User talk:LordFluffington454

Welcome!

Hello, LordFluffington454, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teach the Controversy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Teach the Controversy, you may be blocked from editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a bold edit, and it has been reverted. Your next step, per the usual sequence of events, is that you need to discuss why the information should be removed at Talk:Teach the Controversy. Do not remove the material again until consensus for its removal is reached at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with this edit, the archive link works just fine. It's starting to feel like you're removing material based on personal agenda rather than on verifiability, neutrality, or other Wikipedia guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say looking at your edit history you look like a single purpose account. I suggest you stop editing pages relating to religion for a bit and take a look mat others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why because I am pointing out that there is a bias against Christian ideas on wikipedia and its been going on for over ten years? I have cited two different studies by the pew research center showing a significant number of Americans have issues with evolution yet I'm constantly told anything but evolution is considered pseudoscience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of believers do not make it science, of course. We also use such sources for statistics, like at level of support for evolution. I hope that you have read what I wrote in my reply here. Wikipedia does have academic bias (WP:ABIAS). —Paleo Neonate – 14:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read everything and am sad to say that I was correct wikipedia has a liberal bias. Intelligent design is called pseudoscience because liberal scientists don't want to admit there are things evolution doesn't answer. However I am done wasting my time on this. I am simply going to say that after reading the article about wikipedia academic bias I can say that wikipedia used to be a great website but now they want to stifle anything remotely controversial

NO because you are editing about only one subject.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you are, it might be best to bow out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best for you to refrain from giving me any more advice since I am in the right on this subject since its been clearly proven wikipedia is biased against intelligent design

Maybe, but if that is true you will also end up with a ban if continue with this battleground attitude. I am advising you to show a bit more restraint and tact and abide by our policies (no matter how biased) in order to be able to continue to con tribute. You might be best to take issues up on talk pages (rather then making edits to articles) and accepting when you do not get your way. It might also be a good idea to demonstrate you do have more to offer then POV pushing. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:brd, WP:V and WP:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already have and find in them further proof of wikipedia biasness. Oh and are you suggesting I will be banned for simply saying wikipedia is biased?

No I am saying you will get banned if you do not demonstrate you are not just here to push your POV, see WP:NOTHERE.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying I can't push my POV but that is exactly what the anti Christian evolutionists are doing no?

No I am saying that is all you appear to be here to do. hence wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I joined less then 2 days ago I find it humorous that you can say why I'm here at all

Hence my first post. Take a few days off editing in this topic area and edit in some others.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be on the web

See WP:VERIFY. I also agree there seems to be a pattern in your removal of sources, ie you appear to be removing sources on the basis of your opinion of them, not whether they meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best to reply here. Just click on edit, go to a line under the last post, indent with ":"s, and reply. If you wish to let the other editor know you have replied and think they might not notice, use {{re|Doug Weller}} or whatever username you need. Sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~

Now for the policy issue. We do not try to be neutral. We are a mainstream encyclopedia and although we include fringe, we don't treat it as equivalent to mainstream science. The policy WP:VERIFY actually says "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Click on "due weight" and read that and the rest of our WP:NPOV policy which explains why I say we do not try to be neutral, at least in the sense I think you mean. I read that 2007 post, I'm not surprised. We are not neutral towards Creationism of any kind, although we of course have articles on related issues. VERIFY says, for instance, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." So we allow sources you will perceive as biased. We allow sources I think are biased as well. That's part of what we are, we try to present them according to their reliability by our criteria and by their significance as shown by their use in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations you are the first person to admit that wikipedia is biased against creationism and intelligent design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality is biased against creationism and intelligent design, as ample reliable sources show. See Wikipedia's WP:PSCI for policy on neutral coverage of these fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but in reality I can find information that say intelligent design is true and factual. I can't find that on here so nice try

In reality, I can find information that says that the world is flat and that wishful thinking cures cancer, so the fact that you can find support for intelligent design elsewhere is meaningless. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Millions of Muslims would prefer if every image of Muhammad ecer created were purged from the net, yer we have a while page dedicated to them.

