User talk:Fm.illuminatus

Evolution
Regarding evolution, please study WP:NPOV carefully, with particular reference to WP:Undue weight and to the details given in Neutral point of view/FAQ under the headings of Giving "equal validity" and Pseudoscience. If you have fully referenced information you want to have added, bring it up on the talk page with evidence that it complies with WP:A. ... Aggressive denunciations of science can only be regarded as trolling. .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Orangemarlin 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments are trolling because it is clear that you do not understand the scientific literature and have not read the articles (including the linked article on the evidence), and you are not providing any verifiable sources to back up your claims. All evolutionary scientists who make the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution understand them to be different in scale, not in the basic mechanisms.  Scientists have observed speciation occur.  One example is [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly].  If you find an article published in a peer-reviewed journal by a scientist arguing that the Hawthorn fly is not an example of speciation in process, let us know about that article and we can include it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information: your concerns are likely to be answered at Talk:Evolution/FAQ. You may not like the answers, but the privilege of editing Wikipedia is subject to policies referred to above and in the FAQ. The talk page of the evolution article suggests other websites which may be more suited to the kind of assertions you wish to put forward, or of course you're welcome here to contribute in accordance with the policies that have been pointed out to you. ... dave souza, talk 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
You have been reported for 3RR violation on Evolution and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take the time to carefully read our WP:3RR policy. I hope you come back to contribute in a collaborative manner. Thanks, Crum375 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fm.Illuminatus: I think it might be helpful if I clarified the reasons for the way you're being treated here. Your original edit to Evolution was reverted because what you said was false (speciation is not merely "theoretical", it has been observed: you also deleted the fact that speciation is irreversible).  Then, rather than discussing this particular issue on the talkpage, you posted (and continued to elaborate on) a general creationist rant packed with falsehoods that should more properly be addressed on a discussion board (the article talkpage isn't for debating the reality of evolution).  For your information: evolution IS science, "adaptation" (evolution) can and does lead to speciation, genetic drift IS part of evolution, "macroevolution" results from the accumulation of a lot of "microevolution", evolution is not a "religion"... and so on.  You really need to educate yourself on these issues, and have any disagreements worked out on a separate discussion board (I happen to know that there are several professional biologists on the Evolution/Creation forum at www.iidb.org) before trying to return to this topic here. --Robert Stevens 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've extended the block to a week due to some very vicious personal attacks on user talk pages. Please have a look at WP:NPA, take a break, and calm down.. Adam Cuerden talk 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)