User talk:PedrodAV

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Michael Behe, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please don't remove "psuedoscientific" from the lead. It's got strong sourcing and there have been multiple discussions on the talk page around it with the consensus to include. I realize it's not popular with Behe and his supporters, but Wikipedia works from a perspective of mainstream science, which strongly considers his theories as psuedoscientific.''  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Michael Behe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''If you continue with your reverting without discussion, you will end up blocked from editing and/or the article put under semi-protection to stop your disruptive edits. You need to discuss this on the article talk page as to why we should ignore strong consensus. ''  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is happening here
Do you really believe that any inteligent person believes in the fallacy that you don't let people cut off the word 'PSEUDOscientific' of the text referring to the completely scientific principle of Inteligent Design because it has a "strong sourcing" behind it, and not because the atheist/agnostic pseudoscientific 'consensus' of you guys simply disagrees that it is a scientific principle? Isn't wikipedia "impartial"? The term is "not popular" to Behe and his suporters because they, of course, reject this nonsense and it is an abject nonsense to call 'pseudoscientific' a principle which is believed by many important scientists (including many from all over the world) like Stephen Meyer, William A. Dembski, Philip E. Johnson, John Angus Campbell and which actually belongs to science. And do you really think you need to say that the use of the noun 'pseudoscientific' to describe their point of view is not "popular" among them? Or you believe it should be, if they believe they are right?! So you have the authority to decide that all of them believe in a 'pseudoscientific' principle because you don't agree on that and, therefore, everybody in wikipedia has to agree on that. You can even believe that it is "pseudoscientific" but not do all of this that you are doing. I think this site should be called "the pseudofree enciclopedia where only those who believe that nothing created and directed the universe and it's entire functioning are free to edit posts related to it, and the rest must agree, wanting or not". You can even say, IF IT'S TRUE, that the majority of the scientific comunity disagrees on Inteligent Design and on Professor Michael Behe, but not to impose that it is pseudoscientific because you don't agree on that and as if it was already proved, objectly, even if all the scientists of the world rejected that. If it is meant to be impartial and neutral, people should only put 'principle of the Inteligent Design, considered scientific by some and pseudoscientific by others'. Can you prove that wikipedia agrees and has to agree with mainstream science? It has to agree with mainstream media and the political establishment of many countries aswell? It doesn't recognize that theories, theses and principles who are not believed by mainstream science MAY be truth? It doesn't recognize that people have the right to express even that they have the possibility of being truth in Wikipedia? Please, you don't let people put even that the principle of the Inteligent Design is considered pseudoscientific (without saying that it is considered scientific by some, which would already be wrong), instead that it is pseudoscientific! Anyone who reads this text is able to know the person who wrote it disagrees on Professor Behe and Inteligent Design. Or maybe, by the founding principles and rules of Wikipedia, it can only allows visions completely aligned with certain non-objective points of view in texts and, if that's the true, I would like if you proved to me, and I would prontly quick being envolved directly in an war against this stupidity of evolutionist censorship. PedrodAV (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not completely read the above, but please see WP:PSCI, WP:ABIAS, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)