User talk:CosmicLifeform

 Welcome, CosmicLifeform!

Hello, CosmicLifeform, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help pages
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tutorial
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at Younger Dryas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:RSN. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Do not add, anywhere, any information that could possibly identify an editor unless they have deliberately made their identification public - by which I meant that they have edited on Wikipedia identifying themselves. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have struck this out as it was an unusual coincidence. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
See WP:Sockpuppetry. I've blocked your current sock and deleted its edits for outing an editor. I haven't blocked you as you are new (although it's hard to understand why you didn't make those edits under this account), but do it again and you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, it seems there was a remarkable coincidence here and the editor who created the new account has contacted me and identified themselves. My comments still apply, especially the warning against mentioning anything that might identify another editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No one other than me suggested you were a sockpuppet, and that was, as I've made clear above, an error caused by an unusual coincidence. But if you are going to continue to make suggestions, right or wrong, about another editor's identity, including commenting on how that identity can be discovered, either by email or on Wikipedia, than I will have to block you. I don't want to do this but we are strict about outing. I will also suppress and edits that try to identify you. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add that I've noticed that another Admin has blocked another editor for outing on the same article. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Response - The senior editor has confused me with another editor.

Discuss the edits, not the editor
Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. By all means take concerns about whether sources are reliable sources by our criteria to WP:RSN, but concentrate on explaining why you think a source passes our criteria. Do not link to again as we don't link to copyvio sites, and the first video on that site has copyvio from the National Geographic Channel. You might also want to read WP:NPOV and avoid words like 'substantial'. I suspect that the main issue is NPOV and is best dealt with either through dispute resolution (but only if a discussion on the article's talk page fails to get a resolution, DR can't take place unless that occurs first) or WP:NPOVN. Again, stick to the issues, not the editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Response: I've done none of the things you have accused me of here. You have confused me with another editor. CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Offwiki stuff
I think you also need to read Harassment and the linked page, another reason to concentrate on the edits and not the editor. I'v asked the other editor to read this also. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Younger Dryas impact event, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''Your continuing personal attacks will not get you far. I would suggest you spend some time reviewing WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. Good luck. '' SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response - I have made no personal attacks in my dealings with the editor in question. The editor in question has repeatedly edited in false claims and materials derived from his unfamiliarity with the scientific literature and the hypothesis in question. His claims of 'attacks' are unfounded. CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal attack #1. Personal attack #2.  Personal attack #3.  Enjoy your day Mr. SPA.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Mr. SPA. ~ is used to sign stuff you've written.  I does take some time to learn everything about Wikipedia.  If you need any assistance on the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, I'll be glad to point them out.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Younger Dryas. Keilana | Parlez ici 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response - Exposing, editing and deleting false claims made by an editor's clear unfamiliarity with the scientific literature and the subject matter and their unwillingness to obtain such easily obtained familiarity is not a personal attack. The false nature of the material posted is indisputable. CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DRN Thread Closed
The DRN thread is closed, but for your information, the outing referred to is probably WP:OUTING.Curb Chain (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Younger Dryas
With this edit, it may have been possible that you missed the dating by scientists of the Laacher See volcanic event. I would suggest a review of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If you need any assistance, please drop me a note, and I will gladly assist you in understanding these rather important guidelines for editing Wikipedia. Thanks! Have a great day. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Response - Tephrachronology is a precise and well established procedure. The Laarcher See Volcano is dated to within 40 years, 200 years before the Younger Dryas, and for you to imply that anyone in the geological community subscribes to your personal hypothesis that the Laarcher See volcanic eruption was related in any way to the Younger Dryas Chronozone - is simply false. I have no more plans to attempt to either educate you or edit your ramblings here. 00:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please refrain from personal attacks as you did here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''This is an unacceptable personal attack. '' SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Younger Dryas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is another personal attack. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the edits, not the editor redux
My comments above still apply. Consider this a formal warning. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd blocked for personal attacks but then noted that you have used a similar IP address before, geo-locating to the same area. 70.226.174.82 is obviously you. Your PROD of an obviously notable subject was also disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CosmicLifeform insults. Thank you. Gaba (talk)  15:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)