User talk:Sfvace

Welcome!

Hello, Sfvace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

You make a couple of incorrect assumptions. Firstly I did not support the editor you referred to because I believe he was right. I thought he was editing in good faith and deserved an opportunity to learn more about WP:V. Your second incorrect assumption is that there is some relationship between evolution and religion. Evolution and religion really have nothing to do with each other, and trying to introduce religion into science articles will always come into conflict with WP:NPOV. As for editing, you are welcome to edit any article. You will only get into trouble if you continue to insert the same edits if your edits are reversed. This is called edit warring, and you can read more about these rules at WP:3RR. You will always have more chance of your edits remaining if you have good sources for them, but these rules are less stringently applied for non-controversial subjects, and I suggest you start editing on some of these articles. For instance you might like to try editing articles on your hobby, or your home town. Good luck with your endeavours on Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Firstly always put new comments on a talk page at the bottom of the page. Even easier, click the "new section" button at the top, and type into that edit page, your entry will be placed at the correct place.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. I looked at the Hindu page, and a brief glance suggests it is the normal misinterpretation and misunderstanding of evolution one often finds on Christian fundamentalist pages. Mainly there seems to be a confusion between abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis is the study of how life first started, evolution how it changed once life first appeared. Clearly as far as science is concerned, evolution is an established fact, abiogenesis still conjecture. Darwin did comment on the beginnings of life, but I'm sure he would have made it clear that he was working from conjecture, too. So there is a gap in our knowledge, and for many religious people this is seen as the point of creation by by a higher being, accepting evolution as the mechanism by which that being created the diversity of life on Earth. Only those who insist on a literal interpretation of religious texts have a problem with this. See theistic evolution for further infomation.

By the way your friend not only got into trouble for edit warring. He also threatened other editors, and used phrases such as "that rascal Darwin" in his editing, indicating an unwillingness to put aside his own point of view when editing Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you wrote to others as well. Your buddy will get blocked if he carries on that way, writing "he gives the logic and science as to why followers of Darwin's theory are rascals who talk nonsense". Oh, I'm out of date. Blocked indefinitely. And then you come along to complain. Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I did not mention, if you do edit an article, and your edit is reversed, do not just reverse again. Raise the matter on the article's talk page, and try and resolve it there. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 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 Hindu views on evolution 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. I see you've replaced the edit that calls people rascals. You have also used a number of sources that fail WP:EL and WP:RS which I suggest you read carefully. Doug Weller (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello my friend the Citation you put down said NOW 51% of Americans dont believe in Evolution, perhaps we could find common ground and say a CNN poll said 51% of all Americans Believe so, I hope people have not shell shocked you off Wikipedia yet thank you --Zaharous (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold on sorry Ill respond just in a second Im a bit busy finding out whats going on here Ill be there in a second sorry --Zaharous (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

No it say's that 51% of Americans dont believe in evolution --Zaharous (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will thanks see them, If I you need any help if Wiki editing or such please contact me it took me quite a while myself --Zaharous (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Actually, if you would care to read Creation-evolution controversy, then I think you will find that it is totally misleading to say that "most people do not believe in evolution". The statistic you quote is based on a survey of Americans, who (regardless of what you may think) do not constitute the majority of people. In fact, as far as national averages go, America is near the bottom as far as credence in evolution (at least where reliable polling exists). Furthermore, the very issue of whether and how to discuss polling in the article has been discussed, and the consensus was not to include this in the article. If you would like to make a case for the inclusion, please say why this statistic and none of the others should be discussed in the article, and have an answer ready for the inevitable retort that this far overstates the number of creationists in terms of global averages. Finally, you should be prepared to argue against the consensus that polling in scientific articles about evolution is in general not considered to be relevant, and inherently violates WP:NPOV.

I would also like to encourage you to review WP:AGF. Calling another editors edits vandalism, when they clearly were not, is in breach of this policy. Finally, you should consider looking at WP:BRD: you were bold, but I reverted you. Now it is time to discuss, and not edit war. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol (no offense). Who said anything about creationism? I accept evolution regardless of my believing on a creator. I don't accept parts of it for scientific reasons, but that's a whole other issue you can view on a shared channel regarding this matter (youtube.com/playitalready) I already thanked someone for editing it to say Americans and not people. YOU CENSORED THAT too! Nice try though. There WERE NO OTHER SOURCES! IF you've a better source, you're free to explain why it's better and provide it. I didn't realize that I have to appeal to popular opinion on wikipedia so that I may provide a factual and sourced statement, or that using statistics in scientific articles about evolution not relavant and violates rules. Wow, I been wondering why aspects of the Darwin's theory weren't confronted before. Good censorship, and I thought the Abrahamic creationists were bad. Look please don't shift the burdon of proof. Americans should be substituted for people. Otherwise you shouldn't censor a more specific and sourced statement for a lesser one. If not, you could get suspended. Anyway I see why wikipedia is notorious for being untrustworthy and you can have it that way. Later

