User talk:Robben salter

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. The Crying Orc 09:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. The Crying Orc 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. The Crying Orc 09:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New user
Hi, I realize you're a new user, but please don't place notices about how you dislike a page right on it. If you have a problem, please take it to the talk page, and discuss specific examples. Or try making some changes yourself, but be aware, that people may revert your edits as biased too. Also, as The Crying Orc has pointed out, you have violated the WP:3RR rule, which says don't make more than three reversions to an article in one day. So please don't revert the comments again without discussion. Thanks. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey pat...
I apologize for breaking that rule...

I'm new, and got a little to hot-headed...

The article is slanted in such a way, as to make evolution seem the only logical conclusion... which, if one actually researched any of these issues, one might question that assumption more carefully...

My goal in editing the page was not to destroy the existing information, which was accurate, but to re-word it to be unbiased (or at least fair, and biased)

So that the general reader would not be lead to a conclusion on a purely emotional arguement...

However, Nothing I wrote was untrue...

Any way, since I'm new, and have no desire to break further rules, I'm going to leave the article alone...

It's my assertion that the majority of editors here have a predisposition towards darwinian thinking, and many state they are biased towards atheisim...

I suggest that we do not allow our bias to distort actual fact...

Also, the article says that proponets of I.D don't believe in natural selection!

Which is totally inaccurate! (Dog breeders have used artificial selection to get new breeds of dog, by editing the already present genetic information, as nature does, but this does not explain the origin of the animals genetic information)

This needs to be fixed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robben salter (talk • contribs)
 * No problem; it happens to the best of us. As for your first changes to the article, I don't see what the problem was with them; I would go ahead an redo them, without adding the bit in parentheses on your last edit. It was the stuff afterwards that was no good. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Peachtree City, Georgia
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Roswell native 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)