User talk:Itisnotme

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) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to eat

Please limit your posts to discussions about the topic of the aritcle on article talk pages. I have reverted or deleted your spamming of talk pages. --KP Botany (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Evolution as theory and fact are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. and other article talk pages Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits that keep being deleted.

First learn how to sign your posts!
Read WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM.

If you want to have a valid discussion on how logic is important to an article, or have valid suggested changes to an article that may be discussed, but to entice some form of creationist vs. evolutionist battle or any other off-topic discussion is not appropriate for talk pages. If you continue this path further steps may have to be taken to prevent your edits. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not continue to reinsert your spam notice of your discussion onto article talk pages. Every insertion will be deleted or reverted. Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing the article and changes to the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your original research. --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Intelligent design. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Bible for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop this. You are about to be blocked if you continue - discuss it here. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you Dougweller ? Who are you Snalwibma ? Who are you KP Botany ?

IF YOU CANNOT LINK to some discussion pages, that deal clearly with the "article-articulous", what information is wiki facilitating, in it's informing role ? I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING, I fell offended when people's intelligence is being vandalized...!(Itisnotme (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Who are you raeky, is the peace of mind of wiki or somebody going to be disturbed ? (Itisnotme (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked

You ignored your final warning. So I blocked you for three days. This is to give you time to learn what Wikipedia is really for, and to learn how to be a useful editor. If you are here only to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to air your personal views, you are not welcome. If you care to learn our core policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and wish to research encyclopedic topics and add good content, then you will welcome. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirubenstein, I think wikipedia is a soapbox of ancient knowledge, in evolution and religion. So why not be a un-biased soapbox of published new ideas ! (Itisnotme (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) To be a soap-box of ancient things, clearly implies, you are in great need to be a new soapbox !(Itisnotme (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You must be Lazarus, to block me for three days...! (Itisnotme (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) Why do you not clearly state what Evolution is, and Intelligent Design ? Because you are an ambiguous "soapbox" (Itisnotme (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Soapboxing is using the article space or the article talk space to talk about your personal views, and that is not allowed.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, well that is why you're the soapbox and not me...! No place for discussion of ideas, and that makes you inquisitionists, and controlers of thought...! Soapboxers like you control thought...!(Itisnotme (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not at all, and that's why we gave you so many chances. You may discuss your ideas about the articles themselves on any of their talk pages. There are many places to discuss wikipedia policies also. However, as for general discussion of your ideas, that is what your personal blog is for, and wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Enclyclopedias are repositories of knowledge, but they're not places to publish unproven ideas. Again, that's what a blog is for. Soapbox means you're not on target for where you discuss your ideas. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by ideas, I'm pretty sure Botany is referring to discussing your ideas on how the said articles can be improved, as wikipedia is not a forum.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered contributing to Conservapedia? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are inquisitionists, that do not accept improving the article. if you can't discuss any ideas. you forum soapboxes. (Itisnotme (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You can state what you like, but that doesn't make it true. We have rules here, are you going to follow them or not once your block expires?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are completely missing what soapboxing means. You're using wikipedia as a soapbox to give others your view of the subject material, we are telling you you can't. Any information in wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source, per our core policy of verifiability, wikipedia is not the place for you to discuss your views on the subject. We are an encylopedia, not a forum.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys go back to the DARK MIDDLE AGES...?

You are always welcome to suggest improvements to an article. However, this would require that you discuss the article itself. This is why you were only blocked for a few days rather than permanently blocked as a vandal account. This means that, if you decide you want to contribute to wikipedia, you can try again by discussing the article on its talk page. However, you have to use published sources, as this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Give it a try, you may find you have something to contribute. If it makes us inquisitionists to require that articles focus on the article rather than that articles be rambling collections of discussion, that's fine, that's what encyclopedias are: collections of articles about specific topics. But, a lot of folks enjoy discussing ideas on-line, and that's why there are so many venues to do just that. So, if you want to discuss your ideas you could be spending time right now discussing them in appropriate venues, or you could be ranting here alternately that you love us/hate us. It seems that, if your ideas are so important, finding a proper venue where people would actually listen to them would be a higher priority than spatting here with no possibility of a wider audience. --KP Botany (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If evrything that was in a BOOK and studied as Science was on your Encyclopedia, it could be categorized, and the LOCO-PEDIA, or CRAZY-PEDIA.

Your insults fall on deaf ears. We could really care less, you're just another soapboxer who, if you continue on the path you were blocked for, shall soon be shown the door and indefinitely blocked.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itisnotme, try using the period of your block to read the following:

Having done that, if you have realised that Wikipedia is not a place to debate what you see as the thruth, rather it is a place that re-states pre-existing and reported information, you will be welcome to return. Otherwise, you may decide that Wikipedia is not the place for you. If so, please just stay away; repeated attempsto use Wikipedia as a forum for debate will result in your editing privileges being indefinitely blocked. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people have made good-faith, inoffensive suggestions to help this editor learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Itisnotme has responded only with insults. I have thus extended the block by a week, and denied editing talk-page privileges. Clearly, Itsnotme is not using this page to ask constructive questions about the wording or application of policies, or seeking a dialogue.

Itsnotme, I and others e.g. Tonywalton most recently have given you constructive advice. Why not use this week to read these ppolicies and essays, and to read Featured and formerly Featured Articles to see ow we put our policies into practice. start research on an article that you think is weak - we have plenty!! - and when the block expires try editing the article, without seeking arguments on the talk pages. Good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked

Since you chose to return to doing exactly what got you blocked in the first place, I have blocked your account again. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I did not do exactly what go me blocked in the first place...! I was sharing obvious "wrong" article redaction...! It must be you do not realize this...!(Itisnotme (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Tim Vickers you are showing your ignorance in not clearly stating what Evolution does not explain...! Dumbo...! You are all biased...! Not that religions are at all logic...! (Itisnotme (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you wish to appeal this block, please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block and follow the instructions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I appeal to anybody, if you blocked me, instead of dialogging, and redefining the discussion ? (Itisnotme (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Because unless you appeal for an unblock, no one is going to care what you say here. You're just another blocked POV pusher. End of discussion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Daedalus969|dαlus,why don't you rephrase it correctly. Like nobody cares what I say here, so why un-block me ! Because if you didn't care you would not block-me...! Stop showing your ignorance to all the World, and make specific well defined articles of what things really are, i.e.: Evolution, Theology University faculties, etc...!(Itisnotme (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For one that likes calling other editors stupid, you sure don't seem to know sentence structure very well. I suggest you retract your personal attack, or I'm going to push to have you unblocked indefinitely, as, so far, you show that you are going to continue the activities you were blocked for once this block expires.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, have a rum chum...?!(Itisnotme (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia.org of what is considered relevant and had sufficient "PEER" review...!

Imagine all that has not had peer review...! Because they did not like it...! Even though it was relevant...!(Itisnotme (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid that you should probably stick with the wikipedia in your native language, because your English is too poor to get your meaning across. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it must be that you learned English and I learned logic. To be somewhat specific. Why do you not list all of the works of literature of the ArchBishop William Thomson ? (Itisnotme (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

We have no idea what POV you're trying to push because the bulk of your comments make no sense. I suggest you read though all the rules and policy pages linked above and reconsider your approach to how you're dealing with all of this. If you ever get unblocked you'll have to edit within those guidelines. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]