The fact of the matter is that you nether understand how things work here, nor do you want to understand. You just want to spread your own brand of bullshit and screech about persecution and "liberal bias" when more intelligent people than yourself don't want to hear it. Typical conservative really. You're not the first to push these arguments, you won't be the last. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I understand the goal of wikipedia is to inform people of things. It is persecution because you are saying my religion is not true.

Then, by your logic, if we were to change our policies to allow you to state that your religion is true, then we'd be persecuting everyone who doesn't follow your religion, since we'd be saying that their religions aren't true. So are you saying that we are supposed to go out of our way to put them down just so that your fragile feelings aren't hurt? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No make no claim to truth let each idea have its own article but don't say its pseudoscience

Except that pseudoscience is, by definition, "fake science". So unless you're trying to argue that creationism is science, then we can probably both agree that it is either pseudoscience or mythology. Would you prefer the latter? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that wikipedia should simply say it's an alternative theory to evolution and take neither side— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington45 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would unfortunately result in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Science is not about opinions and belief, evolution is also not just "a theory" (see: Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent). How do we call non-science that is presented as science, if not pseudoscience? —Paleo Neonate – 04:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree is has half a valid point (but then so do you). I have long argued that if something does not claim to be science we should not label it pseudoscience (such as creationism), call it what it is, faith. But if something claims it is science then we should label it as pseudoscience if it does not follow the scientific method (such as intelligent design).Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is still just a theory. Despite how the article treats it there are still many unanswered questions about evolution. As for how you treat alternative theories I say wikipedia should be TRULY NEUTRAL and simply report without passing judgement by using words like pseudoscience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is still just a theory demonstrates that you did not read or understand the above. It's actually the only well understood method through which life could have diversified. Sure, some details are being improved, just like more transitional fossils, genetic and embriology evidence are found (always leaving gaps). It also does not matter how exactly abiogenesis occurred (the origin of life from non-life which is less understood, but progress is being made), what happened after that point is still much better understood... But all that evidence can apparently be ignored or denied by some with a modern interpretation of traditional iron age texts. I can only help up to a certain point. Although personal user pages like this one are allowed more freedom to discuss those topics than article talk pages, and it was a pleasure for me to try to help, this is likely to be my last post here, but you're still welcome to query me if you think it's necessary. —Paleo Neonate – 12:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of special measures in relation to certain topics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that any editor editing articles in relation to the topic may receive this notice, renewable every six months. You have not breached these conditions, but everyone should be aware of them. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 10:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved message

I have moved your message at WP:FTN#Creationism since it was placed on the wrong public page. —Paleo Neonate – 12:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LordFluffington454, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LordFluffington454! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hello. Per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not for expressing your personal views on the subject. Arguments in content discussions should be based in Wikipedia content policies, and I invite you to learn something about them before you participate in highly contentious topic areas. I have reverted your two edits there. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me I point out that I'm stating a fact the man IS a racist he has made several racist statements. What part of that is a personal opinion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Facebook. Like it or not we all have to follow WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying I need to provide sources proving he has made Racist comments? How about the fact he called Mexican immigrants rapists and murders— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of proposed deletions

Please stop your disruptive editing by removing proposed deletion tags, e.g. at David Alan Ditsworth, Andrew Hill Newman and Transitional living. Willondon (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information I read said ANY editor (emphasis mine) can remove a proposed delition tag. I feel those articles are not worthy of deletion

I just read the Wikipedia policy on proposed deletions, and right you are. I won't revert my edits, but if you remove those tags again, I will not oppose. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But going around and removing PROD tags without ever giving a single word of explanation is less than constructive. I have seen people get blocked for that. I strongly suggest that you atsrt giving a rationale that is a bit more detailed than "I feel that". If you have good reason to dePROD an article, then say so, because otherwise many of those PRODs will end up at AFD, wasting a lot of time of the community. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice I will start giving my rationale for why I feel the article should be retained— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how about you start by explaining your removal of the PROD from Aid to the Church in Need. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a Catholic charity that does wonderful work

Please read WP:NORG and in fact WP:NOTABILITY and make sure you know the article meets the criteria. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 17:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out obvious user bias and I love how I'm getting called out but people can sit there and mock and insult one of the subjects of the article with impunity. Plus this also comes very close to censorship.

