User talk:BiasEXPOSED

June 2013
Hello, I'm Technopat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tiktaalik because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Technopat (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Technopat. Thanks for providing a clear example of how secular humanists deal with disent: No discussion, no conversation, just silencing. Besides embarrasing yourself in front of your fellow man, Your actions will stand as evidence before your Creator one say. Why not humble yourself before Him now and enter into the abundant life He wants for you?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tiktaalik. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Tiktaalik was changed by BiasEXPOSED (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915389 on 2013-06-22T20:45:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Conservapedia with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 I am not vandalizing I am telling the TRUTH'''.

As evidently expected
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:BiasEXPOSED


A tag has been placed on User:BiasEXPOSED, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --BiasEXPOSED (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Silencing your enemies: The liberal/atheist way. Just ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Anyway this is MY user page, other editors put all kinds of useless garbage on their page, by singling me out you only prove I am correct. BiasEXPOSED (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

Reply
I have no idea what Darwinists "claim" nor do I give the proverbial "monkeys's" (pun not intended). However, this edit of yours is not encyclopedic and that is the only reason for which I reverted. On the other hand, leaving comments on of this nature my talk page say more about your edits than about mine. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)