Obviously you didn't read WP:AGF like I asked, since you are now baldly accusing me of not only vandalism but also censorship. There are other sources that indicate that a majority of Americans do believe in evolution. There is a Gallup poll for one (see Talk:Evolution as theory and fact, where I have given a link). There are polls all across Europe showing much smaller numbers. However, and I hope you forgive me for jumping to conclusions here, but the 51% figure is the one nearly always advanced by those with a Creationist agenda. There are other polls we could cite here, like the polls from Europe or the Gallup polls, or polls of those with scientific background. The question it all boils down to is, why are we citing this poll and not the others here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "talk it out, prove my case". For one thing, see the flowchart in WP:BRD: You can make a bold edit, and if you are reverted you have to talk it out, not the other way around. But, as it happens, I have proven my case on the article talk page, on your talk page, and this issue was already discussed in the archives of the article talk page, and it has already come up on many other evolution-related articles, and the overwhelming community consensus has been to present the polls in a single place where they all can be given, and no one poll put forward to advance a particular point of view. So I think I have more than fullfilled any reasonable expectation of explaining myself here. Also, you continue to accuse me of censorship. Far from defusing the situation, I think you will find that this will escalate things. Please redact the accusation, as well as the accusation of vandalism. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Creation-evolution controversy ‎, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your query: I would recommend that you base your edits on reliable sources which present all views fairly and in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. Simply having heard an argument somewhere, as you indicated on my talk page, or having read it online somewhere, is no basis for inclusion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should source a logical argument by finding someone who makes the same argument, preferably in a WP:MAINSTREAM source (like a scientific journal, book published by a reputable publishing house, or other source that has received substantial commentary to support its reliability). As someone who writes mostly mathematics articles on Wikipedia, I can assure you that novel "logical" arguments need sources just as much as assertions of matters of both opinion and fact. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hindu views on evolution. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your latest request for explanation, this:

Hindus teach that there are always 8.4 million species within the Universe

was certainly not in the source cited. Furthermore, you changed the word "belief" in this sentence

have expressed their belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is false

to the word understanding, thus implying that the theory is false. (Of course, the modern evolutionary synthesis is not necessarily the same thing as Darwin's theory, but that is a nuance that you are probably not aware of). The remaining edits are largely sourced to this website http://www.hknet.org.nz/Darwin-evolution-fantasy-page.htm, which does not look especially reliable. If you wish to make your case, the rule is that you now must do so on the talk page of the article. See WP:BRD. You made some bold edits, but you were reverted on (if I may say) quite good and solid grounds firmly rooted in Wikipedia policies. But that doesn't mean that I am right. By all means, please convince other editors by posting to the talk page of the articles in question. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hindu views on evolution. 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. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Silly rabbit. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. لenna vecia 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

lol what a moron I came back to sign the page the same minute cause I forgot to. Get a life girl man Ill go out with you if you stop threatening people without basis I can't even talk back yo.

Hmm. I don't recall making this revert. It must have been an error on my part. Apologies for the confusion. However, check out our policy on personal attacks. If you feel so inclined to call other editors "morons" or "idiots", you may find yourself on the business end of a block. Also, after some deep thought and serious consideration, I'm going to have to decline your kind offer for a date. >_> Regards, لenna vecia 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

It's my talk page, I'll do what I like with it. Good luck with your hypotheses, unfortunately I don't find them very convincing. And no I'm not interested in a debate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in reply to your query on mine, having seen this edit of yours, I added the welcome above. Note that it has handy hints about policies here, and unfortunately you seem to be adding what we call "original research" without reliable sources. I appreciate that your additions in that edit are not very original, but are common creationist claims. Our Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. Anyway, the first thing is to be careful to provide a verifiable source for facts and for assessments, opinions or analysis of these facts. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== a thread has been oened re: yoou on WP:ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

For info, no thread on Sfvace, there is a thread on WP:ANI#User:Smith Jones . . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious...

...why were you trying to contact a vandal here... And why would you think that one of most troublesome vandals on wikipedia is "serious about solving these unfair bias "ALL parts of Darwin's theory are the truth case closed you're deleted as a creationist"? The Genesis vandal doesn't deserve any encouragement AT ALL, and I wouldn't consider it wise to do so. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was replying to him based on what was written there I am not sure. Saying ALL parts of Darwin's theory are true won't make it so certain things must be proven and can't be true when they are logical. Arguing with you guys is worse than when I was a creationist, so you can view my vid and the LINKS within it and judge for yourself, IF you're open minded. Deleted as a creationist?? Makes less sense. I didn't know he was so bad either but something must be done censoring arguments against things is not right and can't last for so long.

