Welcome!

Hello, Wikiposter0123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to show you a way to make referencing easy. First, go to "my preferences" to the left of "my watchlist" at the top of the page. When in "my preferences", click on the tab labeled "gadgets". Then, under the "editing gadgets" title, check refTools, then click save at the bottom of the page. Now when you go back to the editing page, there will be an icon to the top right that will say "cite". When you click on this, referencing will become very easy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I see you asked User:SummerPhD, in the summary of this edit, why sockpuppets may have all their edits reverted on sight. The reason is found in WP:INDEF and WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. The puppeteer account, UGAdawgs2010 (talk · contribs), was blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts. An indefinite block, where no administrator is willing to lift the block, is effectively a community ban. Under the banning policy, all edits by a banned user are subject to immediate reversion. If you think the edits have merit, you can remake them on your own behalf (and taking full responsibility for them). However, SummerPhD is correct in reverting the edits for no reason other than they were made by a banned user. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks I wasn't aware of that rule. Recently I've been involved in two disputes where people went around systematically reverting others' edits and I just thought this was another example of that. Anyways thanks for the clarification.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your revert :) --Ari (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it troubling that you would remove my comment on the Media Research Center talk page as with an incorrect edit summary of "spamburger." The history of your edits on wikipedia since you debuted a few weeks troubles me, as it seems you are pushing viewpoints with questionable sourcing in a number of articles. What is connection with MRC? Please accept my apology if there is none, its just a question.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just assumed you are trying to link me to the MRC to distract away from the conversation. I had never even heard of the MRC until it came up in the Media Matters article on whether or not to describe it as a conservative group. I pointed out that it was not described as a conservative group on its own article, then people from the Media Matters article labeled it a conservative group in its own article to prove a point which I reverted and until now had not been challenged. In short I have no connection, and if you try to distract from the conversation by stating that I do without evidence then I will not respond.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked the question and you have answered, so I have no reason or evidence to further pursue that question. There are 1000s of articles describing MRC as conservative -- the whole purpose of its founding was to root out perceived liberal media bias!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't make sense to try to root out non-perceived conservative bias now would it?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the point is that there is really no question that the MRC is conservative -- both in the vernacular, and by their own descriptions in years past. They're not masquerading as anything other than an organization intent on unmasking what they believe to be "liberal media bias"; no need for Wikipedia articles to tiptoe around the issue.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol your welcome.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the article Altruism you removed a mention of his book The Selfish Gene from the bibliography, saying " Bibloigraphies only refer to sources mentioned in the article". Not only is that not accurate, there are a number of other entries who aren't mentioned in the article. This is really a 'Further reading' section, which is allowed.

Then rename it further reading. In case you aren't familiar with what a bibliography is, it is a section that declares all of the sources used within the text.

At Cultural Christian you replaced a description of him as 'renowned' (are you suggesting he isn't), saying it was a peacock term (not on list). But you replaced it with vocal' which is often used as a criticism and is pointless to mention if someone isn't renowned.

Renowned = "The quality of being widely honored and acclaimed". Are you seriously going to argue this? Since you seem to find vocal offensive(though accurate) I have replaced with well known.

At Templeton Prize you simply removed a sourced comment by him on the prize saying 'undue weight' and 'makes no sense'. You marked this as a Minor edit which is an unacceptable use of the Minor tickbox.

The prize is given to people who promote spirituality. Dawkins said its only given to scientists who have something nice to say about religion.

1. Only given to scientists = I only saw a few scientists who bhad ever received the prize
2. people who have something nice to say about religion = award goes to promoters of spirituality aka no duh.

At Purpose you removed the description of him as a tv personality because you don't think he's been on tv often enough, despite the fact he's written and presented several tv documentaries. You also marked this as Minor.

Several documentaries does not equal being a Tv personality. Especially when those documentaries didn't air outside of Briton. I've never heard of these documentaries and I doubt most people have. Replaced with popular science author, what he is known for.

At Scientific skepticism you removed the words "points to religion as a source of violence," saying "sources make no reference to violence". Now material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced, and contentious material about a living person needs sourcing, but not only should sourcing be done if possible instead of removing material, that he thinks religion is a source of violence is a well known fact which someone like you, who is clearly familiar enough with Dawkins to be editing articles that mention him (presumably by searching as they aren't all obvious) must know this is true, and it certainly isn't contentious.

Haven't heard him express that view. But then again, I haven't read any of his books and have only been exposed to him on Wikipedia where it does not mention this view(which I thought was questionable), but whatever.

