User talk:Standinguptoit

There have been many scientifically untenable assertions added to the mutation article. For example, one has been that mutations to duplicate genes are transformed over time to produce information which defines new features in organisms. There is no evidence to support this claim whatsoever. This article is related to science, not faith. We must not allow speculations of what could have happened or faith statements about what does happen to be postulated as scientific knowledge. The article must not make assertions without observable, testable, and repeatable evidence to support them, else we do a disservice to science and posit faith as science.

I am new to Wikipedia, so please have patience with me. Porivde me with instructions on how to go about editing a page to make corrections without causing a fuss. My intention is not to cause trouble, but only to insure that the information provided is accurate and supportable bty scientific evidence, and not merely opinion. Thank you.

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Mutation has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Mauler90 talk 06:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Mutation constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 07:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: changes
Hi Matthew, I don't have time at the moment to review your edit thoroughly, but you haven't explained why you removed references. From the little I saw, the references were legitimate and reliable. I am sure some of your changes can be incorporated into the article; please give some time for your edit to be reviewed, instead of continuing to reinstate it. Unfortunately, your actions at present could cause you to be blocked.  Mae din\ talk 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to "Morphology (Biology)"
Your recent sudden changes to the Morphology (Biology) page seem inappropriate. The two references removed seemed to be very legitimate (Encyclopedia Britannica and Biology Online). Also, the sudden change of the article from clearly defining "shape, structure, colour, pattern" as aspects of morphology, to instead beginning the article with a lengthy description of why these words "are not morphological" is a very large and sudden reversal of definition, and so should be discussed thoroughly before being implemented. (FiverBeyond (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

Procedures
I hope you don't mind some suggestions since you may not yet be experienced here. It's always best to use an edit summary, but it's really essential when you make large changes, such as you did at Mutation. When User:Maedin reverted you, their edit summary was "why have references been removed?", and the next step to take would be to add a new section at Talk:Mutation with a brief explanation of why your edit is desirable. There is no reason to post at User talk:Maedin. We never display an email address for a couple of reasons: addresses are harvested by spammers or malcontents who can make the address unusable; all communication should be on-wiki where everyone can see it, unless some very unusual privacy reason arises. You should put your email address in your Preferences so other people can email you using "E-mail this user" on your user page, when rarely required. Bear in mind that edits are often reverted or changed, so editors need to patiently argue their case. There is an essay on this: WP:BRD which indicates that a bold edit is made; it is reverted; then it is discussed on the article talk page.

Please never edit war (which you are doing at the moment at Mutation). See WP:3RR which points out that edit warring leads to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)