Slickarette

Welcome

Greetings Slickarette,

I understand you are new to wikipedia. First off let me say welcome. It seems you have a good desire to contribute to wikipedia. We hope you can contribute in the near future, however, I did notice that you have been deleting and adding information to one of the articles - "criticism of atheism" without solid justifications in your copy edit. All editors must follow Wikipedia rules and protocols to ensure that you do not get blocked from editing. Since you are new please see WP:SIMPLE to get an idea of how wikipedia works and what can be done to make your experience in wikipedia a good one. Reliable sources, verifiability, neutral points of view, no original research, showing relevant views on a given topic, are some of the principles that editors use to keep wikipedia in a friendly, informative, and neutral manner. I hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings once more. In order to help you out, here is the "talk page" for the article you have been recently been editing Talk:Criticism of atheism. Here you can discuss what you think needs to be done in the article with other editors and you can explain your thoughts. In every article if you look at the top to the left of the "Read", "Edit", "View History" buttons, you will see "Article" and "Talk" pages. Click on the "Talk" button to see the discussions other editors have engaged in for that particular article. Here you can voice your concerns and reach a 'consensus' on certain points in the article.

Please remember that this page is about criticism of atheism. As such it will contain criticisms which may not be favorable to you personally, but that is what the article is about. There are equivalents for other worldviews in wikipedia. You can contribute to counter-criticism like you did in your recent edits, but they should be from more reliable sources than a comedian commentator. The relevant material you deleted was well documented and academically sourced. Please discuss your thoughts in the talk page above so that you and other editors can reach consensus. I hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Criticism of atheism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. eldamorie (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

As a new editor, you perhaps are not aware of the Three Revert Rule. In a nutshell:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

Please consider this a friendly notice not to engage in edit warring. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your pre-warning. I'm new and I have a question.

Hello! Yes i am very new here, and as you can see still very unaware of the many rules/regulations/functionality of wikipedia as an editor. I will not delete any information. I was not aware that I was doing so. I am simply trying to post my contribution, and it keeps getting deleted. Is there any way I can post my contribution without it continually being deleted? (slickarette)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Criticism of atheism, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and socking

Please read over WP:EW and WP:SOCK. Right now, it appears you are operating multiple accounts in order to edit war your preferred version into the page. That is likely to result in sanctions, and will not help you to get your changes on the page. You need to go to the talk page for the article here, and discuss your proposed changes with other editors. Please stop using your sock accounts immediately (they are likely to be blocked anyway), and discuss your changes with others on the article talk page. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hello. Is there any reason for your continually deleting my contribution to wikipedia page Criticism of Atheism? I believe my point is completely valid, and there is no reason for it to be deleted. Can you compromise with me on this? There is an overwhelming amount of information indicating the possibility that atheism is considered a religion, however, not nearly enough information supporting the other side of the debate.

Political commentator, television host, and author, Bill Maher, has stated in his New Rules segment on February 3, 2012, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position," indicating that atheism cannot possibly be considered a religion, and the notion of such is as absurd as calling the absence of sex, sex. He also stated in his segment that "idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickarette (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slickarette, glad to hear your thoughts and I am happy that you wish to resolve this in a reasonable discussion. This is what you should always do when there is a dispute between editors on an article, but you should do this on the talk page of the article since that is like a discussion room and this is where editors will be roaming around. But I will discuss with you here since this is your first time editing here, it seems. I assume you were doing your edit in good faith. There are a few issues with your initial post.

1) The point you wanted to get across - the claim that atheism is a religion is incorrect and even nonsense - is already there in the sentence before you added it with a quote form an atheist about bald being a hair color. Therefore, Maher's comments were redundant and added nothing to the article.

2) Youtube is probably not a good source for WP in general since editing could happen and usually videos do not have bibliographies nor are they detailed enough to be reliable. Generally written sources are better as they are usually unaltered. Newspapers are better than 30 second media clips for example. Originally this article had a video citation too, but that was removed and instead a review of the video was included.

3) Maher's quote: '"idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion."' is slander. This should not be put on Wikipedia as it could be confused with Wikipedia endorsing this view. Actually this would introduce more bias to the article as it is more of an insult than a claim on the topic. Wikipedia has no particular endorsement on any topic or position.

4) Your removal of Herbert Spencer's comments, which were well sourced, verifiable, and reliable (as it was academic), was inappropriate. That information was perfectly relevant to the article. Criticism pages can get nasty as many don't like to be criticized, but if a source is relevant, makes that article better, gives breadth to different views, is well sourced, and is reliable then it should be kept.

For future edits, you should provide reasons on additions or removals on your WP edit summaries so that other editors can at last see where you are coming from. Otherwise it looks too suspicious. I hope my comments help out. Sorry for the long post.

Also just FYI you should always end you posts in this talk page and in any other talk page with ~~~~. This will post your signature at the end of your posts like mine is at the end of this post. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WHOA! Clam down please. Right now I checked your edits. I am telling you - you are going to get blocked soon if you keep this up! Its now becoming WP:VANDAL. Also it seems you have created a sock puppet account as "IhategodYEah". I am giving you a heads up on whats going to happen. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of nitpicky points: Slickarette's edits are not vandalism, nor will they ever be, no matter how much he repeats them. Vandalism has a specific definition, see WP:VANDAL. He still needs to slow down, talk about his changes with others, and stop editing with multiple accounts. Secondly, Maher's comments aren't slander, and putting them in the article (with attribution) wouldn't be endorsing his views. I'm not saying they're appropriate for the article (maybe they are, maybe not), but if they are inappropriate, that wouldn't be why. It would be because of article scope, or WP:WEIGHT. The rest I generally agree with... I just want to make sure we're getting all our facts straight! Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thank you for your helpful tips.

And in response to "WHOA! Clam down please. Right now I checked your edits. I am telling you - you are going to get blocked soon if you keep this up! Its now becoming WP:VANDAL. Also it seems you have created a sock puppet account as "IhategodYEah". I am giving you a heads up on whats going to happen. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)":

I have no clue what you're referring to, as I made a sock puppet account "Slickarette2", which I assumed was obvious and I made simply because I am new and thought I was banned for contributing. I did not make any other accounts besides "Slickarette" and "Slickarette2".--Slickarette (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slickarette, I responded to your positive comment on my talk page, and here is what I wrote (w/minor grammar chnages):

Hey no problem. I am glad to help. I understand you felt you were banned, but it looks like you are still ok. I am not sure if "IhategodYEah" was you, but since the edits looked the same as yours and then you did the same edit under "Slickarette", I made the inference. It still looks that way to me. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel there is an addition that may cause controversy in any article, you should bring it up first in the article talk page to diffuse any objections other editors may have. Its just better since some pages are "guarded" more than others and one is bound to find more resistance. You will get used to it.

I came to your talk page and just noticed the block. I am very sorry that happened. Just wait it out for 2 weeks.

To Jess, thanks for the corrections and good observations. I assumed that it was looking like vandalism because everything was being removed and only the Maher paragraph was being left as if being a reply to something without the original claim being there anymore (due to removal). Ramos1990 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)