User talk:Sadunkal

Sourcing

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Lynn Margulis, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I've responded on my talk page, in order to keep things in one place. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lynn Margulis. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say one more time that the sources you're using, with their atrocious record of accuracy and fact-checking, are absolutely unsuitable for sourcing controversial items about a living person. I'll assume you've read WP:BLP by now and are simply ignoring it. Please take this to the biogrpahical noticeboard for more input or solicit further opinion on the talk page if you disagree, but if you continue inserting it and ignoring these issues then your account may be blocked from editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Christine Maggiore. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your edit on the talk page, as I don't see what it has to do with the topic of the article. For example, it is about Christine's husband and child, not her, and was a case about the release of the information - not the information itself. In other words the death certificate still stands. Verbal chat 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is about ethics and the lack of it. Ethics are considered irrelevant?

And don't you see the connection between HER daughter and the man was HER husband and the father of HER daughter. You think that they're all irrelevant to each other when two of them are accused of causing the death of the third together? Sadunkal (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadunkal, copying sentences from the LA Times is not acceptable. Changing a word in the second sentence and adding your own personal analysis (itself a problem) doesn't change the copyright violation. I appreciate that English may not be your first language, and that copying is always easier even for native speakers, but if you do this again, I will bring your behaviour to the attention of a noticeboard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a patient guy, but unfortunately I'm also busy so I won't be able to deal with biased people like you right now. Sadunkal (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behaviour

Please stop now. You've added copyright violations twice, introduced personal analysis into an article, and used your talk page to promote a blog discussion about a fellow Wikipedia editor, all in the past half hour. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was the second version a violation? And I didn't promote any discussion, just provided information. Which rule prevents me from doing that? Sadunkal (talk)

March 2009

Regarding your comments on User talk:Sadunkal: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone. You're violating all rational rules in or outside the Wiki world with your insistence on irrelevant rules. Show me the attack? Ahh forget it!...

I'm outta here. You made it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by sadunkal (talk • contribs)

Calling other editors biased in the way you did above is a personal attack. Verbal chat 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an objective observation, but I removed it nevertheless. Sadunkal (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast: objective and subjective. Verbal chat 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objective was exactly what I meant when I used the word objective. If a person openly demonstrates bias, then he is objectively biased. If you disagree with that observation then I suggest that you provide some arguments to demonstrate that MastCell is not biased. Alone saying that I'm wrong is nothing more than an empty ad hominem argument. Sadunkal (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you repeat the attack again, or make another, I will ask for you to be blocked. Verbal chat 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What attack are you talking about!? Which part is the attack exactly? Define attack and its relation to that blog post. Otherwise your words lack meaning. Sadunkal (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I guess you're talking about me calling Keepcalmandcarryon biased, I thought you were still talking about the blog post. Well that one is objective too actually. Someone who loves the word denialist as much as he does, is inevitably biased. No escape. Or just look at his interactions with... leuce? You know which editor I'm referring to. Heh. Funny. Sadunkal (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christine Maggiore. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable really... Give me a break... Sadunkal (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I agree with you that the L.A. Times article about the lawsuit settlement should be mentioned in the article. If you're encountering resistance to reasonable edits based on reliable sources, then a few words on the discussion page will go a lot farther than a day of edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some reason around here would go even further. How does the discussion page make any real difference? Sadunkal (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it provides a forum in which to reason. Not a soapbox or a megaphone to trumpet your views, but a place to convince other people that your content suggestions are congruent with this site's goals and policies. MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That forum consist mainly of unreasonable people. You can't "convince" unreasonable people in such a controlled environment like this without unreasonable amount of effort. Usually you just watch them demonstrate their irrationality and you just get depressed at the state of humanity. Sadunkal (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of user page

I've reverted your addition of the blog post attacking MastCell and Wikipedia. Please see WP:UP#NOT for more information about appropriate and inappropriate uses of the user page.

I would also encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and to let it govern your statements more closely. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware but civility means much more than being able to push your ideology with support of some artificial rules. Civility means respect, understanding, tolerance, patience, empathy, sympathy, fairness and all that towards others. It means that you shouldn't oppress, suppress, attack, insult etc. Your link states:

"Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict."

You guys are acting like this is all that you focus on around here. Even the title you people agreed on is absolutely uncivil. Rules state:

"Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner" [contributes to an uncivil environment]

I wonder how you will think of your activities when you look back to all this years from now. I hope you'll be able to bravely regret. Sadunkal (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:AIDS denialism for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear MastCell... *Sigh*... Here, you may be interested in this blog post of mine: http://condeve.blogspot.com/2009/04/lemmings-bible.html Sadunkal (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a personal blog is an ideal format for your contributions. Wikipedia articles and talk pages, not so much. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]