User talk:Jinx69
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
June 2012[edit]
Re your edit to Richard Dawkins [1] Jim1138 (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Luc Montagnier bio[edit]Please don't remove sourced content. If you don't trust the BBC to be correct, you can check the Nobel prize website, you'll find that Montagnier and Barré-Sinoussi were awarded with the prize "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus". --Six words (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Abiogenesis with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey[edit]Welcome back Jinxie. Except you're evading a block. :). Lucky for us RationalWiki keeps track of you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) August 2012[edit]
 This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Evolution with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tgeairn (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Talkback[edit] Message added 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tgeairn (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent edits[edit]
August 2012[edit]
Notification[edit]Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is Jinx69 trying to break 3RR by proxy?. Thank you. GedUK 12:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 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. EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC) You are contacting the wrong parties[edit]I didn't add the notice, and neither did Ikanreed. EdJohnston did[2], if you wish to discuss the matter please discuss it with him. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC) December 2012[edit]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. Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)  {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Reason for block[edit] Jinx69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Bringing balance to articles is a NECESSITY. The atheism religion is PATHETIC and can not allow even minor criticism of cult leaders (Dawkins) even with the relevant links. Decline reason: Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your campaign against atheism. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I was going to provide the links to two of Dawkins friends confirming he could NOT answer the question. He is the worlds unofficial spokesperson for neodarwinian theory which says all life came about by random mutation+natural selection. He is asked for such an example of mutation. He can NOT answer. This is significant. The public SHOULD know this. The atheism religion is PATHETIC. Want the links? Jinx69 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC) http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/02/08/the-richard-dawkins-incident/ So what did happen? I’ll again let Glenn’s words tell the story. Having viewed the unedited video and listened to the audio, I concur with him 100%, as I did then: I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question. Here is the relevant transcript: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199807/0117.html Gillian sent a copy the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a freind of mine. He sent the tape to me. I have just heard it tonight. I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Here is the relevant transcript: WP:V and WP:NPOV.
The atheism religion is synonymous with scientific ignorance and utter UTTER gullibility- Richard Dawkins depends on this in his books-and he gets it SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy. Mutation+selection is (allegedly) responsible for every living thing on the planet that is and ever was (whales, giraffes, worms, ants, caterpillars, brachiosaurus, t-rex, eagles, chimpanzees and mankind) sharing a common ancestor with a prokaryotic cell 3.5 billion years ago. Natural selection can only act on whats available and REDUCES genetic variation so it comes down to what is the source of NEW genetic information. NDT says copying MISTAKES during DNA replication (mutation). Dawkins is asked for one such example. He can not answer. This is significant. The public NEEDS to know this (or not if one is Acroterion). Jinx69 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
If you want me to review some literature cite ONE and one only. I love atheists. I will do it for them. Just ONE. For you ;);) Jinx69 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request[edit]Jinx69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Have provided the NPOV and V links for the PROPOSED edit. Blatant censorship Jinx69 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: Not putting your personal view on Wikipedia is not censorship; it is following policy. Please read the policies linked above by the blocking admin and also read WP:NOR and WP:GREATWRONGS. KillerChihuahua 02:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Evolution[edit]If you aren't willing to forgo using evolution-related articles as a soapbox, you may be blocked for a longer period if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The scientific ignorance of the editors of some articles is ASTOUNDING. Jinx69 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC) January 2013[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Jinx69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Commented on talk page of abiogenesis about the unscientific nature of opening statement pointing out the complete absence of any underlying scientific evidence and suggested in the talk page to make scientifically correct the opening statement. Was about to reply to the user who asked a question there, come back to my talk page and i am banned Decline reason: You're not banned yet, merely indefinitely blocked - but based on my review of your attitude and edits, the ban might just be a better idea. Not only are you pushing some uncited interpretation and trying to force your preferred versions into article contray to sourcing and consensus, you're actively using personal attacks against those who rightfully remove your ridiculous soapboxing. This is a collaborative project and not a place to push your views against consensus. You were unblocked once with the expectation that your actions would change - clearly you have been shown enough good faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Jinx69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Read