User talk:Sepahbash

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Exaptation, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Exaptation was changed by Sepahbash (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-09-13T15:05:44+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Objections to evolution, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Specified Complexity
Please don't edit war. When a change is reverted, the next step is to discuss it with other editors on the talk page. Re-reverting and making vague threats in your edit summaries is inappropriate. Your changes are currently giving undue weight to specified complexity, which does not have scientific acceptance. Therefore, according to policy, we can't include it as though it were a major argument against Evolution without providing the notable scientific response. If you'd like to discuss this further, please use the talk page. Thank you. Jess talk&#124;edits 16:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

this proposed naturalistic explanation for the origination of information is regarded as extremely problematic.
I was about to revert this myself - you can't have a paragraph saying that as though Wikipedia is making the statement. If you've got evidence that this is what mainstream science says about this, then fine, you can provide those references. But the way it was worded before your revert, it wasn't backed up by the rest of the paragraph. Please discuss this on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for using Varharan as a sockpuppet account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash;Kww(talk) 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Martin Fletcher. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)