User talk:Coldhardfactsonly

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

July 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Creationism, 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) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been reverted twice, I strongly suggest that you take this to the talk page and try to convince others you are right. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Creationism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really must stop now

Just to make sure you understand that if you remove empirical again you will probably be blocked. I've raised the issue at the talk page and at WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if you think there is an issue with text and your bold edit is reverted, do not re-insert it, instead discuss things on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you have allowed your dogmatism to prevent you from being honest about what is and is not true regarding scientific investigation so that you either cannot comprehend that empirical evidence is observable evidence, or that you do not care - when all that I have atgtempted to do is make the page more accuratein it'sstatements about science.I don't know why you're so afraid or ignorant. It's sad and shameful that you threaten to block someone for correcting an inaccuracy. I feel certain that if you believed that triangles are square, you'd threaten someone who corrected you. Wiki needs toclean house if people are blockingeditors for correcting scientifically incorrectstatements about what empirical science is. It will remain a poor source of information needing much help until at least that day. I could not care about the future of Wiki if people rule it out of ignorance and determination to define things incorrectly because they feel threatened. I cannot imagine why you are so afraid of accuracy. It makes no sence. I have discovered there is no intellect behind the work here and do not want to waste my time trying to convince anyone that grass is green. So, the most important thing for you is ofcourse, that you go screw yourself and close my account.Coldhardfactsonly (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]