below Decline reason: I see nothing below that convinces me you understand the reason for your block, nor do I see even the most trivial attempts to recognize and adjust the deficiencies in your communication style. The text below shows you have simply used the opportunity to continue your content dispute and personal attacks on other editors. I can't see any reason to think unblocking would be ideal. Kuru (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I am not sure if editors of wikipedia realise this but life has never been observed (EVER) to come from non life. I say this because my concern is with the scientifically ignorant (which does not matter except that it is the scientifically ignorant who are editing the pages which they, based on this experience have ZERO knowledge of) view that the abiogenesis page conveys. My edits are based on good faith and (attempting -with GREAT resistance) to bring the scientifically accurate view to the lay public. I request unban so i can balance some articles, with the relevant literatures (or lack there of concerning abiogenesis). I innately feel that the abiogenesis page is edited by Richard Dawkins fans whos only 'knowledge' of science is based on Richard Dawkins books. This is concerning from the scientific perspective which is why i tried to edit abiogenesis. Jinx69 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If you mean regarding abiogenesis a reliable source of a process that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED and runs contrary to the only known fundamental tenet of biology (biogenesis)? This is impossible obviously but any university biology teacher will be able to tell anyone interested. One could email any university and ask them if interested. I care not of someones lack of knowledge on the topic EXCEPT when they are portraying a disgustingly incorrect scientific view of the subjectJinx69 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That indirect evidence can't be used to hypothesis what happened? Thank you. That is the kind of wording i would be looking to add given that it is and will remain FOREVER (the origin of life was a one off event, man can never travel in the past to observe the origin of life) a HYPOTHESIS (a starting set of ideas/assumptions by which to progress to OBSERVATION which after repeated OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION one could formulate a THEORY about OBSERVED processes) BUT not even that much given the ruckus it causes. Just remove the fact-by-assertion claim. BTW there is another source that makes a claim to the origin of species and mankind on earth (Genesis 1:1-31)Jinx69 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My concern is with the complete disregard for science by those editing articles on which their only knowledge of the subject is talk origins and Richard Dawkins books. Jinx69 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We've created simple cells, LIAR we've demonstrated all the needed components for basic self-replicating genetic material can be made inorganically LIAR. My concern again is with people who are either intentionally LYING or base their scientific 'knowledge' off Richard Dawkins books and how they are the ones editing the abiogenesis article. Please bring science to the public and not ones personal religious beliefs/opinions. Thank you for the unblock.Jinx69 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis_has_never_been_observed Straight from an evolutionary biology propaganda source. There is other sources i could reference but i do not even bother anymore. If one was genuinely interested they could contact a university in their area via phone or email and ask them. Jinx69 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA To a Dawkins fan it IS a reliable source. This is good for a mocking http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21 Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal types seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate grades or intermediate forms between different types are detectable Again if one wants to know re the myth of spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis one could contact any number of research institutes.Jinx69 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to one version of the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis1, 2, 3 this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed4, 5. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that ‘activated’ ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA6, 7, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts So they got some RNA PYRMIDINES, 2 of the 4 bases (not purines) this literature proves spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is a MYTH. Full literature costs 32$ only the abstract. This is why wiki articles need to be made scientifically accurateJinx69 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Friendly notice- this is your last unblock request, so use it wisely[edit]Because you are again requesting unblock, I have restored your previous unblock requests to the talk page. Since you have made several unblock requests already, none of which offered any evidence that your way of editing Wikipedia would become less disruptive if you were unblocked, this will be your last unblock request- when it is fairly reviewed, if you are not unblocked, I will disable your talk page access. If you have anything more to say about the reasons for your block and your plans for future editing, I wanted to give you an opportunity to say it before your talk page access is disabled. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Please note i edit wiki articles based on science and the edits are reverted based on scientific lack of knowledge. Jinx69 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
And i get accused of 'soapboxing'? AHAHAHAHAHAH I posted the links where his friend confirmed him failing to answer the question and he had another article on his website where he (once again) failed to answer it. Mutation rate analysis alone proves neo-darwinian myth never happened. Could link literature but not sure people actually care. Anyway this is about my A/c getting unlocked Jinx69 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
ArbCom unblock appeal
[edit]The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)