User talk:74.67.180.75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Objections to evolution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Edit revert on Objections to evolution article

Hi - I'm not trying to change the POV of Objections to evolution. (And, I'm sort of offended at your presumption that I was trying to, frankly.)

I don't care if you were offended. You are presenting a POV that has no suport. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in my HTML comment, I commented out the final sentence in that paragraph primarily because the cited PDF document referenced for the sentence does not speak to the claims of the sentence.

You are flatly wrong, but most Creationists are. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability guideline, a source needs to be provided that backs up the sentence. Something that actually outlines that a consensus of the scientific community rejects EACH of the arguments mentioned in the paragraph. (Since the sentence gives claim that they reject EACH of the arguments by it's wording, "these arguments...".).

POV. Who cares. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you brought up the POV topic, the sentence should also probably be rephrased as to not be so broad. Something like "However, these arguments are generally not accepted by members of the scientific community." would probably be much more accurate and neutral since I'm sure that are some biologists/members of the scientific community that accept some, if not all, of the arguments discussed in the paragraph.

.06% believe in your crap. That's hardly anyone. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a troll. I just opened that cited PDF document looking for an outside source showing that "(arguments based on objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance) have been rejected by biologists and are not accepted by the scientific community" and that PDF provided no such actual evidence of that. I'm sure there are other sources that do so (I'm not a young-earther) -- it's just that one needs to be provided to throw that sentence in that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.180.75 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007

You are a troll, do not troll my page, and any further vandalism of articles will get you banned. Learn to fucking sign your comments too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only are you a troll, but after doing a traceroute, it's nice to see you've returned VacuousPoet. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Note on the above: Per Orangemarlin's less than civil response here, and trying to avoid a flame war, I've requested assistance from an editor [1]. 74.67.180.75 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey VacuousPoet, I'm sure you won't be around one I complete the sockpuppetry request. Good luck dude. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey again VacuousPoet. Isn't it curious that someone with 1 edit to his name knows how to do all of this? I'm pretty smart, and it took me awhile to figure out how to diffs. Interesting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addn'l note on the above: Per the advice received from my request for editor assistance, I've filed an incident on the administrator's noticeboard [2]. Additionally, per Orangemarlin's continued accusations that I'm a sock puppet for VacuousPoet, I don't know how exactly I can provide definite proof to counter his persistent charges - but allow me once again to re-iterate that I'm not. Counter to his latest argument that because I actually how to get around in MediaWiki, therefore I must be a sockpuppet ... I use a private MediaWiki instance extensively at my workplace. And the reason there are so few edits tied to this IP address is because, as I mentioned in my request for editor assistance, my ISP recently changed my IP address.