User talk:Lebs27

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Lebs27, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one 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: 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 my talk page. Again, welcome! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fringe theories
Please read WP:FRINGE for our treatment of non-mainstream views. Thanks, henrik  • talk  20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Please be aware of the WP:3RR and that edit warring is frowned upon on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may get temporarily blocked.

From your edit summary: "Abiogenesis is being protrayed as fact in this article when it is clearly only a theory that goes contrary to verifiable science. Descriptions need to be consistenty in differentiating fact from theory."

The article concerns the research into the origin of life, which obviously happened somehow. Do you have any Reliable sources that assert that abiogenesis is "only a theory that goes contrary to verifiable science"? The second line in the lede of the article clearly state: "Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories." I am not seeing the problem, as the lede itself clearly says that the specific theories are hypotheses. In addition, please be aware that in science there is no contradiction between "theory" and "fact". Saying something is "just a theory" is misguided if it is an attempt to imply that a scientific theory is lacking. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with abiogenesis is that some articles will portray it as settled fact by citing biased science writings. The fact remains that spontaneous generation was disproven long ago. Abiogenesis is simply a restatement of the same philosophy with no supporting science. The often-cited Miller/Urey experiment is actually evidence against abiogenesis due to the problem of both left- and right-handed molecules being created through the experiment. The presences of right-handed protein molecules negates the ability to created amino acids. This article needs to clearly reflect that it's only a theory if it's to be a trustworthy article.

Have the other individuals been warned also about edit warring? They were involved in keeping biased wording in the article.


 * As Harizotoh said, please do not edit war. If someone reverts an edit you make, you shouldn't make more edits - you should go to the talk page to discuss it with them. (See WP:BRD). Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, there shouldn't be an edit war. So if an edit is done, they shouldn't undo it and continue to undo it without a substantiated reason.
 * I listed several reasons above. This does constitute edit warring. Additionally, once several editors have opposed your edits, please stop trying to reverse their edits. Take the discussion to the talk page. See: WP:BRD--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)