User talk:Approaching/Archive 1

BabyJonas 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

August 2013
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

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. N o f o rmation Talk  23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please self-revert or I will have to report you at WP:ANEW and you will most likely be blocked from editing. Wikipedia works on discussion and consensus, not on "I'm right, you're wrong" in edit summaries. N o f o rmation Talk  23:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

ID dispute resolution
As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

intelligent design
Hi. I shall make a broader announcement soon, but I am creating an FAQ on my userspace to assist discussion concerning intelligent design:. Do you have any suggestions while I am drafting? Please feel free to post them on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm honestly not sure my suggestions will be well-accepted amongst the group who have settled on the ID article. There seem to be fundamental differences in approach that I find difficult to reconcile, for instance, the insistence on peppering the ID article with references to the Discovery Institute. I have to admit, all this suggest I probably don't know how Wikipedia works. :) I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue, though. BabyJonas (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you have a look at the link I posted above? It is a draft trying to summarize my concerns. Here it is in long form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_FAQ . You can leave messages on my talk page, or on that draft's talk page if you see anything you want to remark on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a summary of my concerns on the talk page. I think one area where we might disagree on is the classification of ID as an argument from design or teleological argument. The reason for this is that ID makes no claim per se to argue for the existence of a deity, a feature which I think it necessary of teleological arguments and arguments from design. Rather, what I understand ID claiming to do is falsify the existence of design. ID advocates claim to be agnostic as to the identity of the designer and I think we should take their word for it. Thirdly, I think ID represents, at least going by their material, a predominantly scientific exercise with philosophical underpinnings while teleological and design arguments are primarily philosophical with scientific underpinnings. These distinctions together, I think warrant a delineation between ID and teleological and design arguments. Just my two cents on the issue. Thanks for inviting me, and I hope to continue the discussion. BabyJonas (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)