User talk:Cosmic Disturbance

Welcome!

Hello, Cosmic Disturbance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Existence of God have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Which comment can't be verified? That was my comment. That God can't be verified and therefore doesn't exist. Its standard scientific methodology. No evidence equals debunked. Show me evidence of God and I'll happily remove the comments myself. Unbelievable! Cosmic Disturbance (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Other links
You might find WP:NOR and WP:NPOV useful. None of this means I don't agree with at least some of what you wrote, just that it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Priscilla Zuckerberg for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Priscilla Zuckerberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Priscilla Zuckerberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Priscilla Zuckerberg


A tag has been placed on Priscilla Zuckerberg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Existence of God, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? I posted FACTUAL MATERIAL!!!! Get a grip on reality. If you have proof of God then show it to me. Put up or shut up. Cosmic Disturbance (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read what I wrote about? Our articles reflect what reliable sources have to say, not our own opinions or arguments. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring with multiple accounts
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Note that the edit warring was conducted by this account and the newly-created. It's pretty clear that the person using this account also used that account. Accordingly, the new account has been blocked for using multiple accounts to avoid sanctions. This account has received a 31-hour block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)