User talk:Renamed user 9kdhdhu877

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
I reversed your David Berlinski unedit back to what I put in there. The original text was not neutral, and source #2 didn't support the sentence is was sited for. Your edit back was a support of the original bias on the article, and therefore not neutral. I understand the desire the troll Wikipedia looking to smear anyone who disagrees with evolution. The prolific nature of such trolls is the primary reason why I don't support Wikipedia monetarily. If you don't like the more neutral statement, suggest another neutral sentence, don't try and add the evolutionist bias back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.94.79 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I did not notice the "bias" or "dishonesty" as you put it. I am only a new WP:RCP and I did not look at the source as my computer prevented me from doing so. Thank you for notifying me but your usage of the word "smear" and "dishonesty" gave me a red flag. If I were you when you edited it, I would've just used "WP:NPOV and improper use of the provided citation." Your summary sounded like denial. But I am sorry and thank you for notifying me of my error. I will take note of this. -- Min ima list  (Let's talk.) 09:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether the version he prefers or the one you restored is the more neutral is not something I care to address. the article just gave me a headache.  However, the IP has no business calling you a troll or even referencing what your motivation was.  There is no need for you to apologize to him.  Neither version seems all that neutral to me, but in any case it is not a cause to personally attack you.  Keep up the good work. John from Idegon (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern, John from Idegon. -- Min ima list  (Let's talk.) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a rewrite but that's beyond my skills and duties here in Wikipedia. -- Min ima list  (Let's talk.) 12:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry minimalist, didn't mean to offend you, but Wikipedia is famous for knee-jerk revisions to cancel any edits that doesn't promote certain popular biases. John - escalating a supposed personal attack with a threat isn't exactly the high road, and further cements the reputation Wikipedia has for majority censorship and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.94.79 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Help please
Hello, thank you for your welcome message. The IPv6 user is continuing to add biased and unsourced material to Naan Vazhavaippen and I can't keep reverting it. I did place a warning on his talk page. Take a look please? 212.139.240.232 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw an edit of his on the Special:RecentPages and indeed, it is biased and unsourced but you used the wrong warning. I gave him a caution. Let's see if he continues. -- Min ima list  (Let's talk.) 13:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
— Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 11:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User Talk warnings
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, and when they do it is taken as a sign that they have read them. Please stop reverting at User talk:91.125.152.104 and putting them back. Squinge (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)