|
I wish there was emotion on my part, as this would mean your attempts were something new. Probably 1000s of editors try, each year, to use wikipedia to promote their pet theory, their cousin, their new girlfriend--some succeed in varying degrees. In particular, among these promotionists, are people who read a single article or had an exciting encounter with a pseudoscience and come to wikipedia with the intention of promoting that encounter with pseudoscience in article space.
You find Ullman awesome. You think what he wrote about Darwin is fascinating. We got it.
There's plenty of work to do on wikipedia. You're welcome to do some of it. But please don't continue to use article talk space to promote your theory.
See: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, in particular note the summary section and its links:
Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy or self-promotion. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.
Provide references showing the significance of the Ullman article or stop using wikipedia article talk pages to promote it and him. Thank you. --
Kleopatra (
talk)
09:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop harassing me and calling me names. I gave the sources in the appropriate talk pages. Please do not contact me again.-- BeatriceX ( talk) 09:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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)
11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [1] -- Kleopatra ( talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions you may be topic banned without further warnings if you continue to misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting novel ideas. Your contribution history appears to be entirely related to the promotion of homeopathy and suggesting links between Darwin and homeopathy. Other editors have been giving you good advice, but you seem unwilling to listen to feedback. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please log in, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Homeopathy and click on the, 'Edit' link, next to the, 'Parties' agreement to mediation'. Then, when the next window shows up, type, '# Agree. and 4~ (to create your signature)' at the bottom of that section. Then, click on 'Save Page'. Thank you,- Xdjq ( talk) 15:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Your account is blocked for sock or meat pupptry, per discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ( link) as well as persistent violations of Wikipedia is not for soapboxing, even after I left you a warning. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
|
I wish there was emotion on my part, as this would mean your attempts were something new. Probably 1000s of editors try, each year, to use wikipedia to promote their pet theory, their cousin, their new girlfriend--some succeed in varying degrees. In particular, among these promotionists, are people who read a single article or had an exciting encounter with a pseudoscience and come to wikipedia with the intention of promoting that encounter with pseudoscience in article space.
You find Ullman awesome. You think what he wrote about Darwin is fascinating. We got it.
There's plenty of work to do on wikipedia. You're welcome to do some of it. But please don't continue to use article talk space to promote your theory.
See: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, in particular note the summary section and its links:
Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy or self-promotion. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.
Provide references showing the significance of the Ullman article or stop using wikipedia article talk pages to promote it and him. Thank you. --
Kleopatra (
talk)
09:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop harassing me and calling me names. I gave the sources in the appropriate talk pages. Please do not contact me again.-- BeatriceX ( talk) 09:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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)
11:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [1] -- Kleopatra ( talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions you may be topic banned without further warnings if you continue to misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting novel ideas. Your contribution history appears to be entirely related to the promotion of homeopathy and suggesting links between Darwin and homeopathy. Other editors have been giving you good advice, but you seem unwilling to listen to feedback. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please log in, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Homeopathy and click on the, 'Edit' link, next to the, 'Parties' agreement to mediation'. Then, when the next window shows up, type, '# Agree. and 4~ (to create your signature)' at the bottom of that section. Then, click on 'Save Page'. Thank you,- Xdjq ( talk) 15:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Your account is blocked for sock or meat pupptry, per discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ( link) as well as persistent violations of Wikipedia is not for soapboxing, even after I left you a warning. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)