User talk:Xylon Draganthus

I have reverted your edits again. I think they're poorly written, from one source only, completely biased to one opinion and not informative on all aspects of the issue. Of course, this is a collaborative effort. We can ask for outside opinions on this... Smarkflea (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an outside opinion: Xylon, the version you presented does not even come close to conforming to the style outlined in our Manual of Style. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Gap Theory.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

April 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Gap creationism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice the info at the top of "new section" page. --Xylon Draganthus (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not how WP works[edit]

I'm going to give you this advice now with the hopes that it will curtail your current course towards being blocked.

Firstly, WP:EDITWARING never works on Wikipedia. It's incredibly easy for your edits to be reverted and attempting to force them in will not work. Wikipedia uses a WP:CONSENSUS model, and when your changes are reverted you need to WP:DISCUSS them on the relevant talk page. As Drmies already pointed out, we have a manual of style to which you'll need to adhere if you want to make changes here. Lastly, we are not stupid: it's ridiculously obvious when you make a WP:SOCK account to support your edits and when it's not obvious we have a class of users who can view technical data.

You're off to a bad start, you need to calm down, relax and discuss. You've already broken WP:3RR and if you don't start changing your behavior you're going to get WP:BLOCKED and will have zero influence over the article.

SÆdon ^talk 00:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xylon Draganthus and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Per WP:ILLEGIT (1) Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists; (2) Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited). JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

It would be a good idea for you to go over our sourcing policies as I don't think that the page you've made, even if it conformed to WP:MOS, would last more than a couple seconds. Please see WP:RS, especially WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY. Also, since creationism, depending on context, can be considered WP:FRINGE and/or WP:PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, you should familiarize yourself with those policies as well. Please also see WP:NPOV as it is one of the founding principles of WP that we remain neutral and not slanted towards a single viewpoint when multiples exist. Lastly, everything on WP must be verifiable. SÆdon ^talk 00:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xylon Draganthus, I have blocked this account for 1 week. The Wikipedia community's policy is that two accounts, if editing from the same household, under the same direction, and/or with the same intentions, will be treated as having the same operator. Whilst a relative using your laptop to edit Wikipedia is acceptable, edit warring by you both at Gap creationism is not. I have therefore also indefinitely blocked User:Revo Altros (talk · contribs). Under ordinary circumstances I would probably not have accepted the WP:SHARE excuse, but in this case I am willing to show a little leniency.

Please edit responsibly when your block expires (or see here to appeal it). If you edit war (with or without the assistance of your relative; and with our without using multiple accounts) after the block expires, or otherwise behave unprofessionally (as in the edit summaries here), you will be blocked indefinitely. AGK [•] 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Gap Theory concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Gap Theory, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission The Gap Theory[edit]

Hello Xylon Draganthus. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled The Gap Theory.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Gap Theory}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Inauguration of Joe Biden, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]