User talk:Adon3000

Welcome!

Hello, Adon3000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! . . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Origin of Species

Hi, I've undone this edit of yours as it puts forward an argument based on a primary source of the book's text without showing verification from a reliable secondary source making that argument – and so is against Wikipedia's policy on original research. You're welcome to make proposals for improvement on the article talk page, but you must show a secondary source backing them up. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

These sections can be confusing, especially as they are often misused. Please read WP:EL. It's rare that a YouTube video would meet WP:ELNO 1, and Joe Rogan's site certainly fails ELNO2. Please don't add it again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Doug Weller. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2020 (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).

Adon3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See? Truth is very persuasive, so I am blocked in an instant. Oh, I am so very proud of myself now. By trying to silence me, you are admitting that it is YOU who is hiding, misinforming people and spreading lies. Just by mentioning Randall Carlson, you piss your pants, crying mama, and block a new user. Yes, Randall is a very dangerous man, because he is speaking the truth... Yeah, you liberal hypocrite liars are so~ afraid of him... I realized it now... from now on, I should let more people to know about him through other means. LOL, you should all be ashamed of yourselves insecure little girls.

Decline reason:

You've provided a concise summary illustrating why you're blocked. Unblock requests containing attacks will not be reviewed, and any more of this will result in talkpage access revocation. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2020 (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 will be my only comment, unless you are eventually unblocked and I can assist. WP:FREESPEECH may be relevant: the encyclopedia only should use, and summarize, mainstream reliable sources, because it attempts to remain a mainstream encyclopedia (WP:ABIAS). Those are essays, but which represent pretty well the policies, like WP:RS and WP:NOT. It's not a vehicle for soapboxing the convictions of individual editors (WP:SOAPBOXING). —Paleo Neonate – 08:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However you people wanna push your own agenda, through whatever guises, "mainstream" lol, you lost your credibility a while ago, so your effort will be futile. Rather, it will reinforce people on the other side to act up. Look, with all the support from Hollywood actors, singers, dancers who are in facts all prostitutes, drug addicts and alcoholics lecturing people how to vote, Trump won... Isn't it amazing? People know when they are told lies. People wake up when they hear the truth. Seriously, look up what Michael Crichton said about global warming. It's not a science. You insecure people found another religion to make your meaningless selves feel better. Because of it, the real science gets delayed, money wasted, people get misinformed, which is sad.

Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]