User talk:Yhvh777

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Yhvh777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fill[edit]

Amen. Drop me a line sometime. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think. How do I drop you a line? How do I edit these articles? Yhvh777 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To drop RC-0722 a line, first click on his signature. That will take you to his user page (or if you click on the "1" at the end of his signature it will take you to his user talk page). Then look at the lefthand edge of the page, below the search box. See where it says "toolbox?" In there are several useful links, and one of them is "E-mail this user." NCdave (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge[edit]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your page. Yhvh777 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

locked articles[edit]

Hi, Yhvh777. Welcome to Wikipedia.

If you hang around here for long, you will discover that on certain controversial topics only one Point of View ("POV") is acceptable: liberal orthodoxy. As in the case in the academic institutions highlighted in the Expelled documentary, dissent is not allowed. For example, you'd best not argue that any aspect of the Global Warming Catastrophe isn't settled science or isn't catastrophic, or that banning DDT might have been a mistake. The worst thing that you could ever call someone around here is a Christian Fundamentalist (shudder!). You'd better not dispute that abortion is a positive good to society. If you believe that organized, voluntary school prayer is a good idea, then you are obviously a nut. And, whatever you do, on't even think that the American Psychiatric Association might have been on to something when they classified homosexuality as a disorder (prior to 1973).

However, the locking down of controversial articles to prevent new editors from editing them is a standard Wikipedia procedure, which is sometimes used to tamp down the fires of dispute when they are raging out of control. In this case the lock is likely to have a disparate impact on the debates, by blocking new editors like yourself who have been freshly sensitized by the Expelled documentary to the problem of scientific and academic discrimination and censorship of people of Faith. However, the purpose is not necessarily nefarious.

My advice to you, as a new editor, is to:

Remember that the Golden Rule does not include an "unless" clause. We are to be kind and polite to everyone, regardless of how rude and insulting they are. (I am making an assumption here, but...) You are an Ambassador.
Spread your editing around a bit. Don't just edit on a small set of controversial subjects. Non-controversial articles on Wikipedia are generally much better, and are certainly much more trustworthy, than controversial ones. But even the non-controversial articles can often stand to be improved. Also, your work on lower profile articles is less likely to be reverted (undone) by left-of-center folks who are determined to ensure that the articles reflect only their own points of view. Also, editing on other topics will help defuse accusations that you are a WP:SPA (single purpose account). Being a WP:SPA is not actually a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, but it is often treated as one, if your favorite topic is a controversial one and you have a conservative viewpoint.
Be aware of the fact that Wikipedia is a very left-of-center institution. The admins here are overwhelmingly leftist, and you will discover that Wikipedia's rules tend to be very strictly enforced against conservatives and Christians, and often not enforced at all against liberals and atheists. In fact, some admins just invent totally fictional offenses by people with whom they disagree, as excuses to "punish" them with blocks and bans. Get used to it, that's just the way it is.[2]

Drop me an email, please. (I'd email you, but you've not set up an email account.) NCdave (talk)04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, Wikipedia, like other neutral-sources, is often seen as biased by people with viewpoints that are not supported by reliable secondary sources. NCdave has a history [3] of being blocked, so he might not be the best mentor for a new editor. However, I'll agree that probably the best way to contribute to wikipedia is to spread your edits around more in the beginning, and learn what belongs here, what a reliable source is, and so on. Good luck, and if you need help, you can leave a message on my talk page. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers pages[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

The article is currently protected, please see the note at the top of the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]