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (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).

LordFluffington454 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so apparently I have been blocked because I am not here to build them encyclopedia yet I am all I have done is point out antler's Inn Civility and people mocking certain points of view and being disrespectful calling certain things pseudoscience when it might be but millions of people believe in the steering and you are mocking the basically. However I would like to point out that every time someone asked me to do something that was actually a reasonable policy request such as don't make edits without first talking about it in the talk page or they said put the comments about discussing things on your I complied I never engaged in personal attacks even though I was personally attacked and my beliefs will personally attacked a website that supposedly is anti-censorship what's happening to me smacks of elitism and censorship you claim that there are no cabal's on this website yet it's clear that there are and I have fallen a foul of them because I speak my mind I don't think I will be on blocked because it's clear that the moderators and admins you would rather silence criticism and listen to it however I will point out that if you do not want to be accused of hypocrisy then you should allow me to speak my mind as long as I'm being polite not attacking people and being civil.. I have proof of people commenting on intelligent design one of which I think is some sort of moderator or has been in the past

Decline reason:

This unblock request profoundly misunderstands what Wikipedia is all about. This is categorically not the place for you to speak your mind. See WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Once you've read up on Wikipedia, you are welcome to make another unblock request. WP:GAB will explain how to craft a suitable request, which will be radically different from this one. Yamla (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2018 (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.

Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Also, as I have previously posted on my talk page, people are not blocked because of their beliefs but because of disruption (wasting other editor's time, failing to use talk pages in a constructive way, not as a forum despite warnings, etc). I cannot block or unblock you and as such will let an administrator decide. But I wanted to remind you why you actually were blocked, which is not censorship. When deleting a deletion tag, more lengthy processes must then be used. When endlessly arguing on talk pages, a lot of time is wasted (talk archives can be used to assess previous consensus too). —Paleo Neonate – 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that my so-called advocating after my first few posts when I was done shown the page that was speaking on right now have all been for furnace or asking questions or advocating that a minority point of view not be treated with division or scoffed at that leads into my next point you say I am not blocked from My Views yet I find that the people who are making fun of a minority point of view watching minority point-of-use multiple are not blocked yet they are being rude and not neutral it is only I who am I arguing the unpopular thing that is blocked as for the deletion of articles I knew I made a mistake somebody said you need to put your reasoning I put my reasoning when Doug Weller pointed out that I wasn't in the right I immediately stop doing it as for you saying I'm wasting time arguing on the top pages whose time am I wasting if if people don't want their time wasted don't answer me.

You are not blocked because of the views you have, you are blocked because you've refused to accept despite being told multiple times by multiple editors, that your views, as well as my views, and every other editor's views are entirely irrelevant here. Talk pages are to make concrete arguments to improve an article; arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ONLY. They are not a place for you or me or anyone else to air their personal opinion on the subject matter. The fact that a charity does good work (which you presented as your opinion, without any backing from reliable sources) has absolutely no relevance in deciding whether or not it has an article about it here, even if it were documentably true. You seem to have the ludicrous impression that somehow the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution applies here. It doesn't. This isn't the government, and private entities have every right under the law to regulate you speech and behavior. Your editing priveleges have been suspended and they will remain that way until you internalize that Wikipedia has as much right to remove you for proscribed behavior (advocacy) as your neighborhood grocery store would have to ban you because every time you came in you stood in the entry and shouted "Fuck the Hoes" at the top of your voice. There is no difference whatsoever. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOU need to read wp:talk then show you get it. In essence you seem to have done everything you can to get a block. I suggest you go away read out polices, then come back demonstrate you understand them and then promise to abide by them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing a more syllable apply to these comments since my blocked request when I can get to a computer and I can add links showing exactly what I'm speaking of and showing the proof of other Wikipedia users violating the same policy I am accused of violating when I was simply pointing out there violations. What I would like to say now is no this is not a First Amendment issue and your example is flatly incorrect and your example I was disrupting the store with profanity and I was not making valid points and it had nothing to do with the activity going on in the store here I was simply pointing out other users hypocrisy I use no foul language and unlike the people I was putting out I didn't even poked fun and maintain the Wikipedia policy of Civility at all times unlike like my opponents

