User talk:47.186.42.99

June 2019
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Institute for Creation Research shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Evolution and Wikipedia
Actually, no, it does have to adhere to the scientific method and thus methodological naturalism but does not need to take a religious or antireligious position (and there are theist evolutionists like many Hindus or Catholics today). Being a scientific theory evolution is also far from a mere hypothesis. Please see evidence of common descent and Talk:Evolution/FAQ. As for "creation science" and "intelligent design", the problem is that it is creationism disguised as science, making flawed interpretations of the evidence as well as denying much of it, as well as a movement to censor science education (geology and biology) or include proselytism in schools; this is why it's considered pseudoscientific. To correct perceived bias I suggest reading WP:FIXBIAS. Since Wikipedia articles must be a summary of reliable sources and cite those (WP:RS, WP:CITE), please take a look at the sources used. If they seem inappropriate, their reliability can be discussed at WP:RSN. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wilford Brimley, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.