User talk:67.150.255.246

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] David Berlinski

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

In addition, your insertion of editorial comments into the article is inappropriate. As for the fact that ID is creationism, this has been established by many sources, include the Kitzmiller case. Guettarda 18:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In RESPONSE to the above, the fact of the matter is that the comments from Mark were merely opinion without factual merit. They were ad hominem. And just because a few anti-ID sources and a biased judge in the Kitmiller case confuse ID with "creationism" doesn't prove that it is. I suggest you READ the ID literature before jumping to conclusions based on biased sources.

I've modified things slightly- although ID is creationist it is a proper subset of creationism and therefore ID is more specific in this case. However, as to your other claims- the Perakh matter is sourced and it says that Perakh is a critic of the movement. To add your own personal analysis or to overly emphasize the opinion nature of the comment would be not a neutral point of view. As to Kitzmiller- the judge in question was a George Bush appointee, a life long republican and a personal friend of Rick Santorum. It is very hard to see how he is a "biased judge" who cofused matters. Indeed, a large part of Jones's decision was based on what ID literature says such as where the previous drafts of Pandas and People had "creationism" in the place of "intelligent design." Similarly, William Dembski one of the major proponents of ID has said that I is nothing but the Logos of John's gospel in terms of information theory. Even if you think Jones was biased and even if you personally the disagree with his decision the bottom line is that a US court decision easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. JoshuaZ 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've been reported for a 3RR violation on David Berlinski and have been blocked for 24 hours. When you return, please try to find a compromise on the talk page, and review the 3RR policy carefully so you know how to avoid violating it in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)