User talk:HyperEntity

Edit warring on William Lane Craig and Kalam Cosmological Article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kalam Cosmological Argument. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * This edit is still edit warring. Please discuss the issues on the talk page, instead of continually reverting. This behavior is disruptive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:William Lane Craig, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. Thank you. And yes, I know you have been warned of this before, but you should still do so. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Civility
Your conduct on Talk:William Lane Craig is broadly uncivil. As civility is essential to maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative atmosphere, conducting yourself toward other editors in a polite and respectful manner is not optional. I suggest you review Wikipedia's core policies, especially concerning etiquette, civility, and assuming good faith. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Hello HyperEntity. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article William Lane Craig, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Craig. I don't even live on the same continent as Craig. However I do dislike watching people destroy wikipedia articles by pushing their irrational beliefs as facts (case in point: Bart Bocksteale and yourself)--HyperEntity (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for WLC article
This is the third time you've added a source to the article which has (AFAICT) failed verification. In this edit, you added two... one of which doesn't exist, and another of which turns up no results for WLC when searched on google books. I'm not sure what's going on here... are you reading these sources you're adding? I'm not trying to be mean or combative; we NEED a source for these statements and I'd love to have one! However, we need a source that actually says what we claim. The next time you add a source for this section, could you please use the quote attribute so it's clear what part of the source you're using to cite? For example,. That would be really helpful. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Your recent editing history at William Lane Craig 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig edit summary
I just saw this edit summary over at the William Lane Craig article. While I agree the IP's additions were inappropriate, so was that edit summary. In particular, the IP did cite sources and paraphrased Dawkin's stance rather correctly, making claims of libel or "lying" baseless. There's no reason to assume bad faith on the IP editor's part, and even if there were, that's still no reason to be that uncivil.

I also noticed that you didn't just revert the IP but in the process removed some well-sourced content that had been in the article since August and that I believe represents the consensus on how to cover the Dawkins non-debate after lengthy talk page discussions. I've re-added that. Huon (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)