MadManPaddy
Welcome!
editHello, MadManPaddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
edit
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Darwinism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Railfan23 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Darwinism, you may be blocked from editing. Railfan23 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not add commentary, my own POV or a personal analysis. I added sourced and verifiable material. Why am I being reposnded to in this fashion when I have NOT violated the stated policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:MadManPaddy (talk • contribs)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Creation science. --Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not violated the NPOV policy but I contest that other have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:MadManPaddy (talk • contribs)
Edit warring
edit Your recent editing history at Creation science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Railfan23 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The "edit war" was not initiated by me. I was merely reinstating the sourced information that I initially contributed. It appears to me that it is the others who are in violation of the NPOV, not I. The way the creation science page is written is clearly biased and offers an unreasonable one-sided perspective on the subject. My additions were sourced and verified information that neither contained my opinion nor any biased diatribe. So please, explain again how it is that you are replying to me in such fashion? Thank you.
Further, the policy states that any sourced information is NOT to be removed yet my sourced information has been repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadManPaddy (talk • contribs)
- The source is not reliable and you are clearly here to push a very particular point of view. Also, "the other person started it" is not an excuse to edit war. Please read WP:3RR. Railfan23 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine, I will find a source that meets the policy to the letter and then I will make the necessary additions outside of the 24 hour period. Further, I am not "pushing" anything other than to contribute factual and verifiable information. As I stated, I have not provided commentary, my own POV or personal analysis. You are not able to substantiate your claim(s) of policy violation. I will be filing a dispute resolution on this. I believe you have mediated this outside of the scope of very policies that you are using to validate your actions. Thank for informing me. Regards,MadManPaddy (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is not just a question of the quality of the source, though that is important. This decade old "news" is irrelevant to a serious article on Darwinism. The fact that 1,000 "PhDs" (many of who actually aren't PhDs or scientists, of course) have signed a petition "expressing skepticism" about evolution, isn't meaningful. We could easily find 1,000 people to sign a petition saying the world is flat and have some fringe group put it on their website. That does not mean we should add that to the Earth article. Nor should we put this completely irrelevant information into Darwinism. You very clearly do have a fringe point of view you are pushing. Continuing to push that point of view will get you blocked. Railfan23 (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
First, you speak ignorantly about the information I supplied. The list of 1000 Ph.D.'s is updated this year which makes it current and relevant. Second, your claim about them not holding proper credentials in unfounded and in direct conflict with the verified list. Third, your offer to find 1000 people to sign a "flat earth" declaration is both incredulous and irrelevant. As the Ph.D. scientists status are easily verifiable, your claim of it being irrelevant is unfounded. Please note that some of these scientists are from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Oxford. And while you may think you know my view and it is fringe, I have NOT attempted to push any personal POV. My posts were fact-based and verifiable. I added no personal opinions or commentary. Please note that it is your comments that reveal a bias against the information I have posted. That's on you, not I. You are the biased individual. As well, I filed a resolution request as all I have been met with from you areMadManPaddy (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC) threats and ridicule. Any more conversation can happen within the context of that resolution request. Good day,
- Hello @MadManPaddy: Having a list of a 1000 PHDs is completely meaningless. See Project Steve. --McSly (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
And yet here you are supplying a link to a list to refute my list? Didn't think that one through huh. However, for argument sake, that list along with the one I linked should both be placed on the page. They both happen to be relevant to the material. That meets the NPOV policy.MadManPaddy (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of articles needs to be at those articles' talk pages
editYou've gone to dispute resolution too soon. I see you want to use A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as a source. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
talk I don't believe I have. There was no offer given to me to reason my point. I was told to stop or be blocked. MadManPaddy (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)