What are you?
We should meet somewhere off of wikipedia. What say you?
Miloserdia (
talk)
01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I reverted you on this, what did you feel needs sourcing? What is there is already sourced. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the talk page.... I agree with you.
the integrity and credibility of "Wikipedia" suffers EVERY TIME an article like this has this much BLATANT vitriol, venom, hate, bias, POV, and hysteria slopped all over it, by biased Darwinists with agendas....with the alibi of "majority view"
"neutrality" in wording and tone is more of a pillar of WP than even "majority view". Meaning that there still should be a semblance of objectivity and non-bias. "Pseudoscience" could be stated LATER ON, but not right in the intro...to poison the well.
They've been reverting good-faith edits. My re-wording is accurate and NEUTRAL... With no pro or con or taking sides either way, for the INTRO. "Pseudoscientific" should be stated that others say that. NOT WP itself.
there's so much POV in this article, it reads like a Darwinist blog on MySpace, rather than a neutral Encyclopedic article, that tries to show at least a semblance of objectivity in tone......
Anyway, if you want, check out what's been going on... at Revision history of Icons of Evolution 68.237.215.48 ( talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
What are you?
We should meet somewhere off of wikipedia. What say you?
Miloserdia (
talk)
01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I reverted you on this, what did you feel needs sourcing? What is there is already sourced. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the talk page.... I agree with you.
the integrity and credibility of "Wikipedia" suffers EVERY TIME an article like this has this much BLATANT vitriol, venom, hate, bias, POV, and hysteria slopped all over it, by biased Darwinists with agendas....with the alibi of "majority view"
"neutrality" in wording and tone is more of a pillar of WP than even "majority view". Meaning that there still should be a semblance of objectivity and non-bias. "Pseudoscience" could be stated LATER ON, but not right in the intro...to poison the well.
They've been reverting good-faith edits. My re-wording is accurate and NEUTRAL... With no pro or con or taking sides either way, for the INTRO. "Pseudoscientific" should be stated that others say that. NOT WP itself.
there's so much POV in this article, it reads like a Darwinist blog on MySpace, rather than a neutral Encyclopedic article, that tries to show at least a semblance of objectivity in tone......
Anyway, if you want, check out what's been going on... at Revision history of Icons of Evolution 68.237.215.48 ( talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)