Jinx69

Extended content

June 2012 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from A. E. Wilder-Smith. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Richard Dawkins. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Tgeairn (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Re your edit to Richard Dawkins [1] Jim1138 (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Please take note of WP:3RR before contributing to Richard Dawkins again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Welcome Hello, Jinx69, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tgeairn (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today! Luc Montagnier bio 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 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 Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Michael Behe. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to a Wikipedia article that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Evolution, you may be blocked from editing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Spontaneous generation, you may be blocked from editing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 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) This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Evolution, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Evolution 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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Jinx69. You have new messages at Tgeairn's talk page. 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 Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) August 2012 Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Evolution for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Though I do appreciate it when people just come clean and outright state they're trying to advocate for a specific agenda like that. It removes a lot of grey area. - Vianello (Talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Notification 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) Edit warring at Evolution Your recent editing history at Evolution 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. EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC) You are contacting the wrong parties 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 Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Christopher Hitchens, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You obviously don't seem to get our policies WP:V, WP:NPA, or WP:NPOV. As someone else commented, you will be a lot happier at Conservapedia.NawlinWiki (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)   Reason for block This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). 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. Jinx69 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I think it's possible you may not yet know enough about the science involved to form meaningful conclusions about it. Evolution is difficult to understand, but it not so difficult that a determined layperson can't manage it. It might make you less angry that some people think that evolution happens if you had a clearer understanding of what evolution is, and what evidence supports it. Would you like me to recommend a few books? Creationist books aren't a very good place to try to understand evolution, because, in general, they don't explain it very well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 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) Yes, that's what I meant. You are, of course, free to hold any opinions you choose, but I'm afraid that opinions that are supported by incorrect facts make you look a little silly. I have a lot of sympathy with you, because I, too, once held strong opinions about the incorrectness of evolution, based on understandings of science that were just totally incorrect. I never realized how ignorant I sounded to other people, and now, there are conversations I've had that I can't recall without cringing. It wasn't easy to understand the science, but I kept trying until I got it, and it really was worth the effort. My public library had a wide enough selection of books that I could tackle the problem from several angles without spending any money at all. But I notice that your username isn't one that a real fundamentalist Christian would choose. I've been very silly again, haven't I? You aren't even a real creationist, just a bored college student who's had a couple of beers and is looking for some entertainment on the Internet, am I right? There's probably something more entertaining out there. Did you know that Project Gutenberg has a whole collection of really old sex manuals? They are, I assure you, hilarious. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:57, 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) No, really, this isn't the best way for you to seek joy tonight. Go watch Doctor Who until you get sleepy, then call it an early night. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Unblock request This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). 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 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) I think it already warrents a perm ban again... he got WP:ROPE and well IMMEDIATELY went back to disruptive editing. [3][4][5][6] and talk page WP:SOAPBOXing [7] and [8]. — raekyt 22:12, 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 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). 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. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). 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) Any reliable sources that back up your assertions? — raekyt 11:25, 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 something has to be observed in order for it to be true? That indirect evidence can't be used to hypothesis what happened? Sources? — raekyt 11:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC) That something has to be observed in order for it to be true? I only care about SCIENCE (OBSERVABLE phenomena)-some people on wikipedia do not seem to think a dictionary is a good source for the definition of words, if one did think a dictionary is the place to look for the definition of words one could look up the definition of science and see words like OBSERVABLE TESTABLE REPEATABLE EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTAL. 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) Your opinions are better suited for editing at Conservapedia. — raekyt 12:04, 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) First, the Bible isn't science, and is fairy tail when it comes to reality and the origins of life. Abiogenesis, although obviously no one was around to observe it actually happen, there is MASSIVE amounts of anecdotal and indirect evidence to support the theories, more being discovered every day, and with genetic evidence a to a single common ancestor it's almost a forgone conclusion. Actually reproducing it in the lab, we're not the're yet, but that isn't impossible. We've created simple cells, we've demonstrated all the needed components for basic self-replicating genetic material can be made inorganically and with the available pre-life inorganic material that would of been available. No one is saying highly complex life like bacteria we have now was the first life, science says it was little more than a lipid bi-layer simple cell that encapsulated self-replicating RNA that can be selected for naturally. Bingo you got self-replicating pseudo-cells that get better over time via natural selection, not life yet, but eventually as they get more complex, sure. You're BIAS is clear as day, and you clearly are not educated in science because your claims about science and what is and isn't scientific are demonstrably false. — raekyt 12:16, 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) Instead of just personally attacking me by calling me a liar, where's the source to say I am? — raekyt 12:27, 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) Interesting choice, did you even bother to read it more than the first sentence? It's saying your argument is B.S. Also since it's not a reliable source, why not some of those? — raekyt 12:42, 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) No clue what your talking about for a "Dawkins fan", this is wikipedia, and we have sourcing standards. The 2007 hypothesis paper you linked too is interesting but ultimately has nothing to do with the discussion. It's clear that if you think this hypothesis supports your argument then you have either (a) not read it, or (b) do not understand it. The information you called me a liar for saying is from fairly recent papers, here's a 2009 paper [9]. — raekyt 13:03, 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) This is only one out of many papers, and they are of course doing real science here, acknowledging past failures. There's a multitude of ways you can get access to Science, either some services here, or *gasp* visiting a library. — raekyt 13:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Friendly notice- this is your last unblock request, so use it wisely 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) This is not me trying to engage you in conversation, but here is Dawkins's answer to your question about the long pause in that video. I'm still assuming that you are not really a creationist, for the reasons I mentioned before, but just in case you are, you might be curious to read it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:26, 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

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)