Well, what that vandal does is replace all text on the Evolution article and talk pages with the first chapter of Genesis. He will do the same to the user and user talk pages to anyone who reverts him. He will register a handful of usernames and season them for about 10 days, then strike every ten days or so repeatedly. He doesn't talk, he just vandalizes in this botlike manner; in fact, I'm not entirely convinced it isn't a bot. So it's odd that you would be moved by such edits to seek this person out.

BTW, science is never proven; proof is for mathematics and liquor. Theory is the best you will get in science. The theory of common descent is vastly supported by the evidence; there is no evidence that has been found that falsifies it. No, not all aspects are completely understood yet, but no evidence has come up that couldn't have a natural, reasonable explanation. Design theories violate Occam's razor, asserting an outside influence without any positive evidence for it, where it's yet to be found necessary, mainly because it makes them feel more satisfied philosophically. That's not science. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 14, 2008

In response to your comment I personally do not believe the theory, but I have no agenda to push my ideals. My only goal is to give an alternative perspective and to provide a neutral standpoint for the article.

No, sorry, I cannot help

Perhaps it may be worth pursuing, through the wp:rfc process. However, it is probably not worth it for me. This is a very small, highly unimportant article, and at least a couple of the editors have strong feelings about it. I am interested in Wikipedia, and while this article is a "good example of bad stuff", it isn't important to me. And no, I am no form of admin. Just an editor. :)

That being said, it is very true that you cannot generally include polls in Wikipedia, and I can't really imagine how they would help this particular article.sinneed (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though in this case it is no problem, it is important to comment on an editor's talk page, rather than the editor's user page. I removed the edit, and understood it was a simple mistake, but some folks get very testy about this. All the best. :)sinneed (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. 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. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Bubba73 (talk), 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi Sfvace -- the problem with your edit is that you are using YouTube as a reference. YouTube is not peer reviewed -- anyone can put anything there. Anything. We can't use sources like YouTube; reliable sources are things like mainstream press, peer-reviewed journals, and so forth. Please read the policy I linked. If there are other uses of YouTube in Wikipedia as a "reliable source", then those should be removed as well. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source had a NASA DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF IT. SOURCES 65 and others on this SAME PAGE ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Why don't you go bother them about that? Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page. Sfvace (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the reliable sources policy yet? Let me know when you do. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please read Wikipedia:Civility also. Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in edit warring over multiple articles. 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 ''<nowiki>}} below. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|1=People complain youtube videos aren't a valid source and block me for it rather than the people who started the edit war. Now I delete some videos from youtube because they were an invalid source, from the SAME page no less, and instead of blocking the people who started the edit war they block me? This is unfair, bias, and abuse of power. I didn't really edit 3 times on the SAME entry, and anyway two entries were because I wanted to fix something I did before and it wasn't a part of an edit war.|decline=Yes, but, especially [

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).

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

Request reason:

People complain youtube videos aren't a valid source and block me for it rather than the people who started the edit war. Now I delete some videos from youtube because they were an invalid source, from the SAME page no less, and instead of blocking the people who started the edit war they block me? This is unfair, bias, and abuse of power. I didn't really edit 3 times on the SAME entry, and anyway two entries were because I wanted to fix something I did before and it wasn't a part of an edit war.

Decline reason:

Yes, but judging from here, it looks like you're disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (YouTube videos are valid sources sometimes; it depends, usually on them not being copyright-infringing). Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (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.

Apollo

You got blocked for this once already, so be careful. Meanwhile, I have asked Bubba73 to consider using the DVD as the actual citation, and then the youtube could simply be an illustration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got blocked before because I was using a youtube video as a source on this same page. Now that I delete people like you who promote using youtube videos as a source, I'm supposed to be blocked for edit warring and you should get a free pass as automically right pending some DVD? People like YOU are edit warring with no logic, full of bias and contridictions of rules. Sfvace (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsube's issue...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Mitsube has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA PROPS

i dont get it. prop 8 passed but the judges have to approve of it. in this section of CA PROPS it doesn't say anything about a passed prop needing judicial approval via judges. can you explain and source? (email removed for privacy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

I have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. Can you please clue me in? Stifle (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Greetings! It appears that some of your recent edits at Moon landing conspiracy theories could be interpreted as a violation of WP:POINT. If there is information on this or other pages that you believe is inadequately sourced, please consider using the fact tag rather than immediately deleting it. There are several editors who are involved in this page that would be willing to source unreferenced material. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]