Jump to content

User talk:Dogmyth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Elizium23. 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 Virgin birth of Jesus 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. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Mediavalia. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Murder because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Mediavalia talk 20:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Dogmyth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! MrBill3 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Microevolution, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrBill3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Elohim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Ham. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

  • If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ken Ham was changed by Dogmyth (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.905548 on 2014-12-15T00:31:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

[edit]

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ken Ham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrBill3 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Institute for Creation Research shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrBill3 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrBill3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Halloween, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmyth reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Creation science

[edit]

You've been warned for edit warring per the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmyth reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned). Please use the talk page to get consensus; don't repeatedly insert material you know to be contentious. I'm also alerting you about the discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBPS. See the box below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creation science is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

[edit]
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 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kent Hovind shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have received warnings about edit warring and pushing fringe positions before, so please discuss rejected changes rather than testing limits. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]