User talk:John.r.r

Welcome!
Please don't delete other editor's comments on talk pages. Its extremely rude and shows an inability to deal with the points they've brought up, thereby undermining your ideas. Rwenonah (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

sorry I think rude comments which are against the rules should be deleted.

John.r.r (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored the comment. Please do not do so again. Also, your arguments are not convincing anyone to change the Intelligent design article. I'd advise you to move on to some other topic, but I don't think you can let it go. I would be happy to be proved wrong though. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to remove other people's comments at Talk:Intelligent design after being warned about it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not delete after told not to. Can others make nasty comments about me? Is that allowed?? Can I respond in kind to a nasty comment????

John.r.r (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did delete after told not to. Rwenonah told you to stop at 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC), above, and you removed their comment again at 18:17, 15 August 2015.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=676244902] Please pay attention to experienced users' advice and don't make up "rules" as you go. Rwenonah's comment wasn't against any rules, and you're not entitled to remove others' comments just because you don't like them. If something is actually very rude (which didn't happen here), you can ask the person to " strike out " their comment, the way I struck out the words "strike out" there. It's rare that comments are of such a nature that you're entitled to remove them. But if that should happen, you must write in the edit summary that you've done so — not just let other people's words silently disappear, as you did three times (!) on Talk:Intelligent design. I really don't think you'd like it if people did that to your own words. As for "responding in kind", you and everybody else has to be civil here. I don't see that anybody has been "nasty" to you. But if it should come to that, note that the civility policy states specifically that you're not to respond in kind. If you have understood what I've said about removing comments, and tell me that you will abide by it in the future, I will unblock you. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I still dont see that i deleted after he told me not to. but it is a moot point: if it is against the rules to delete attacks and nasty comments i will abide by those rules.

John.r.r (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

he or somebody else called me a troll and also said i need to study the material in sarcasm.

so if someone calls me a troll can i call them a troll? can it they tell me i dont know what i am talking about can i say the same about them with out being blocked or banned???

John.r.r (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:29, 12 August 2015 (edit) Charlesdrakew (talk | contribs)


 * werent my comments deleted here^^^ why wasnt charles blocked??? the game is fixed right???

John.r.r (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you still cant see that 18:17 15 August is later than 21:10 14 August, I don't know what to tell you. Please click on my links: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John.r.r&diff=676124777&oldid=670874296 here] Rwenonah told you not to remove other's comments, and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=676244902 here] you removed Juan Riley's comment again. Nothing moot about it. I'm not satisfied with your sneering undertaking to not "delete attacks and nasty comments", you know. You haven't addressed what I said, and you merely repeat questions I've already answered. I'm afraid I can't address a statement that "he or somebody else called me a troll" — really? Who? When? Your block will expire pretty soon, though. Please don't argue as aggressively after it, and try to take on board what other people tell you, or you may find yourself blocked again. I'd recommend you to read the policy Wikipedia is not a battleground before you edit Talk:Intelligent design again.


 * After edit conflict: As for Charlesdrakew's removal of your post, it may be debatable, but he said he was removing it and explained why in his edit summary. Do you remember how I told you above that if you remove something, you must say that you do, and why, in the edit summary? That's what he did, and his explanation was pretty good. He also didn't edit war about it when you restored your comment. I really don't have the impression that you listen to anything I say. Since you speak to me with such suspicion (" the game is fixed right???"), I've little reason to take any more time trying to explain how Wikipedia works. I make allowances because you're a new user, but there are limits. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

OK so I can delete other peoples posts if I tell why? really you are apply rules in a inconsistent manner. really seems like anyone who does not like the article as it is will be percsecuted. can you restore the posts of mine that were deleted??

John.r.r (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

, and you're not entitled to remove others' comments just because you don't like them

^^^ this is what you said. but yet you say it was ok for charles to remove MY remarks PlEASE tell me why CHARLES was allowed to remove MY remarks...

John.r.r (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Charlesdrakew explained his removal, as I said above. Look at his edit summary: "not a forum".[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=675816747&oldid=675760149] He put it briefly because you had already been told several times that you mustn't treat talkpages as a forum, for instance [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=671018118&oldid=671016780 here]. As for asking me to restore your posts that were deleted (?), it's like you only read every third sentence of mine, or only the bits you like. Look at another thing I said above: "He also didn't edit war about it when you restored your comment." In other words, you restored your comment yourself — [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=675832950&oldid=675816747 here] (without offering a reason, by the way) — and it's still there. So what is it you want me to restore? I don't know what you mean by "posts": I don't see any removals other than the one you refer to. But I'm completely tired of repeating myself. I'm done here. If you wear everybody out by going round in circles in this manner on the talkpage, you will end up blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Blocked
I just noticed you restored your post that you're complaining about again today.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=next&oldid=676424221] It now appears twice! You'd better remove this reckless talkpage bloat pretty quickly, because everybody's patieance is wearing thin. No… adding: I see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=next&oldid=676426644 here], just now, that you're aware of posting it twice, and you don't care. OK, that's the last straw. You have been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC).


