User talk:Storaaby

April 2021
Your recent editing history at David Berlinski shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE
Please take a few minute to read through the WP:FRINGE page. Adding the description "psuedoscientific" to intelligent design is both accurate and relevant. Wikipedia strives to present information in a neutral manner based on how it is described in secondary sources in relative weight. ID as a scientific theory about the origins of life is discredited by a (very) large majority of scientists in that area. Yes, there are scientists that believe in the theory and support it. That's not questioned, but in general, it's considered a psuedoscientific believe. Fringe views like that should be accurately labeled as such when mentioned in other articles. It doesn't mean labeling it every single time it's used in an article, generally the first time in the lead and then again in the body (more often if the article is long and the mentions are far apart). You're welcome to discuss this on the talk page for Berlinski's article, but please read some of the prior discussions around this.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)