User talk:Kdie84

Relationship to Jfut76
What is your relationship to Jjfut76 whose edits mirror your own? -- Neil N  talk to me  23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Would you mind explaining why that matters?
 * Please read WP:SOCK. -- Neil N  talk to me  14:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Don't worry, I am not jfut76.  Did you ask them if they are me?
 * I did not ask you if you were jfut76, I asked what your relationship was to them, given you're both new accounts, using the same structure for user names, and editing the same article. Regardless, please use the Dawkin's talk page to gain consensus for your changes. Thanks. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. To answer your question: I have absolutely no relationship to jfut76 other than noticing that they added a section to RDs entry.  This section should be there like it is for Sam Harris.  How is this not censorship? --Kdie84 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Basically, every article is independent on Wikipedia and what goes in or out is determined by a consensus of editors watching each article. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for the link. I still think its bizarre to omit RDs comments about pedophilia.  I have read through the previous talk pages and have only seen reasons to omit a Criticism section.  I am happy to so so as long as we acknowledge that his pedophilia comments (which are in his own books and interviews) be included elsewhere.  --Kdie84 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  15:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Richard Dawkins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.  Neil N  talk to me  15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
—  Richard  BB  15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sam Harris (author) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.  Neil N  talk to me  15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)