User talk:Ergundel

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Critical Analysis of Evolution. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Charles (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you continue to remove properly referenced content and skew articles in a way unsupported by references, this will be considered vandalism. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kansas evolution hearings. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewing admin: I have no problem with unblocking, so long as this editor states they will cease their multi-article section blanking. This is broad based vandalism, apparently to promote a particular POV (all of the articles were related.) If they pledge to learn Wikipedia WP:RULES and edit accordingly, I do not object to unblock. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: User didn't receive only or last warning.  Alex discussion ★ 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No warnings at all are required to protect the encyclopedia. We prefer to give warnings, but we can give one, four, or none. None of this editor's edits met policy, and edits were continuing at a rapid rate. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Which of these do you consider to be constructive editing, rather than nonconstructive vandalism, per Vandalism? I have checked all the sources; they are all valid and do support the content. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question to Ergundel: You claim you only removed content which was unsourced, or in which the source did not support the content. I found ONE source which required going to the Internet archive; I have replaced the old outdated link with a new one, which is the correct fix in that situation, not removing an entire section, as you did (twice, I believe.) The following edits are of you removing large chunks of correctly sourced text:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kansas_evolution_hearings&diff=prev&oldid=456396711
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=456384018
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns&diff=prev&oldid=456391115
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kansas_evolution_hearings&diff=prev&oldid=456394809
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kansas_evolution_hearings&diff=prev&oldid=456396316
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=456397033

Response:

Concerning the section that states the following:

New science standards On November 8, 2005 the Kansas Board of Education approved the following changes to its science standards:[13] 1.Add to the mission statement a goal that science education should seek to help students make "informed" decisions. 2.Provide a definition of science that is not strictly limited to natural explanations.[14][15] 3.Allow intelligent design to be presented as an alternative explanation to evolution as presented in mainstream biology textbooks, without endorsing it. 4.State that evolution is a theory and not a fact. 5.Require informing students of purported scientific controversies regarding evolution.

None of these changes are mentioned as changes in the reference (the Kansas Science Standards in 2005). Being very familiar with these hearings and some of the background, I do not dispute these entirely, but I do dispute items 4 and 5 -- especially 4, which is clearly biased. The clear intent of such wording is to suggest ignorance of the meaning of "theory", and create prejudice against anyone who would speak in such a manner. The standards never make such a statement.

Concerning the reference in "Critical Analysis of Evolution", sorry I didn't notice that the paragraph I deleted contained a reference. I deleted this paragraph because it seemed clear to me that it was irrelevant to section it was in (regarding the scientific community) though perhaps it would be relevant elsewhere in the article.

Concerning the reference in "Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns", the only purpose of this reference, it seems to me, is to portray advocates of Intelligent Design as disrespectful. In any controversy, I think, you would have no trouble finding some advocate to any position who is disrespectful, especially when speaking to their choir.

Unfortunately, I found many such prejudicial statements throughout these articles that need to be challenged or examined.
 * Advice: once you are unblocked, try to add templates or  and to explain why do you think article's content is biased on the article's discussion, rather than just removing content from articles.  Alex discussion ★ 11:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. In retrospect, I'm actually glad that I was stopped from what I was doing, since it means the system works much better than I was expecting. I thought this was a completely open system where people could post whatever they wanted, and the most persistent voice won, like an unmoderated shouting match. I didn't realize there were tools that helped people monitor changes and engage in debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergundel (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 October 2011‎
 * You now know that does not happen, at least on most articles (some we're a little slower to notice sweeping changes on.) Please familiarize yourself with the policies linked below. If you demonstrate to me that you understand them and will follow them, I will unblock you. Please start by learning to sign your posts with four tildes, thanks. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ergundel (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Info about editing Wikipedia
Some of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you are unblocked, you will be able to ask questions at Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Meanwhile, please read the above linked policies and tutorials to familiarize yourself with them. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)