User talk:NJEx18

Welcome!
Hello, NJEx18, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Abiogenesis 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 Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. You have now three times attempted to make an absurd change to the hatnote of Abiogenesis. It is hard to discern whether you think you are being funny - but Wikipedia readers will certainly not be amused, they are here for serious information; partisan, trying to hint that Wikipedia is not reporting science objectively; or merely trying to do damage in a small, unobtrusive way - but you have definitely been noticed, and if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not being funny, I am being serious. I am writing a medical paper for school, involving a factual, clinically obtained, medical record backed angiogram of the leading cause of death being reversed. This is not an opinion, but a fact. I have gone to many professors, multiple deans of science at university, reached out to professors who give symposiums about abiogenesis, and reached out to the most academically credible professors I could find, and even gone to institutions like the National Science Foundation, National Association of Biology Teachers, etc and they have all told me abiogenesis has never been shown. It has never been observed in nature, or artificially recreated in a lab, the single event of nonlife to life. This means Evolution requires faith in a belief that defies what we observe 100% of the time, day in and day out: life always spawns from life, nonlife never becomes alive. My medical paper can not have beliefs coinciding with the fact of heart disease reversal. I was going to write about our Evolutionary ascent up the tree, showing key metabolic development, and how we arrived at being plant eaters, not omnivores, as a fact. Yet Evolution can not even start. Because I can claim the 100% observation, and not be falsified to show the critically needed steps of Evolution, Evolution falls into religion and belief story of origin of cosmology and life, like other religions. It is an "other" of creation myths, unless you can provide me with an observation of abiogenesis event, and not just an inferences that because it needs to happen, it had to happen. Prove this is even possible. It may be in the future, but then we could teach about the soul, as we could develop a machine that detects souls in the future too, then at least people might care about one another as special, instead of animals in a competition in a struggle for survival. Prove this isn't another creation myth, by supplying data of the event, otherwise leave the "other" as it is honest. NJEx18 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Abiogenesis. --Mr Fink (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abiogenesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Abiogenesis) for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Unblock me please. I gave my reasoning for why abiogenesis is a creation myth. This is not fair that one belief gets to be taught as fact when others don't. This is what our constitution protects us from. I made the page honest, as I have actually gone out and directly confronted professors on this. Abiogenesis is not science, in is an origin myth. You don't provide me with any experimentation and then block me. What a joke, or what unbelievable bias you have favoring your belief above others. NJEx18 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:FREE, WP:FORUM.
 * https://xkcd.com/1357/ tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. We do not post opinions, or original research. Nor do we promote fringe theories. We simply repeat what has been reported elsewhere in reliable secondary sources. Every edit you have made in article space has been reverted. Your statements here strongly suggest that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote fringe beliefs. As such I must advise you that you are very close to being blocked sitewide. This should be understood as a Formal . -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be rude, please forgive me. I have been working diligently with various college administration trying to ascertain the knowledge I have been seeking, as leading cause of mortality reversal is as important as it sounds. I am just updating that currently, there is literally no data on abiogenesis, so it entirely taken on a belief, just like other origin accounts. Can we compromise and put "other" back in until the event is observed in nature or recreated in a laboratory setting? Please know as a student who needs the science data foe Evolution, this is very problematic for me as well, and I need abiogenesis data for my medical paper. I also want to state for the record I am not asking any other method or origin story to be added in here, I am not adding my personal views in any way. It is a fact I have multiple sources all telling me abiogenesis has yet to be seen. NJEx18 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not your personal research agency:
 * We know that John McAfee has died.
 * We don't know precisely how John McAfee has died.
 * Same applies to abiogenesis: we know that it happened, but we don't know how it happened.
 * Creationism only posits abiogenesis by miracle and panspermia is really abiogenesis somewhere else in the Universe.
 * Is the God of the Bible a biological organism? Certainly not. So, he created life through abiogenesis. Yup, "life first appeared through biogenesis" is contradicted in Genesis ch. 1 and ch. 2. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already gone to professors and done the research. Abiogenesis is a belief system, as it entirely relies on something never observed, unlike John McAfee, as we have observed many people die, unfortunately some far too early. We can infer with John because we have observations we relate to, while with abiogenesis we have a claim of nonlife becoming alive, against 100% observation of the exact, mutually exclusive, diametric opposite. This is not similar leverage between the two instances of John and abiogenesis.
 * As far as bringing up God, the Bible, and other creation myths, that is not what I am talking about. I am not asking any creation myth to be taught as science. None should. If you want to teach your personal origin story as the fact of life's start, you need to prove it. Evolution has no evidence or support that it can even start, only infer because necessity, and panspermia would still require abiogenesis, which still needs to be shown. Evolution, because it requires abiogenesis, is a origin belief, like other creation myths. Please put "other" back in the web page. And please unblock me too. I wouldn't make a change just to be rude and mean. Why am I not sounding genuine to you? NJEx18 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are a person with an agenda. Wikipedia Community said no to your agenda. Take it elsewhere, e.g. Conservapedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I could say you have an agenda to keep Evolution as a science, even though it is a belief like other origin religions. You don't happen to have an observation made to refute someone who is skeptical to the claim that nonlife can become alive? NJEx18 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As WP:MAINSTREAM has put it, Unless a dispute is verifiably acknowledged to exist in high-quality sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Is this situation fair? Perhaps not. But it is the situation we must tolerate if we are going to take the goal of making Wikipedia into a mainstream encyclopedia seriously. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been established by high quality sources. I have documentation from the National Science Foundation and other institutions, various professors, including from Harvard, etc. Happy to supply the documentation. All answering in 100% unity and solidarity that nonlife has never been shown to become alive, matching 100% of every observation ever made throughout documented history, or recreation in laboratory experiemnts with controlled settings. To believe that nonlife can and did become alive is a belief, precisely. This is why the "other" word belongs on this page, as abiogenesis requiring Evolution is a creation myth. NJEx18 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, man, "God has created life on Earth" will never amount to a scientific theory. Claims involving supernatural agency cannot be endorsed by science. And I say this as someone who believes in God. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK then, if making a science claim, please show me the natural evidence that nonlife to life happens, and that it isn't a supernatural claim that violates 100% of all observations we have ever made. NJEx18 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at User talk:NJEx18. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)