User talk:Cadjones

January 2015

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mr Fink (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So should it be a subdivision of a category then??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadjones (talk • contribs)

No, you should refrain from engaging in inappropriate synthesis to make blatantly false accusations of Paleontology allegedly being an "atheist hoax."--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article was biased toward an Old Creation Theorist slant. I feel that the controversy of the science should be properly represented. If you'd like, I can change some of the verbiage? Cadjones (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

That the page is not an anti-science religious propaganda fluff piece glorifying Young Earth Creationism does not mean it is "biased." Please stop trying to reinsert your false accusations, and please call off your sockpuppet, User:Cadedral, unless you want both accounts to be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take personal offense to the term anti-science religious propaganda fluff piece. That, sir, is borderline hate speech in the context you have attempted to use it in. Cadedral is a personal friend residing in an entirely different country than I. He happens to also believe that all facets of Paleontology should be represented in the Paleontology article as properly cited pieces of evidence. And censoring the documented instances of fraud and scientific viewpoints of MILLIONS of Christians and YEC is irresponsible and only perpetuates the widely revered opinion that Wikipedia is a liberally biased engine. What you are doing is injecting your personal preference into science. Which is again, irresponsible. Cadjones (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

I don't care that you take personal offense to an accurate description of exactly what you want to turn the page into, and I don't care if Cadedral is a WP:Sockpuppet, or a WP:Meatpuppet, or a marionette made out of kosher bacon: if you and your alterego try to reinsert your WP:Original research back into Paleontology in order to make blatantly false accusations of "atheist hoaxing," you will risk being blocked.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cadedral is not my alter ego and I cannot/will not stop him from doing as he wishes to do. I am also not trying to "turn this page into" anything. I want as much respect to Christian Scientists as there are to Paleontologists and it is VERY UNSETTLING that you're willing to censor the truth in this threatening and hostile manner. This piece is relevant to the article as a whole and I don't see the justification in deleting based on religious discrimination. I was not attempting to alter any existing text--only represent a belief held by millions that has been omitted simply because you do not agree with it. Cadjones (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Paleontology. --Mr Fink (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Paleontology. --Mr Fink (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]