 * is there anyone i can appeal this to?? you have stopped me from posting because i dont like the present article and have asked reasonable questions which no one can address. this article has been hijacked by a self serving group


 * John.r.r (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can ask for review by an uninvolved admin. Sorry, I didn't think I had to tell you again, since you did it for the other block just above. Here it is again: If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. This time, put your reason inside the template, please, where it says "your reason here", to make sure the reviewing admin sees it. But I know it's not so easy to manage these templates, and as long as you post the template, an admin will come. It's really important, OTOH, to read the guide to appealing blocks first, to see what kind of an unblock request has any chance of succeeding. (I can assure you that the stuff you just said won't help. Try talking about yourself and your editing, not making accusations against everybody who contradicts you on the talkpage.) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Hey John, sorry for not getting back (dunno what my IP is this time, I'm in a different Starbucks in Harvard Sq.). Your perspective and mine will probably not agree much, but we both know that the ID article is severely biased in POV and violates Wikipedia's 2nd pillar.  According to Wikipedia, Intelligent Design is more decidedly pseudoscience than Adolph Hitler is evil.  It's all a shame. Lessee what my IP is now ---> 107.85.105.45 (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for responding. i was unjustly blocked. they said it was for 'disruptive editing' but i did not edit anything. i was doing just what others were doing

John.r.r (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

trying to find out how NOT to get blocked. seems like i am being blocked for no good reasons

John.r.r (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your block has expired. You may edit again. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your previous blocks seem to be for refusing to listen to other's points, and for altering or removing others comments. Try and work with other editors more and avoid removing what other editors say, and hopefully this issue will not appear again. Mdann52 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks. but I did not delete anything the 2nd time I was blocked. I thought they were supposed to give some slack to a new person.

John.r.r (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * New people who appear to be trying to learn and follow policy are given slack. new people who appear to be ignoring all advice and continue with disruptive editing, particularly in areas subject to disruption by people who do not like that Wikipedia presents content as mainstream experts present it, are not given a lot of slack. Editors are volunteers and should not have to waste their time over and over and over attempting to work with people who are not here to build the encyclopedia. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Editting
I notice you have not made any article edits since you created your account. Just wanted to make sure you know you can do that, and not just use the talk pages. Thanks. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites  ‖ 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If I make an edit it will just get reverted. I was blocked for no good reason. This is a tough neighborhood. Very hostile. John.r.r (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are almost 5 million articles on the English wikipedia alone. No doubt you could find other subjects that need improvement and are not so "hostile".--McSly (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * well the ones that are not hostile do not need repair, this ID one on wiki sure does though! it is biased, inaccurate and poorly sourced. i think it needs me more than the other 5 million. John.r.r (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And if it never gets changed to the way you think it should be? How long are you going to continue trying to correct it? Weeks, months? I'd advise you to focus your efforts elsewhere, but since others have similarly advised you, I don't believe you will. Why you'd want to spend so much time in such a "hostile" and "tough neighborhood" escapes me. Cheers. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it make me feel great if I could change an injustice. John.r.r (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you are REALLY in the wrong place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Evolution for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * where did I use a talk page for general discussion and NOT for improvement of an article. I see other editors going on-and=on on off topics and they are not warned. Seems there is selective warnings depending on perceived side of the fence.

John.r.r (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Evolution. --Mr Fink (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

TELL ME what I wrote that was wrong! I mere said changes should be made to the aricle. I am not allowed to do that??

John.r.r (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
Would you please format your edits on talk pages so they follow normal convention? It is very difficult to read your comments when the indents are on the wrong indent level and jump in and out. Please use the "Preview" button (next to the "Save page") to check that your talk is correct. Please see wp:talk page formatting on how to format correctly. Example: A says something
 * B replies to A
 * C replies to A
 * D replies to C
 * E replies to D
 * F replies to C
 * G replies to A. etc.

Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your posts in Talk:Evolution
Hi! Your posts in Talk:Evolution were removed because you made no actual suggestions for improving the article. Saying that a sentence is "misleading and deceptive" is useless if you don't also say what about the sentence is misleading and deceptive. Similarly, saying the sentence should be changed is not helpful unless you tell us what you think it should be changed to. If you want to discuss improving the article in the future, please include your reasoning. Cheers. --Ashenai (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You removed them? Can I remove others comments if I dont like them? John.r.r (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said before it was deleted I would like it changed to something closer to this:


 * Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.


 * and it should say evolution THEORY not just evolution. those are two different things. WHY cant I discuss this on the talk page. Others disobey rules without getting deleted.

John.r.r (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I cant even put suggested changes on my own talk page???? John.r.r (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who removed your comments, no. I have told you what you need to do if you want people to pay attention to your comments on talk pages. I don't recommend trying to remove other people's comments, and certainly not because you "don't like them".


 * Your suggestion was removed because it is already addressed in Q3 of the FAQ, which you will find on the Talk:Evolution page.


 * no Q3 did not address my point. you need to read it more clearly. why was it deleted??? my point was that the definition they used was wrong. I did not say evolution was NOT a theory. READ it better before you delete something and dont jump to conlcusions John.r.r (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And you can, of course, put suggested changes on your own talk page! We just had an edit conflict (both of us were trying to edit your talk page at the same time.) --Ashenai (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * John.r.r., you did not suggest actual changes at Talk:Evolution before as you have on this page. You just said that a sentence was deceptive (without suggesting what changes needed to be made), complained when we could not read your mind, repeated that the first sentence needs to be changed (this time without even the half-hearted attempt at pretending to explain why), and repeated your initial claim that the first sentence should be changed without explaining how it should be changed.
 * Had you started off with actual suggestions for article improvement, your post would not have been deleted.


 * I gave suggestions and they also were deleted. Seems like no one want this article to change for the better. Seems like some think they own it.John.r.r (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first link I provided demonstrates that you failed to provide any meaningful suggestion. It isn't just one person saying this, everyone but you is saying this.  That usually means that whatever you intended to say, you failed to communicate it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine if Ashenai had only left the message "You just shouldn't make posts that will get removed, because they're bad." See how (un)helpful that suggestion would have been?  Notice that  actually explained what the problem is with your posts at Talk:Evolution.  Do you see why things need to be elaborated on from the beginning now?  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That you refuse to cough up any suggestion to improve the article in the first place is why I keep deleting your thread, as per WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:DENY. When I bluntly asked you to produce a suggestion, you falsely accused me of being rude and then said I should be blocked for that, strongly suggesting that you have no actual desire to improve the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I GAVE a suggestion for the first sentence but it was deleted. go look at the history. John.r.r (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You proposed changing: Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. to The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms. I don't see how that's an improvement, but that's just me. Thoughts? -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and adding theory of evolution to the lede is pretty much a non-starter. Does anyone else think that change will ever happen? -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 18:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * well maybe someone else WOULD think it was an improvement but if my suggestion gets deleted how would we ever know??? sounds sort of bullying to me. guess this crowd is not into giving new ideas a chance. sounds like a religionJohn.r.r (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html


 * 8. The contributor with an agenda often prevails. In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.


 * thats why true academicians think wiki is not to be trusted. what a shame! John.r.r (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia and evolution
Regarding your now-removed post to talk:Evolution and external here Read this: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should never rely in Wikipedia as your source for any action. i.e writing a paper, or managing your medications. It's a very bad idea. Always was, always will be; that's the way it is setup. Wikipedia is self-published. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Edits are sometimes, but not always, verified by other editors. If you have an important project, Wikipedia *might* be a good starting point, but don't rely on the content of the articles. Do your own research. Unless Wikipedia restricted to editing by professionals who peer-review their work, it will be a bad idea to rely on Wikipedia as RS. BTW: That is highly unlikely to happen.

You should read scientific theory. It's not a theory as in "I have a theory..." Having "Theory" tacked to one's scientific hypothesis is the highest level of commendation a scientist can get. It means that the hypothesis has been well-tested by others with few, if any, anomalies. A theory will describe an existing phenomenon in detail. And, most importantly, will predict unknown phenomenon. This is exactly what the "Theory" evolution does. Evolution has more data in more scientific fields validating it up then any other theory in science. Calling it a "theory" is not denigrating it at all. On the contrary...


