User talk:Brianmathe

Hello brianmathe, welcome! Here at Wikipedia we.believe in lies and atheistic liberal crap. Enjoy?

September 2014[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noah's Ark. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. MrBill3 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Brianmathe reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing, including including edit warring and fringe POV pushing. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Noah's Ark. MrBill3 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this is a very disruptive edit, and the first edit after a block for the same type of behavior, I have requested a much longer block. Editors who will not or cannot learn don't belong here. This is not a private blog or website, but an international encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not personal opinions or fringe theories. We have rules here and editors must learn them and abide by them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brianmathe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm very much being discriminated against based on my religion. I attempted to fix falsities that were on one article and it kept being reverted back to the same lies. The person who reported me was a professed atheist. An extremely biased person should not dictate who gets too post and who doesn't especially when lies support their theories. Brianmathe (talk) 14:36, October 2, 2014‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to convince a reviewing administrator that your disruptive behavior will stop. Instead, this request makes it clear that you have no intention of stopping, and that you see this project as an ideological battleground rather than as an encyclopedia. Since you cannot or will not commit to behaving in a collegial, non-disruptive manner, I am declining your request to be unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Brian, nowhere is there any indication that your edits were rejected because of your religion. You need to step back and notice where you are. This is not some private discussion group or blog. We have rules here for how content is created. This place is not for posting unsourced opinions. You say that a "professed atheist" is an "extremely biased person". Well, don't you have the opposite bias? Do you propose that only creationists be allowed to edit here, or that they, with their biases, determine what content is allowed? Really, you need to step back and realize how what you are saying sounds to others. You're not making much sense, and you are making it clear that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but to wage an ideological war. This is not the place for that war. We document what reliable sources say, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is against your position, and that consensus is documented here using reliable sources. You may not believe it (you call it "lies"), but it is proper content, as is the content which documents the beliefs of creationists. Note that atheists have not deleted that content. You should be big enough to allow documentation of both sides of the issue. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC) if i provided as kinds of evidence for my opinion it would still be reverted because Wikipedia is essentially an atheistic liberal playground where anyone can post anything they want regardless of common sense as long as it bashes religion. I saw the greatest quote ever about Wikipedia today on Facebook. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in crayon. Wikipedia is a joke. You don't want to hear both sides. Two specific examples on the article i tried fix; there is no evidence of a global flood and nothing of noahs ark has been found. The geology of the world screams global flood and there are many scientists who believe that, of course they don't count of course, and the country of Turkey and several expeditions have located what they think is noahs ark. These are not inn your article. There are no two sides on Wikipedia. There is the truth and there is crap and the truth is left out. Thanks for the ban. I won't be back anyway, not wasting my time.[reply]