User talk:Peace237

This is Peace237's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Hello

Hello and welcome!--Peace237 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

'ello

Hey, I noticed you welcoming a few folks. That's great! Since we want to keep the same welcome message that they got, it's better if you use {{subst:welcome}}. Thanks! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The theory of" Evolution

Hi there Peace237, I noticed you recently added some content (found here) to Evolution, which was quickly removed. I would like to point you to the page Why is evolution described as a fact, even though it is a theory?. I think this may address some of your concerns. Thanks! --Hojimachong^talk 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a thoery and should NEVER BE EXPRESSED AS FACT UNTIL IT IS PROVEN

Hojimachong, I noticed on your user page you "clean up after... the incompetent" which I assume is how you view me. I do not appreciate that. Back to Evolution (I am a creationist), and Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such. Likewise Christianity and creationism are , not taught, but displayed as Religions meaning that they are not "fact". If any one would like to add to this please do so otherwise i will probably keep on changing "evolution" to "the theory of evolution" as it should be.--Peace237 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace237, I do not view you as incompetent in any way. I simply like the quote, as it describes what it is like cleaning up after blatant vandals (the ones who add "poop" to every page they come across). It is a common misconception to believe that everything referring to evolution refers to the same thing, but in fact, there are two definitions. The biological observation of evolution (microevolution) has been observed in labs. Furthermore, consensus on the articles talk page has decided to keep the heading the way it is. The article which describes the theory itself is found at Modern evolutionary synthesis. Sorry if my user page offended you :P. --Hojimachong^talk 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to bear the three revert rule in mind, if the last sentence really does describe your intention. Skittle 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect the 3 RR rule as i said to ArthurWeaseley |here.--Peace237 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you view them as blatant lies, you should take it up with your schoolboard. It always ruffles feathers and raises awareness for your views ('specially if you live in Kansas :P). Just a thought. --Hojimachong^talk 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm glad to hear you're aware of the 3RR. I just wanted to make sure you weren't about to stumble into a problem :-P Skittle 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evolution/FAQ

I removed your edits to Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is a talk page, not an article. Please do not use talk pages to debate topics; if you would like to propose changes to an article, do it on the article's talk page (for instance, Talk:Evolution. Please let me know if I may of assistance. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be an article but is definitely NOT NUETRAL.--Peace237 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to place your entire comment in boldface. The neutral point of view policy applies to articles only. The FAQ is not written as encyclopedic content; rather, it is written to answer questions repeatedly brought up on Evolution's talk page. It is not designed to give a full treatment of the topic; that is the purpose of the article itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it helps get my point across if you don't mind.--Peace237 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that the FAQ was neutral. I said the neutral point of view policy applies to articles only, not to a FAQ for Wikipedia contributors. You will find that dishonesty will not serve you well at Wikipedia, since both your comments and mine are preserved precisely in the edit histories. Please limit your boldface usage to less than half of your comment, at most. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the FAQ back and moved your comment to Talk:Evolution. If you really want to move the FAQ again, you probably should seek consensus to do so on Talk:Evolution. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theory

