User talk:Aarlai

August 2017

Hello, I'm DVdm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Creationism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Creationism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Ham, you may be blocked from editing. 1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ken Ham. DVdm (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Those articles already mention where relevant that those are not supported by mainstream science and where necessary, the claims to do scientific research are labeled as pseudoscience when they do not subscribe to the scientific method. The tone of your additions is unacceptable for an encyclopedia and is not neutral (please see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:ARBPS). Also, when other editors revert your changes, per WP:BRD, it is important to first discuss on the relevant article's talk page in order to form consensus (WP:CONSENSUS), rather than edit warring (WP:WARRING). Thank you, —Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when editing articles about people, strict policies must be followed in relation to criticism, the claims must be well sourced. Please see WP:BLP for more information. —Paleo Neonate – 03:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

You need to be much careful about what you write about living people.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]