91.125.244.172

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Behe. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In what way is removing the disparaging, unnecessary and subjective adjective 'pseudoscientific' from the introduction of the article disruptive? I didn't change it to anything. 91.125.244.172 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Michael Behe, you may be blocked from editing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't violate the neutral point of view. In fact, whoever insists on putting in the term "pseudoscientific" is inserting bias and commentary. All I did was remove bias. 91.125.244.172 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV in this case means describing his views as they generally are in reliable sources. It would be pushing a POV that his views have scientific acceptance beyond a very small number. Hence, the term is correctly used here. Please see the article talk page for the discussions on this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Michael Behe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

---