You removed a paragraph about his ideas in the article Religion.

He was talking about memetics. Do you really think that is either relevant or notable enough for Wikipedia?

At Creationism you removed a sentence about him claiming that the links don't mention him, but non-overlapping magisteria clearly discusses him.

Thought NOMA was a ridiculous thing to object to. Didn't check the article on the off chance that Dawkins was mentioned there. I would've checked the sources if it was sourced. THought this was just someone looking at a religious concept and saying "Richard Dawkins disagrees" without any evidence.

At Criticism of religion you removed sourced material discussing his ideas. [1]

I don't know why you think a description of him as 'candid' in his article is somehow an offense of our NPOV policy, by the way. This is a very clear pattern over the past few days. I suggest that you be much more careful in your edits as this sort of behavior in the past has led to editors being topic banned and even blocked.Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candid = "Free from prejudice; impartial." and saying that he is known for this is so obviously not NPOV.

I target groups and people at a time. Once I'm done with Dawkins then I will move on to others. The reason I went with his is because I started seeing people referring to him as renowned and candid and breaking NPOV policies and for trying to insert certain opinions of his, like memetics, into every single article were it possibly could apply even though memetics is hardly a pseudo science. Blindly reverting all of an editors reverts is a bad violation of Assume Good Faith and I would recommend you provide reasons for your reverts instead of just assuming their bad edits.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not blindly revert anything, I gave specific reasons for my reversions and you must know that. You admit you are targeting Dawkins. It's clear that you don't know much about Dawkins and his importance and relevance. He is renowned (which means talked about widely), he's candid (a word which has changed its meaning since Jane Austen, it means straightforward) there are books written about his ideas on memetics and religion, and your opinion of whether his quote on the Templeton Prize is accurate is not a reason to remove it, and I note the editor reverting you after you removed it again said "Undid revision 378046138 by Wikiposter0123 (talk) how strange, this section describes a number of criticisms, why remove just one?". His book The Selfish Gene is clearly relative to the article Altruism, and as I said above, the section was a Further Reading section. Sources used in the text should all be cited internally. NOMA is hardly a ridiculous thing to object to, and his objections are a basic part of his philosophy. What I see is clear pov editing, and I again suggest you stop.

I also note that you are still misusing the minor edit tick box. This needs to stop also, please. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I did not blindly revert anything, I gave specific reasons for my reversions and you must know that."
To be honest I skipped your entire post here and only read the beginning and end(thinking the middle was just some sort of "evidence" of my editing things related to Dawkins and not some sort of response to them), so when I saw you reverting my edits only saying "Editor is targeting Dawkins" and saw no explanation I just assumed you were blindly reverting my edits.

"I also note that you are still misusing the minor edit tick box. This needs to stop also, please."
Examples.

"there are books written about his ideas on memetics and religion". Because he is a pop philospher. Nietzsche and Rand had larger followings, but similarly they made no actual contributions to philosophy just as Dawkins has made no contributions to theology, atheism, or philosophy. As for his ideas on memetics. Is that a joke? Nobody takes memetics seriously except fans of Dawkins and people who think the idea is going to set back culture studies, and the only reason his views on religion are notable is because he has a cult following.

"and as I said above, the section was a Further Reading section."

It's not. It is a bibliography section, that means it is a section for listing references in the article.

"NOMA is hardly a ridiculous thing to object to, and his objections are a basic part of his philosophy."

Few mainstream people would openly reject NOMA, and his objections to NOMA aren't likely to persuade more people to reject it.

"he's candid (a word which has changed its meaning since Jane Austen, it means straightforward)"

Answers.com: 1st definition of candid: Free from prejudice; impartial.

"It's clear that you don't know much about Dawkins and his importance and relevance."

He's an evolutionary biologist who has made some good contributions to biology. He has since taken biological concepts and applied them to understanding theology, and well as adopted a "Science vs. Religion" mentality believing that they cannot coexist and that a great war is going on to determine which will survive. Writing in an impassioned manner reminiscent of Nietzsche and Rand he has attracted a cult following of atheist and anti-theists, and become a pop culture icon for the atheist movement.

Did I miss anything?

"You admit you are targeting Dawkins."

Not sure if that's a bad thing.