As for the comments by yamla I would suggest keeping a civil tone and your comments because the snark and the comment above is quite obvious. I would also like to say that your suggestion that by appeal will be radically different from what I said is smug and and I will paraphrase what the Devil's Advocate said if you think I'm going to humbly come and kiss the throne and beg for you to let me back in. you're wrong. Plus to quote Captain America " this nation was founded on one principle Above All Else. The requirement that we stand up for what we believe no matter the odds or the consequences. When the Bob and the puss and the whole world tell you to move your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of Truth and tell the whole world no you move." Solo you will not see me apologize for pointing out the obvious bias of Wikipedia editors who are joking about intelligent design was insulting intelligent design and we're coming close to libeling intelligent design. Amongst other subjects

Hypocrisy on Wikipedia

I would like to point out that there is rampant hypocrisy in the situations I have been involved was in the past few days on the other collab out the court case forbidding the teaching of intelligent design of the talk page there are numerous users making anti intelligent design comments poking fun at intelligent design slandering intelligent design and just generally behaving in unacceptable ways yet what I ate that out I am calmed down and band. I would also like to point out that I tried to edit the Donald Trump article and proposed inserting text calling him a racist on my own talk page I was called down and said that this is not Facebook and I can't insert my own opinions yet there are numerous sources calling Donald Trump a racist his own comments indicate he is a racist he is called illegal Mexicans rapists and murderers that is not my opinion that is a fact. According to two different my moderators I have been blocked because of my disruption on The Talk Pages yet all I have done is point out hypocrisy and the fact that certain subjects are not getting a fair Shake. Every time someone has suggested something that is fair I have complied. When I first came here I made a bold edit a few of them actually I was told that I should have said comment on The Talk pages and make my suggestions to which I did yet I'm now being called down for making those suggestions I would like to point out that Wikipedia is losing editors by the day because of these issues if I didn't think that certain people would completely Banned Me from the site for doing it I woulda link two different versions of Wicca Wiki articles on the topics I have been speaking of that show a much more balanced coverage and show that what I'm talking about is being adopted by credible websites LordFluffington454 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk threads you are talking about are likely the 2008 ones you were replying to. Without generalizing, it is quite possible that WP:NOTFORUM was not always enforced correctly and that some editors who participated there can no longer edit. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mostly about articles themselves, this is a similar situation where the behavior of other editors should not necessarily permit us to also misbehave. Another thing to consider is that even comments that are civil but would be critical of ID may appear offensive to you. Wikipedia aiming to be a respectable encyclopedia, must reflect academia as possible. There indeed are other wikis to edit on. About liberty of speech, it was already pointed out above that Wikipedia is private property. The license of the text it hosts permits copying, redistribution and modification by third parties. That it uses wiki software (allowing users to edit) and that it welcomes editing with slogans such as "the encyclopedia everyone can edit" does not change that. To protect the project, users and even entire IP address ranges may be blocked when necessary. This will be my last post here unless you are eventually unblocked (please see WP:APPEAL and WP:STANDARDOFFER which may allow that in the future if/when you are ready to work on the encyclopedia). If this page continues to be used as a blog, an administrator may block talk page access. Farewell, —Paleo Neonate – 19:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]