. Please clean up my User Talk page so that I don't have to be annoyed by the abusive words used there by Raeky and Mann_jess. Allowing inappropriate communications to take place and then blocking the victims who report that... I am just shocked. How can you support Raeky and Mann_jess? Just appalling. I request one more person to review this, as Seb and Drmies seem unable to resolve this matter professionally and fairly. To date, my four suggestions to improve the Evolution: Fact and Theory article have been censored off the Talk Section; I have been abused on my User Talk page; I reported edit drama and warring and was subsequently blocked because Seb and Drmies think I brought it on myself. (I have not treated anyone as I have been treated. This is verifiable.) One final person, please, to step in, as Seb's and Drmies' responses are just appalling. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten this same input now from Seb_az86556, Drmies, me, Raeky, IRWolfie, Dougweller, maunus, Just plain bill, and Milkunderwood. That's 9 tenured editors. Please accept that, perhaps, your outlook on how wikipedia operates, that you've gained in just 53 edits, may not be entirely complete. Your block is only temporary. When it expires, please read the policy pages you have been linked, and ask for help from other experienced editors. It doesn't have to be any one of us... just someone. Take a look at WP:ADOPT for a list. (By the way, disagreeing with you is not abuse. It would really help if you stopped using that word.)   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with WP:ADOPT and maybe a self-sanctioned topic ban until your able to understand WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE as it applies to evolution articles. — raekyt 05:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tenured editors?" (Brown-nosers...?) The reason why Wikipedia struggles with its reputation of low to zero credibility and why it is not accepted in serious academic institutions is for reasons like what happened here on the Evolution: Fact and Theory page. Mann_jess and Raeky are just abusers in the community, as is evidenced by what they did to my User Talk page and what they did in censoring my suggestions on the Evolution: Fact and Theory talk section. I reopened my "four suggestions" post because it was inappropriately and repeatedly closed. They engaged in edit drama and edit warring. I reported it and I was blocked by folks taking sides with abusive people who engage in sophistry. Suit yourselves. I can see that there is no credible or fair way to report or appeal the abuse of these hacks, so I will consider this case closed. Being blocked from posting on a website that has well-known and obvious credibility issues is actually a blessing, after having thought about it. I don't want to be associated with your artwork here. Wikipedia will always be the place for poor adminsitration and non-credibility. Like I said: suit yourselves. In closing, I do request that all the abusive words (the insults, mockeries, sarcasm, put-downs, mischaracterizations, hostility, etc. - against me personally, the generalizations, etc.) be removed from my User Talk page that Mann_jess and Raeky put there. I did not talk to them like that, so to leave it on my User Talk page is abusive in and of itself. It was not garnered by me based on how I spoke to them. They spoke differently, and the hostility is evident. I request that it be removed. As for the Evolution: Fact and Theory page, you can leave it in the biased, controversial, and non-credible state that it is in. If anyone cited that page in my biology course, well... Let's just say that many people often become motivated to do science properly after seeing poor works like that, so it surely serves a purpose. But you can be proud of and defend it for different reasons. Please clean my User Talk page of Mann_jess' and Raeky's abusive words. That is all I ask. I did not deserve what they wrote there, and I want it removed as it is all insulting and serves no purpose than to upset me. Everything else you are stuck with. Case closed. Snootcher (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE tell me you don't TEACH biology somewhere?!!@#$! — raekyt 06:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could prevent Raeky from putting out spurious, trolling remarks, that would be great. (See above.) I would like to prevent him from contacting me again. And Mann_jess. Please tell me how to block them from contacting (abusing) me. Thank you.
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).

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

Request reason:

Part of my Unblock Appeal was that my User Talk page be cleared of the insulting remarks of Raeky and Mann_jess and also that I am instructed on how to block them from contacting me. Go ahead with your poor judgement decision; I am only requesting here that you carry out the closing of this case with those requests in mind. Snootcher (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request; also WP:NOTTHEM. You can remove comments from your talk page however you wish; what you cannot do is remove declined unblock requests. Anything else you can remove as you see fit. You can't "block" anybody from commenting on your page; you can state that you do not wish for them to post on your page, however. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 22 July 2012 (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.

Snootcher, I've given you genuinely helpful advice, and worded it as nicely as I can. However, since it's clear you aren't interested in having me post further, I don't plan to return to your talk page. You're more than welcome to clear all the comments on your talk page if you wish, including mine. Just hit "edit", and then remove anything you want. All you have to do is leave the current block notice visible. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear that I do not want Raeky or Mann_jess contacting me again. Please do not violate this request again. Snootcher (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been impressed with the patience Mann_jess has displayed here. I also agree with the substance of Raeky's comments, although he used one or two words I might not have chosen. Snootcher, please consider the parable of the Mote and the Beam, and take some time to read the Wikipedia policy on tendentious editing. I will say this once, and not return to this page: if you want to change a Wikipedia article, you must bring supporting reliable sources to the discussion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, you don't need to bug me anymore. I really don't care about what you have to say. You come off as a total hypocrite to me and you lack all credibility, just like those other folks that can't seem to put together credible articles. Wikipedia has a well-known reputation for being non-credible, and it does not hold up to academic (and scientific) standards. You can link as many things as you want, but I just don't see you as being relevent. You can advise someone else, as I did not ask you. Just go away now. Snootcher (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more commentary, please. I am revoking talk page access since this it is used only for soapboxing; you, other editors, can help by refraining from stoking the fire. If the user ever wished to be unblocked, they can email ArbCom: see Wikipedia:Arbcom#Contacting_the_Committee. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove most things from your talk page[edit]

Sorry, I should have told you that you can remove virtually anything from your talk page. It's assumed that when you remove material that you've read it. Although archiving (see Help:Archiving a talk page is preferred, you can just delete it. There are a few things that can't be removed, see WP:REMOVED. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snootcher&oldid=1083632830"