User talk:216.67.29.113

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pov pushing

If you continue to push a particular POV into our articles, in violation of our neutrality policy [1][2], [3] I am going to block you. Raul654 19:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I second Raul's warning to you and would support such a block as you've proved to be a chronically disruptive "contributor." FeloniousMonk 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disruptive how? Please cite a disruptive post. The three cited above certainly show no disruptions, click on them for yourself. Let's see who's disruptive today... Raul removed a FAC nomination without allowing any discussion, then blocked me permanently when I complained. Then got himself blocked for breaking admin rules. You can block me all you want, but I've done nothing wrong, and you can't change that... so second him if you like, it means nothing. I'll eventually be unblocked, and when I am, I'll report him for this. Perhaps his peers will sanction him again. I see you are a major contributor to the Intelligent design artical I tried to put up for review, lol, nice NPOV there... 216.67.29.113 05:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Ok, now I'm blocked for saying that evolution is a theory and not a fact? When does this stop? It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. It's not a fact or law of science. It's a theory. Any scientist can tell you this."

Decline reason: "Fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of 'theory' as used in science. Repeated introduction of POV edits after warnings. — Yamla 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You obviously have no understanding of what a scientific theory is. Please read Wikipedia's article on this subject, Theory. Something can be a scientific theory and also a fact. Please do not make any more such contentious edits on subjects you have an incomplete understanding of. Also, please read the following policies, most of which you violated: WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS. --Yamla 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I can't believe I'm being blocked for saying that evolution is a theory. Has the world gone crazy? What is going on here?}}

You are not blocked for saying that evolution is a theory, though I strongly suspect you still have not bothered reading Theory. You are blocked for disruptive POV editing. --Yamla 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was unaware that it was disruptive to point out that evolution is a theory. As for POV pushing, the only point of view that I'm trying to push is the fact that evolution is a theory and not scientific law. I don't see how correcting such a huge mistake is disruptive, for some reason I thought I was making wikipedia better. I'm not a creationist by the way, I believe in evolution. I'm just a person who insists on proper wording. Evolution is a theory. You can block me forever, but evolution will still remain a theory."

Decline reason: "Disruptive editing as per Raul654 and Yamla. Please do not abuse the {{unblock}} template. — Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This user is correct. He was blocked by an admin with whom he was in an edit war, which is a direct violation of policy. Whether or not he is correct is not up for discussion; it was an overzealous block to begin. At very least, and should have at very least been brought up at the noticeboard. Part Deux 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)