User talk:Vrence

December 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You don't appear to understand the problems with your editing, so let me try to explain: I don't know if any of this will help you understand the problem, but you are not going to be unblocked if you cannot recognize it and cannot make a convincing commitment to not pursuing your line of argument further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory" in scientific terms and seem to think it just means an idea, speculation, a bit of a guess. But we have an article here that explains it well, Scientific theory, which says "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". Gravity is still a theory, but I'm sure you won't be arguing that our article about it should give equal space to people who claim that apples fall upwards off the trees.
 * You say that the Creation–evolution controversy article is not "fair". Well, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be "fair" to all people with competing ideas - certainly not in a "give everyone an equal say" kind of way that I think you're suggesting. No, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the balance of academic opinion as published in reliable sources -- and that is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution as opposed to creationism.
 * You say "You people don't take the time to listen to the argument!", but you have not presented an argument that has not been done to death and soundly demolished many many times before. We simply cannot re-run the entire creation vs evolution argument from scratch every time a creationist wants to challenge Wikipedia's coverage of the subject - as far as academia and the actual evidence goes, it is settled, and we will not re-examine it without some significant new evidence published in reliable sources.
 * In one of your changes you added the completely unsourced claim "But there is also an equal amount of evidence for creationism", which is blatantly false. In reliable academic sources, there is precisely no scientific evidence for creationism that I've ever seen. The mere fact that you make this claim amply demonstrates that you are here to push a creationist view rather than to help us build an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's clearly defined WP:NPOV policy.


 * You say that you understand why you were blocked and what you did wrong. Now, please, tell us in your own words what was wrong in your edits. Show us that you really understand the reason of your block.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I did wrong was that I was trying to give, what I thought at a time, a fair view. Now I understand that Wikipedia is here to promote the most academically realistic ideas science has to offer. From now on, I will only promote the ideas that are scientifically accurate. Boing said Zebedee was talking about this and it really helped explain it clearer to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrence (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * How do you understand the WP:Verifiability policy? What do you think about the WP:Verifiability, not truth definition? Are you aware that you are not allowed to insert data into articles unless it can be verified in reliable sources, even if you are 100% sure it is true? Please, give a detailed answer.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (I believe "Verifiability not truth" was abandoned some time ago as having any real status, as it gave precedence to obviously-wrong sources - it remains as an old essay. Verifiability for true statements is, of course, still a policy, but simply being sourced can now be challenged - there are often untruths that become circulated and stick. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC))
 * No, I cannot, with 100 percent verifiability, say that the data I inserted is true. I did not state a viable source.