User talk:Rc brooks

April 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Intelligent design has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Intelligent design constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Intelligent design. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Baegis (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Intelligent design. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not Vandalism. The claims in the intelligent design article are incorrect, incomplete and biased. I would expect more out of your organization. Why don't you evaluate the article objectively. There is a debate in the scientific community.

"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience." Is incorrect and is debated... hence the debate.