User talk:Godlovestruth

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
It is neutral Marlin. Demonstrate otherwise, unlike what I edited out, which clearly is biased and misleading as it leads readers to believe that no scientists believes in God-guided evolution, which effectively is NOT evolution.Godlovestruth (talk)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Godlovestruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again Marlin, demonstrate in what way I am doing so, I have shown that the part I edited out was biased. How Marlin, does citing a COURT CASE, a single COURT CASE IN WHICH ONE MAN IS OPPOSING EVOLUTION proof of a MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVES IN CREATION? CUT IT OUT MARLIN AND CHECK THE FACTS AND STOP ASSUMING AND STOP GUESSING. STOP SLANDERING ME MARLIN. Marlin, merely because I am a creationist, you pretend I can't write an unbiased edit or contribute without bias. Marlin, is merely agreeing with an evolutionist all anyone is allowed to do? Is that science Marlin? No, so stop with your opinion-bashing, AND LEARN WHAT EVIDENCE MEANS. AGAIN, IT DOES NOT = YOUR MERE FEELINGS OR SAY SO: SHOW EVIDENCE, NOT YOUR MERE WORD OR HEART.Godlovestruth (talk)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Macroevolution
Hey, please calm down.ome of your material might make sense but right now the section in the article you removed is clearly relevant. It may also help for you to read Wikipedia's undue weight clause. Also, please be aware that multiple reversions by a single editor can be frowned upon and repeated reversions can result in blocking (see the three revert rule]). In general, it is best if one wishes to change an article from a consensus form to discuss it on the article talk page - [[Talk:Macroevolution rather than repeatedly edit warring. Also, please don't call edits in good faith "vandalism" it just increases tension and doesn't do anything productive. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you may want to look at avoid self-reference. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Based on your apparent use of an abusive sockpuppet - to violate the three-revert rule, make questionable edits, and troll OrangeMarlin. I have blocked your account. If you would like to be reinstated, you may use the unblock template and your request may be considered, subject to a checkuser request to evaluate whether technical evidence exists tying your account to Dji19165. --B (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The connection between and   is ✅, I ran a CU. So did another CU who can choose to comment if desired. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)