User talk:216.60.221.157

April 2019
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Answers in Genesis. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It is interesting that you would state that, but not surprising. The information added was not incorrect, but added balance and appropriate information to the article, clarifying many things for the readers. I believe that Wikipedia is not yours but is shared, therefore what is stated must not only be accurate but be adequate, and preferably both balanced and fair. When you state that a group is pro creation, and that is appropriate, then it is also appropriate for me to state that a group who is pro evolution is such. When you cite an individual's or groups opinions or comments and I add that that group is pro evolution or a group that promotes atheism, I am simply doing what you should have done from the beginning. Citing evidence or a source is not enough if it is simply someone else's opinion, as much of what you wrote was. One must also give the leaning and the bias of individual or group who wrote what you are citing. Do you want the readers who are reading to be deceived and to not know that a group is pro evolution or pro atheism? One must wonder. . Do you want people to believe that the groups and individuals and articles you cited as "evidence" aren't evolutionists or atheists? Or do you want people to believe that the only people in America who hire armed security guards are creationists? What you wrote was misleading as it did not give the context. By deleting the context that I added, you are no longer misleading but deliberately misleading. You clearly have an agenda and Wikipedia is not the place for you to exert your bias or agenda. Now to call what I did vandalism is nothing short of a form of bullying and completely unacceptable. I did nothing to destroy the content or nature of your work. I simply added balance and context. I would therefore suggest that you revert back to what I wrote, adding the balance and context to what you stated. None of what I added was incorrect and I standby all of it.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/