User talk:Xan81

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Talkback on User talk:Rezonansowy
--Rezonansowy (talk &bull;&#32; contribs) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Atheism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Atheism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Rhododendrites (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of discussions happening on that talk page - this is called "scientific inquiry". I am posing a neutral point. You aren't a moderator. This is open-source.

What I edited on the talk page was an argument against generalizing anyone 'irreligious' as 'atheist' - atheism is unscientific; irreligion isn't.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Atheism. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Rhododendrites (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

As I am now certain that you are an atheist defending itself like a Witness, let me be clear: That is a talk page. YOU are causing the conflict and orchestrating the "edit war" because you realize that there's no science in your religion (atheism).

If you would like me to "take it elsewhere," then how about showing me where I can explain myself before I start reporting you.

And obviously consensus has not been reached, there's a big problem with "atheism" - it is NOT SCIENTIFIC as the research is yet unfinished.

Unless you have sources (as the 'rules' require).


 * You're presenting an argument about the subject of atheism rather than talking about the article in particular. If you want to challenge specific text in the article, by all means bring it up and point people to a source that backs up your opinion. The reverts have nothing to do with the merit of your arguments or the desire to censor your opinions. The issue is, the article and the talk page get a lot of people who want to argue about this or that (it's a subject that evokes passion and/or riles people up after all), and if nobody enforces WP:NOTAFORUM it just descends into, well, a forum. And that's not good. I don't mean any offense or dismissal. It's just an appropriateness for the venue thing. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Wikipedia is not in the business of saying atheism or theism is right or wrong and nobody on Wikipedia is putting their own original ideas on the article. If it says somewhere that "atheism is scientific," it will almost certainly (and by policy is supposed to) be accompanied by a source. If you take issue with it, offer a different source. No original research means you can argue the truth until you're blue in the face but if you aren't pulling from reliable secondary sources it's completely irrelevant as far as WP is concerned. My advice: go through the article, find specific passages you disagree with; if they don't have a source, ask for one, and if one isn't provided you have justification for removing it. If it does have a source, find one that makes your own point and then bring it to the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And my point is exactly that: until 'atheism' becomes scientific, there can be no 'right' or 'wrong'. Or am I misunderstanding scientific inquiry? Seriously, guy - what "source" could I cite as to what triggered the expansion of the universe? I don't think you know, either. Whatever; I'll keep arguing it on the battlefields of social networking and face-to-face. Don't try to sell something that you don't understand, man. Xan81 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But there are sources in which people do try to explain it and make those kinds of claims. There are also sources that say it's impossible to know, and in fact some of those are cited throughout Wikipedia. I'm not trying to "sell you" some idea about the beginning of the universe. I'm not trying to "sell you" on anything related to atheism.
 * Let me try to explain this way. Let's say you know that a certain species of bird migrates to Cuba during the winter, but the authoritative books and peer reviewed articles say that the bird only migrates to Mexico or otherwise says nothing about their migration at all. It doesn't matter if/that their migration to Cuba is true, it doesn't matter why it's true, how you know, and it doesn't matter how one can even know about bird migration. All that matters is that's what it says in the reliable secondary sources. Without sources to the contrary, Wikipedia is completely and entirely indifferent. Substantive, potentially controversial arguments like that which you are presenting (as well as just about any argument for or against atheism), without sources to accompany your position, simply have no place here. It's not personal, it's not some conspiracy of Wikipedian atheists. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet, you are so clever that you can't find a single supported fact for "atheism". You're bigoted, kid... do you even understand what the Observation Paradox is? Or that not even Newton's first law supports "atheism"? You're opinionated - and what's worse, is that you are even going around Wikipedia, talking about me like you're some butthurt and indignant child.

I would say, that Dr. Carl Sagan's definition of "atheism" is the best and most credible definition; wouldn't you? Xan81 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Talk:Atheism 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. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}

Why can't you propose a counter-argument or support for your own? Have YOU cited anything? Or are you still just defending your religion? And yes, this "discussion" is being published externally and archived for a future complaint.

You are harming the credibility of Wikipedia...


 * I think you've misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia. We're here to build content based on reliable sources. See WP:NOT. Please don't add commentary to the talk page of atheism again. If you want to change the Atheism article, provide a very specific change you'd like to see (for instance: "I think we should change the second sentence to say "xyz"), and provide a source for the proposal (for instance: "this change is backed up by John Smith's book on page 51"). Wikipedia is not a forum for debate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a citation for 'atheism' being anything more than a set of beliefs - e.g. a religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs)


 * Did you read what I wrote above? If you did, you entirely misunderstood it. Please read it again and ask if you have questions about our policies. If you're interested in learning more about atheism, the Atheism page covers quite a bit.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a question about policies.

Request for article clarification

 * there should be consensus on how the expansion of the universe took place, and citations showing that atheism is fact-based (science) and not belief-based (religion) - and if it is not fact-based, shouldn't atheism be categorized as a religion?

If you're unable to resolve this, then the article should dutifully explain this impasse.

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. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:Mann jess. ///Euro Car GT  01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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. --SineBot (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-FpLOI9eTOvs/UnG5LdxUDhI/AAAAAAABJ9U/iHXHVYvavFM/w1598-h803-no/Fullscreen+capture+10302013+65749+PM.jpg Block me - and I will further use it against you in showing the UNdemocratic nature of Wikipedia. I am a father - I don't have time to play with other children.] I was bringing a counterargument that the Wikipedia skulkers didn't like (showing that atheism is a religion - and I was censored. If you really think it will help, go ahead and block me - and I will return the favor in less direct but more effective ways. This isn't a threat or vandalism (you edited my page, too) - this is a notice (as you have put on my talk page. Bet on it. And, FYI, the screenshot is a citation - therefore, I've met all requirements. I won't be coerced by a child nor bulled by thugs. Any further discussion should be channeled through Wikicommons staff. Because, so far, it seems like someone is defending their opinion (if it were fact, I will concede, given citations and sources; as you ask of me).

Do as you please - I'm done dealing with you. Xan81 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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. John Reaves 02:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libertarian humanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anarcho statism


A tag has been placed on Anarcho statism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Libertarian humanism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libertarian humanism 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/Libertarian humanism 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 notice from the top of the article. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Libertarian humanism" has been deleted. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hashtag poisoning


A tag has been placed on Hashtag poisoning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hashtag poisoning


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hashtag poisoning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. EDM fan 2 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)