Since i do not want to break the 3 RR rule I will leave it be but know this, Evolution is just a theory, it has both evidence for it and against it which is why is not fact. So please do not do anything like this in the future. Thank you. --Peace237 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I do not want to argue with your beliefs (you seems to be a Creationist) and you have of course all the rights to have them, but an encyclopedia should stands to a NPOV. Omitting the contentious term "theory" sounds a good compromise between you and those who accept evolution as a scientific fact (which I do). After all, the text does not say "evolution is a fact", why should it say "evolution is a theory"? That would be POV. Regards. ArthurWeasley 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not make an edit war out of this I will not add any "the theory of" to any article, but talk pages are fair game. As for evolution I stand by the common stance that since it has not been sufficiently proven to the global community it is still just a theory. Do not take this the wrong way I respect that you hold Evolution as fact, but when i have to learn about this, in my view, a lie in my face, it really pisses me off, just like the "in god we trust" and similar phrases in the public domain might(I do not know) piss someone like you off.--Peace237 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidences for evolution are overwhelming from biological studies to geological and paleontological ones, but that's not really the point, is it? The wikipedia evolution text as it is now does neither say that evolution is a theory nor that it is a fact and therefore adopt a neutral point of view as it should. I certainly do not get pissed off by seeing "in god we trust" in the public domain as I respect other people beliefs, unless someone get too adamant in converting me to ideas I don't believe. If you do respect others people beliefs as you said above, you shouldn't be bothered by the evolution article and wouldn't try to modify the text to suits your point of view. Regards. ArthurWeasley 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you did, thats why I put "I do not know" in parenthesis. I was merely trying to let you see things from my standpoint by saying something that you might relate to. And I am bothered by the Evolution article because it states evolution like it is fact, and evidence for evolution is hardly overwhelming there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Some advice: You should come down from your pedestal, it does not take a genius to figure out your mindset "as I respect other people beliefs", you sound like a snob I respect other peoples beliefs too!--Peace237 03:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if by "plenty" you mean "none". I fear you have been lied to by dishonest people about evolution. thx1138 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you! I have not been lied to. Evolution is a false theory that should be contested.--Peace²³⁷ 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "evidence for evolution is hardly overwhelming there is plenty of evidence to the contrary". This is demonstrably untrue. I assumed good faith on your part, and figured you had been lied to be one of the many con-men who make a living spreading lies about evolution. thx1138 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only answer to that would have to be NO!--Peace²³⁷ 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of Twinkle

This edit was an inappropriate use of Twinkle; it should not be used in content disputes. Not only should you not engage in edit wars, but using an automated tool is definitely a no; you should use an informative edit summary, or ideally, discuss the matter on the talk page instead. If you continue to use automated tools in content disputes, the functionality will be removed from your account. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a warning? I assume it is. I like using twinkle because of how fast it is compared to typing everything out. And I found my use of twinkle appropriate, but since you're probably an administrator I will not contest it. By the way were you in a good mood when you posted this because your words make it sound like you were upset (the functionality will be removed from your account) or is it normal for all administrators to post such strict warnings after one "offense". --Peace237 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough about evolution please!

Sorry if I used twinkle inappropriately. And please people stop posting things about evolution I personally have had enough. Thank you.--Peace237 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have had enough, you should consider not making edits to evolution-related pages and leaving evolution-related comments for other users. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I have had enough of talking about it. And do not try to convince me to give up some of my editing privileges! And I have just as much to say about Evolution as other users. So please do not try this again.--Peace²³⁷ 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor

Regarding your edits to the Talk:Evolution/FAQ, please do not mark edits which subtantially alter the meaning or intent of the page, or are likely to be controversial as minor. For more information about which edits to mark as minor, please see Help:Minor edit. Some people may take marking substantive edits as minor as an attempt to hide the edits, and thus bordering on vandalism. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page, User_talk:TeaDrinker, if you have any questions. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 04:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Black_boy_book.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Black_boy_book.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you!(Sarcastically)--Peace²³⁷ 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Knowledge seeker

DO NOT HOUND OTHER USERS! You appear to have constantly battled me over evolution without just cause. If you do not believe me read the above posts. they clearly show you as the antagonist in relatively small matters. So please leave me alone and leave my editing to myself. Thank you. --Peace²³⁷ 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAQ

I moved the FAQ because it was on a talk page when the FAQ itself is not a talk page. So I put it on the article section so people could use the talk section for its intended purpose, to talk. I did not move the FAQ because I really wanted to or because I wanted to somehow exact revenge. So I will now undo your editing and make the page so it makes sense.--Peace²³⁷ 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and I better understand your concern. However I think there is substantial opposition to the move, so perhaps it would be better to discuss the move on Talk:Evolution and try and reach consensus with other editors. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?

Hi I would like to know what the hell you are talking about? I wish you would have enabled your email address so I could send you an email but nooo I have to resort to this.. I don't even know what the American Liberty League so please don't send me stuff telling me that I vandalized a page that I've never even heard of.. Also I'd like to know how changing information (which I did NOT do) on a PUBLIC encyclopedia is considered vandalism.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazoom (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page for my response--Peace²³⁷ 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]