 * why should I read it? I KNOW what theory means. Why do you think I dont??? Please give me the data verifying the theory of evolution. Give the the experiment that proved it. I never said theory was denigrating. Are you reading ok??? John.r.r (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You use the term "proof". That is not how science works. In science, there is hypothesis and theory based upon evidence. Given our abilities to understand the universe, there can be no proof. Per Albert Einstein: Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.. So, it would seem that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Jim1138 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW: proofs of evolution More than one! Jim1138 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are not proofs! Jeez do you know what a proof even is. Study harder! John.r.r (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is not something that Darwin came up with during an inebriated evening at the pub and nothing much changed since. If you want to "disprove" evolution, you have a long, long row to hoe. Please get started. Personally, if evolution is in error, I want the most accurate and useful theory possible. I have no personal attachment to the theory of evolution. You will be awarded a Nobel prize if and when you achieve it. And, you would deserve it.


 * When did I say Darwin was a drunk?? Have YOU been drinking?? Again provide me your BEST evidence for evolution. Would love to see it. John.r.r (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you said Darwin was a drunk? Making things up here? Jim1138 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not use article talk pages to discuss the reliability of Wikipedia or anything other than improving the article. If you have something to add, include wp:reliable sources. Do not simply complain on the article's talk page about the information being reliable. Continuing to do so will likely result in a long wp:block.


 * We are not allowed to criticize an article for being inaccurate?? Why not? You want to hide the flaws in this article. John.r.r (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Essentially, on article talk pages, you are not allowed to do anything that does not contribute to the improvement of an article. The way to address a problem is something like "this is in error and here is the RS showing how to correct it." All I see is "wrong, wrong, wrong". So, you are not allowed to just criticize an article in that manner. Jim1138 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not "bullying" this is policy. Do not take over talk pages for your own agenda. It's not your website. I do what I do per policy of Wikipedia; not because it's my agenda - other than it's my intent to have Wikipedia be a good, relatively reliable source of information for people.


 * I took over a talk page?? when?? If you want wiki to be a good source then you should listen to my criticisms and not hide your head in the sand. But its ok for YOU to take over pages for YOU agenda?? ok I get it! John.r.r (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are using the talk page for something other then discussion on improving the article. You have not suggested any RS on what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what the correct theory is. If you can not supply a concise post, then don't. You have repeatedly told this, yet you keep on. Classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jim1138 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * baloney! I did make suggestions. And posted exactly what I thought was good. Classic case of WP:DONTBEABULLY John.r.r (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

For discussions about Wikipedia itself, other areas should be used. See the links on main page such as the wp:Village pump, the wp:Teahouse Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm done here, don't botther replying. I won't read it. Waste of time. Jim1138 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * YOU are a waste of time. Please stop your nonsense. John.r.r (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding evolution as fact and theory
See Evolution as fact and theory. Evolution IS the change of alleles over time, a demonstrated fact. The theory of evolution is the description and explanation of that demonstrated fact. This was fully explained in Q3 of Talk:Evolution's FAQ, and if you did not understand it, keep re-reading it. If you cannot understand it, you should edit topics that do not relate to the material origins of life on earth. The hair splitting distinction has only ever been used by Young Earth Creationists who don't understand that they might as well be arguing that:
 * Gravity should say that "the word 'gravity' is shorthand for the THEORY of gravity. Gravity is not really ' things are brought (or gravitate) towards one another'."
 * Heliocentrism should say that "the word 'heliocentrism' is shorthand for the THEORY of heliocentrism. Heliocentrism is not really ' the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun'."
 * Spherical Earth should say that "the word 'spherical earth' is shorthand for the THEORY of the spherical earth. It is not really ' established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given'."

Again, if you did not understand that FAQ specifically targeted your question, you are probably not competent enough to edit articles relating to evolution. That, plus your continued inability to get the clearly stated of others, plus your regular failure get to the point yourself, plus the obvious YEC bias you've displayed at Talk:Evolution and at Talk:Intelligent design could very easily result in a topic ban from articles relating to the material origins of life on earth. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No YOU do not seem to understand the english language. There IS a difference between gravity and gravitational theory. and DUH heliocentrism IS the theory! and there is not spherical earth theory. why is it that almost ALL other encyclopedias and the great ones like britannica etc agree with ME?????? they are ALL wrong and this botched article by anonymous high schoolers is right?? you are TOO funny! i think wiki is a great source 98% of the time. but certain subjects which have a liberal/conservative contorversy wiki goes way to the liberal side every time. but maybe this is a good thing. it reminds me years ago when the govt said you would go crazy if you smoked pot and them people who smoked it could figure out the govt was lying. so people who read the evo and ID articles can observe how biased "science' can be. the can go right down the google list and read more sensible defs of ID and laff at wiki! you know one thing you guys should learn from those who put out propaganda is to stay as close to the truth as possible. the bias is the article is so obvious it just comes out and slams you in your face! are you guys REALLY that brainwashed that you cant see how you are looking foolish???John.r.r (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive
Hi! I can't help but notice that every single one of your edits so far has been on Talk:Evolution, Talk:Intelligent design, and user talk pages (exclusively about your involvment with those two articles). In addition, every one of your edits has been with the goal of correcting what you perceive as bias in those articles.