I have no intention to "do battle with" people who take Dawkins seriously and want his opinions spread throughout Wikipedia in the most inappropriate ways. If you want to spread his views into every article possible then be my guest. I have worthwhile things to do. A link to his page on memetics will tell the reader of the altruism article that memetics isn't relevant to the study of altruism, and they'll move on anyway.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you created, Olympia Press (BDSM), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Jusdafax 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I said in my last edit to Talk:Nintendo GameCube that I would have to report your disruptive edits to WP administrators, I've decided to give one last try at reasoning with you. I don't make a habit of saying I'll do something and not going through with it, but reporting an incident is a depressing process, and in every case I've seen where behavior like yours was reported, the offending editor was indefinitely blocked. ("Indefinitely blocked" effectively means you're permanently banned from editing on Wikipedia. There's a bit more to it than that, but I don't think you'll be able to tell the difference if you are indefinitely blocked.) That's true of all such cases, of course; what makes this different is that you're obviously very young, so you could well be making constructive edits in a few years. In short, I wouldn't feel great about starting a process that will likely result in your being blocked. And since it's probable that your disruptive editing on the GameCube article itself is linked to your disruptive editing on the talk page, I'd have to mention said edits in my report.

So, for your own sake if nothing else, please don't persist in disruptive editing. Just to be clear, this includes more than just reverting your destructive edit on the talk page, as at this point I have to assume that any bad faith edits you make to Nintendo GameCube or its talk page are connected to your string of disruptive editing there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as you've never specifically mentioned a single mistake I made in regards to the Dreamcast you have not mentioned something specifically that I have done disruptive. If you are referring to me restoring my edits on the Talk:Gamcube page then it appears it was a legitimate revert and that you are trying to trick me into thinking you can delete my comments just as you appear to be trying to trick me into thinking the info I posted on the Dreamcast was false. I'm not going to press for an apology or anything else. Please just leave me alone.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's possible that an article on spanking positions might be notable, but I think an article on each position is a bit much, unless of course you have reliable sources covering each one? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right. I was planning on only doing a few major ones then one article covering all the minor ones, but one article covering all of them would be fine with me also.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if it's a notable subject there should be articles and books about it. try to include some as references as soon as possible. Otherwise it is likely to be deleted, especially since it's a subject that a lot of editors may not like. Good luck. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, thanks for the honest advice.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		This is epic: Keep I suppose. Unless there is a more notable fuck man out there.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for giving me a hearty chuckle. –xenotalk 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Np, I'm glad that came out as funny to others as it did in my head. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer your ponderance, Enrique Fuckman may be more notable [2]. However, he has no article in es.wiki (the language of the majority of the sources), so probably doesn't warrant one here. –xeno^talk 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, and thanks for the barnstar I appreciate it. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He already tried. He and his little buddy G have tried to get me before. And they lost. They tried to get my account deleted for nothing other than disagreeing with them. He's been mentioned on one of my favorite blogs for his antics. He doesn't like me, and I don't like him. It wouldn't surprise me if he's Cenk or Ed or even little Keithy. Nothing's gonna happen. He can't do anything. He knows if I search for an hour, whatever he has in comparison on me would be piddle in comparison. PokeHomsar (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, glad to hear you won out over the Blax+meat puppet machine. I was about to say that if he did try to report you that I would support you, but then felt that would render my support for you meaningless as I would appear bias.:P

Happy editing. :)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inre your recent comment to FNC Controversies - Talk, the "blockquote" you used rendered a badly formatted output and I took the liberty of re-formating it. Please revert if you find it to be unsat. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine. I think removal of the two <br>'s would've worked just as well, but this is okay too.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested administrative assistance with regards to your involvement in the FNC RFC. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you can't beat their arguments, beat down the ones making them huh?

This is the second distracting and pointless ANI report your side has brought up regarding this controversy. On top of trying to edit war your info into the article(resulted in a total block), your side has requested an RFC despite barely any discussion happening at all, recruiting users from far left political blogs to come here and flood the votes, and then denying you did that, editing the blog post to make it seem less like meatpuppeting, and accusing the other side of trying to discredit the RFC when they had the majority.

They should just remove you, Semdem, and all the others contributing nothing to the discussion but trying to wikilawyer, editwar, wear users down, produce ANI reports, and all the other nonsense you're doing from this article. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please de-personalize and tone down the rhetoric. It inhibits rather than fosters productive discussion. You have made, IMHO, some quite relevant, valid observations but they are getting somewhat lost in the increasing heat. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize. I am too easily frustrated by arguing on Wikipedia, so I will tone it down, and keep it down. Thank you.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:BDSM writers (manuals and guides), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spanking literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanking literature until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]