User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/August

Warning
Please do not warn me without first investigating my edits. By doing this, you have not assumed good faith, a policy that is set down in WP:AGF.

I am not vandalizing, I have backed up all of my edits in the proper talk pages. Please do not be trigger happy. Shicoco (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't vandal well referenced sections and you won't get warned. You're not the first person who thinks critisism sections on Creationist propganda and pointing out their lies and missrepresentations of science should be removed, and you won't be the last. Please review Objections to evolution. Also before you violate more rules I suggest you contiune on the talk page and if WP:CONSENSUS is reached for the deletion of that section it then could be deleted. — raeky ( talk 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please listen. The information in that section is full of logical fallacies and falsehoods. I am a Christian, but I don't want to see that kind of nonsense on a creationist page either. The content in that section IS NOT objective. Shicoco (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is "logical fallacies and falsehoods" then find a reliable source to back up your claim. Use the talk page and consensus to get your edits approved, just taking the approach of deleting content is NOT going to get your point across and likely you'll end up banned if you keep up the edit war. — raeky ( talk 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did use the talk page. Please refer to WP:IAR. For now, I will edit the section, and make it objective. I would ask that you help improve wikipedia by agreeing to its removal. Like I said, it's not that it's anti-creationist...I'm used to that, it's that it's blatant nonsense. See also WP:NPV Shicoco (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd advise you not to edit the section but propose changes on the talk page and WP:IAR does NOT apply in this case. If you actually took 10 seconds to look the section RIGHT before yours on the talk page is a vote dealing with the current version of this section you wish to whitewash. Due to the strong wp:consensus in keeping it in it's current form, I would caution you in your edits on that section to not go against the consensus without extensively backing up your edits with wp:reliable sources. — raeky ( talk 04:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Shicoco (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''I have not broken the three edit rule. Please stop warning me.'' Shicoco (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see transitional fossils
Also, saying that the term "evolutionist" is a way for creationists to brand is a hasty generalization, which is a form of a logical fallacy. Shicoco (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read up on it. — raeky ( talk 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Shicoco (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic
Please stay on topic on the talk page. We can talk about other things here. Regarding modern usage of evolutionism for one, the fact that evolutionist is rarely used has no source. Secondly, it's the Institute for Creation Science that uses it for those purposes. Assuming every Christian does for that purpose is still a hasty generalization. Shicoco (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your warning for a talk page is all about because reverting my edits there would be a big mistake. You need to step back and think is your activity going to actually change these pages or just get you banned? These pages are watched and edited by MANY people who will do what I'm doing and saying what I'm saying. Look through the talk page archives for MANY examples of people just like you who have tried to introduce supernatural points of view into these science articles. Theres plenty of creationist pages out there, we don't troll them, and they don't troll us. These pages content that you wish to remove exists under the umbrella of consensus, you, as a single editor, does not override the majority consensus on them. If you want to play on the science pages you need to get peer reviewed wp:reliable sources to back up your claims, and show a scientific consensus that satisfies Due. Until then expect repeated reverts and warns from the editors of these pages. — raeky ( talk 06:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quit assuming I'm going to revert your edits. I am not trying to introduce supernatural anything into an article. I have found LEGITIMATE neutrality errors and LEGITIMATE logical fallacies. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia in an objective manner. I don't care if the error is found on an article about evolution, creation, or Michael Jackson's mother. I'm going to dispute it. You have made the mistake of assuming that I'm doing this to try to change the views on evolution. I do not care about the views on evolution. I agree, it is supported by much observation and is backed by most of the scientific community. What you did was make the mistake of seeing a person who doesn't support evolution edit the evolution article, and thinking the edit was an anti evolution or a pro creation edit. I'm sorry if I came off like this, I truly am. I am in college, I am an English major, and I'm skilled in the art of rhetoric and I love weeding out logical fallacies. I have truly found errors in the two articles in dispute, and I ask that you help me in an objective manner. Weather it's deleting a section or amending it to make it fit in better with Wikipedia, I would like your THOUGHTFUL opinion. Remember, this has nothing to do with Evolution. Shicoco (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've found an error then show it with peer reviewed reliable sources, your opinion means nothing in these scientific articles. Back it up, prove it. Otherwise stop trolling these pages and my talk page, final warning. Also if you warn me again for something invalid you WILL be reported to the admin notice boards. — raeky ( talk 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The error is A LOGICAL ERROR. As in 2+2=3. For the LAST TIME, I want opinions on the neutrality. I DID NOT MISUSE A WARNING TEMPLATE. Please read WP:TPG. You are to STAY ON TOPIC. "Plus I object to the term "evolutionist" it's a way for creationists to brand scientists/people under a false idea that evolution is a religion and that there are followers, evolutionists." IS NOT ON TOPIC. "Using the RfC isn't going to get this page to ignore the universal and unquestioned scientific communities support of evolution." IS NOT ON TOPIC. The topic is whether or not changes should be made. I do not want your opinion anymore, as you have shown a pro-evolution attitude, and not a neutral attitude. Shicoco (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, prove it, also if you haven't noticed an admin on his own has warned you about your warnings and commented on your RfC, I'd take heed of his warnings if I was you. — raeky ( talk 06:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove it. It's not something that has to be proven. It's something to be discussed, to see how serious others think it, and what we should do about it. Please stop hindering me. Shicoco (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't really understand how wikipedia works. So have fun with your little meaningless quest then. — raeky ( talk 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Shicoco (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ok
im done now those are old i wont anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan from south park (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for catching the vandalism to my talk page.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ladbrokes
I can supply proof of many Ladbrokes accounts restricted to tiny stakes. Please let me know where I should send this evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.31.132 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source to back up your edits. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)