Please read Single-purpose account carefully. While there is nothing, in itself, wrong with being a SPA, tendentious editing promoting your preferred controversial point of view is considered to be disruptive, and against Wikipedia policy.

I very much believe it would be to everyone's benefit (yourself included), if you focused your attentions on articles unrelated to evolution and intelligent design for now. It is easy for new editors like yourself to fall afoul of WP:NPOV rules, and high-traffic, controversial articles like the ones you have been editing are a particularly bad place for that.

I will be quite honest with you: there is no chance that you will get your preferred point of view included in either of the two articles you appear to be interested in. The issues you've brought up have been discussed many times in the past, and consensus on these topics is quite firm. Any further argumentation is likely to be seen as simply wasting everyone's time.

If I can help in any way, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. --Ashenai (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop ACCUSING me of being disruptive. I am simply trying to improve these articles. I would like these articles to go back to the way they were many years ago. They have deteriorated. Many people agree with me. 'no chance'??? well there must be a chance because many people before thought the way I am thinking now. I think people who think like I do are blocked and banned. Are you really that much against freedom of thought. Isnt that what science is about and what you want is what PESUDOSCIENCE is about. Read the characteristics of pseudoscience. John.r.r (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, actually. "Freedom of thought" is not remotely what science is about. Which is not to say freedom of thought is not a good thing, but it has nothing to do with science. Science is about testable hypotheses, and repeatable experiments, and drawing objective conclusions. Science is a method for finding the answer that best fits the observed phenomena. It is not about matters of opinion, it is not about giving equal time to every notion that pops out of someone's head, and it is not about agreeing to disagree. Science has no time or use for untestable ideas.
 * The relevant similarity with Wikipedia is that Wikipedia also couldn't care less what your (or my) opinion is. The only things that belong in articles are things which can be verified. You're absolutely welcome to your "freedom of thought", and you can certainly express whatever opinions you hold dear on Facebook or Twitter. Not in Wikipedia articles, though. Because we don't care. We're only interested in verifiable facts. --Ashenai (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * yes science IS about freedom of thought! people should be free to DOUBT darwinism. why not?? if it is a good theory it will wash clean. PLEASE show me the test that show that species arise from natural selection PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! darwinism is based on unjustifiable extrapolation: if a moth can change colors to adapt to a small change in its enviroment THEN a bacteria can become a human! too funny!!!


 * you are NOT interested in verifiable facts you are only interested in promoting your agenda! I wanted the article to be like it was in the past and what 98% of all the other encyclopedias say. they are ALL wrong??? pullleeeezzzzz!!!! and you high school kids are right! too funny!!! John.r.r (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Evolution. If you actually have a point to make, then say it, and stop whining and moaning about how people are so mean to you because they won't bend over backwards for whatever it is you're trying to say.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build the encyclopedia but instead to push a particular agenda. I've given your editing of your own page since I was here last a good read, and also your recent editing of Talk:Evolution and Talk:Intelligent design. I'm sorry, but it's my feeling that other editors have spent considerable time responding to you, without making any impression, and being forced to repeat themselves over and over (just like I ended up doing the last time I was here). You don't seem to understand the warnings you get, and if you ever click on the policy links people give you, I see no sign of it. I have blocked you indefinitely because of tendentious editing and competence concerns. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * wow is this game fixed! I am accused of disruptive editing and then denied an unblock because I did not make 'a single article edit' good grief I made about 5 suggestions for changes. you people are just full of BS. John.r.r (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think that you read the guide to appealing blocks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * why do you think that?? did you read my edits on the talk pages. i basically wanted them to go back to better PREVIOUS versions. how can that be disruptive or forum????? its a fix that is all. people not wanting the true explanation of what ID is are controlling these articles. they are ANTI science. its a shame but thank darwin for google where anyone can google evolution and ID and get some real info. i use wiki all the time but these 2 articles are REALLY bad. John.r.r (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you read it because you didn't follow any of the advice listed there. So, either you didn't read it or you read it and purposefully decided to ignore everything. Given your history, I guess that is just as likely an option.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying you have no idea how I did not follow the guidelines. Really you people are an embarassment to fair play and really help make creationists look reasonable! John.r.r (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

maybe you should read this: Accusing others of tendentious editing Shortcut:

WP:AOTE

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS. John.r.r (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Admins, considering that every conversation with John.r.r. goes like this:
 * John.r.r: (nonsense rant)
 * Other user: "Please see (FAQ, guideline, policy) that specifically asks people not to post that sort of stuff."
 * John.r.r: "I read that and I don't see what that has to do with what I posted."
 * Other user: "(FAQ/guideline/policy) specifically says 'don't post (nonsense rant)'. That is the opposite of what you did."
 * John.r.r: "And that's irrelevant to what I did. You need to (misapply principle in a poor attempt at Wikilawyering that borders on a personal attack)."
 * ...it's pretty hard to not think that we're dealing with a troll here. If not, he is clearly incapable of understanding basic instructions or even considering how others perceive his actions and so can only behave like a troll.  For his sake, hopefully is offline behavior is more reasonable, but I can't imagine his appeals improving. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * jeez what a bunch of BS! go ahead and SHOW were I did any of that. all I did was make suggestions for changes and those were most what had been done before. go ahead look at my posts. but see my posts are GONE. this is the game you are playing: anyone who does not like the present article is called a troll etc. in the last month i have seen about 5 people not like the artilce but they are deleted. you wont even let their opinions stay on the page cuz YOU want to own it. not very wiki of you! and I see a real lack of science understanding here and very bad english comprehension.


 * again put your money where your BS mouth is and SHOW these rants of mine! you cant! and you cant come up with that experiment that proves 'evolution'! too funny! lololol!!! John.r.r (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should put in another unblock request. Perhaps you will be successful this time. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract  ‖ 14:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's the above conversation with TheRedPenOfDoom about appealing blocks. There's the conversations at Talk:Evolution concerning FAQ #3.  That's just off the top of my head.
 * And your accusation of a lack of "science understanding and very bad english comprehension" is laughable, seeing how you reject one of the cornerstones of modern biology and don't appear to know how to capitalize. Or spell 'article.'  Or spell 'because.'  If, as you claim, the problem is that no one understands you, it's probably because I've seen grade school ESL students with a better command of the language.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * i am typing fast and making little effort in spelling and grammar. but you dont understand the diff between gravity and gravitation! too funny! show me how smart you are and tell me how to falsify whale evolution or that natural selection leads to animal speciation or give me evidence of either! you wont because you cant! John.r.r (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys - please don't quarrel here. Wikipedians, this user is blocked, please don't taunt him. John.r.r - for you this means that you're given access to this page only to appeal your block. Max Semenik (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * max the game is fixed. anyone not having 100% faith in evolution is blocked or banned and excommunicated! John.r.r (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/in_covering_int098841.html read this!! John.r.r (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to link
I know how you feel, but Wikipedia is not really biased. It is merely, like Brittanica, WorldBook, and other regular encyclopedia, following mainstream opinions. "Fact" has a different meaning in science. Click here to see. Bad behavior will not get you anywhere. Evolution is a scientific "fact" to the mainstream scientists. Although it actually unproven and speculative, scientists generally consider it a fact because it helps them make predictions among other things. As for the link you put on your page, that is not a good way to behave. Keep in mind that abusing appellations will do no good and will only cause more negative feelings toward you. Scientists do not like non-scientists casting "unnecessary" doubts on their views. Although I personally think this bad behavior on their part to be angry at having doubts cast on their theories, since they are not conclusive and proven, and because science is always changing, that does not give good reason to be bad as them. Keep in mind that bad behavoir may only worsen the chances of being unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Science is not a matter of opinion, as much as you wish it to be. Also, if you truly wish to remain anonymous, then don't edit at all.  Your IP address is still in the user history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So that's your opinion. Mr.Thomson. For my part, Encyclopedias are merely telling mainstream opinions, and I hold that there is a difference between ideas like evolution and abiogenesis, and true facts like a sun-centered universe and spherical earth. while alchemists and flat-earth supporters are obviously clinging to outdated notions, creationists are supporting religious non-scientific possibilities while evolutionists support scientific theories. Hence, evolution is not any less likely than creation. One opinion is a scientific theory and the other a religious idea. Neither have been observed or proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)