Hi LeftiePete! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Richard Dawkins, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

It is not acceptable to alter part of a citation so as to misdirect visitors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Are you for real? I was fixing the reference. Check the reference now and you will see that there is an error. I wasn’t trying to “misdirect visitors”.--LeftiePete (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll assume good faith and that it was a cock-up not a conspiracy. I restored the citation so that it now reads (correctly)

• ((cite web|title=Richard Dawkins on Charles Darwin|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7885670.stm|website=BBC News|date=14 February 2009))

and not

• ((cite web|title=Richard Dawkins on Charles Darwin|url= https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation|website=BBC News|date=14 February 2009))

which is how you left it. (If someone had followed that link, they would have found themselves on the Guardian website, not the BBC and an article called something other than Dawkins on Darwin.)

BTW, why do you keep deleting the op-ed tag on the original Guardian: the article is not a news item, it is an opinion piece. And it is by a guest author who is not a Guardian staffer (she works for Harpers Bazaar).

To cut a long story short, IMO "Believers are upset by Atheist" qualifies as "the sky is blue" and wp:trivia: I think we should just delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. — Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Nazi spam, dude. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]