User talk:Blmille1

Welcome![edit]

Hi there, Blmille1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a regular contributor here, and when I notice on the recent changes log that a new editor has registered, I like to send them a welcome message - that's how I ended up on your talk page.

If you've never edited here before, there are a few useful links that you might want to look at, designed to help newcomers learn the ropes:

Here are a few features of Wikipedia that I find particularly helpful:

If you leave a message on a talk page, you can sign it with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your name and a date stamp when you save the page
The "Show preview" button allows you to look at what your post will look like before you save it - that way, you can proofread what you've written and not have to back and correct spelling mistakes, failed links, etc.
You can create a watchlist for yourself that will keep a record of any changes made to a page that interests you.

There are plenty of other features and facets of Wikipedia, many of which I probably haven't even discovered myself, so have fun looking around and finding them.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! - Tapir Terrific, 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon effect[edit]

Please stop adding your personal observations to the Bandwagon effect article. What you are adding is not a 'statistical observation' as you cite no statistics, or indeed anything at all. So we are left with the obvious fact that all you're adding is your own personal opinion. Just to break things down;

The most prominent application of the bandwagon effect in religion is Catholicism. - How has this been determined? Who decided it? Cite?
When asked why they are catholics, so many give the response, "How can so many people be wrong?" Who are the people that say this? Who is asking them? Cite?
This fallacy is also seen in most religious sects where the members believe it is right just because the people they are in close contact with believe the same thing. - What sects? Who has done this research? Who has determined that these are examples of Bandwagons? Cite?

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Columbian mammoth, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Columbian mammoth. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Columbian mammoth. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain precisely how the information added is "incorrect." The only thing I added was that these data points are correctly arrived at through the theory of evolution. Why is calling a spade a spade not acceptable? It is most definitely a theory and the statements made are as if they are facts. This is quite unprofessional and wrong. It is in fact called the theory of evolution. One can make no specific claims that things are facts until they have indeed been validated as fact. The only thing I added was that these data points are correctly arrived at through the theory of evolution.

Please do not feign innocence when it's blatantly obvious that you are trying to insert WP:Weasel words in order to cast unreasonable doubt on evolution. That, and if you insist that evolution is not validated because you insist on conflating "(scientific) theory" with "unsubstantiated wild guess," then you betray a lack of competence.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Columbian mammoths are extinct has little to do with evolutionary theory as such, even religious people would agree that they are extinct. It is due to the fact that the species simply does not exist anymore. Correlating the two issues is therefore completely irrelevant and inappropriate in that article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words? Is evolution taught as fact now? Where is the proof? Where is the data collected millions of years ago from actual eye-witnesses? Evolution is clearly a faith-based attempt at explaining history. Unless you have solid eye-witness testimony from those time periods, you only have theory and are only trying to deceive others into believing that your way of looking at the raw data is correct. I thought science was supposed to be fact-based. Sorry, but I thought this was a professional site.

Oh, and I was definitely not stating that it is conjecture that they're extinct. I was only stating that they are thought to have gone extinct 11,000 years ago.

Can you explain how the theory of evolution is necessarily relevant to the fact that they went extinct? Extinction is not a concept unique to evolutionary theory. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Fink, we are not in disagreement that they went extinct, but that the timing of the extinction is not known exactly. They are thought to have gone extinct 11,000 years ago by evolutionists.

No, due to radiocarbon dating. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, and we are in disagreement because your insistence on inserting creationist-friendly wp:weasel words to cast inappropriate doubt on "evolutionists," in addition to your insistence on using an inappropriate definition of "theory," and your use of Ken Ham's inane "were you there???" argument compromise the factual integrity of Wikipedia articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: . 5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Blmille1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my comments are factual in comment, beyond dispute

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

What I posted is factual. Those numbers are based on evolutionary theory. All dating mechanisms have reasonable suspicion. Decay rates change. Regardless, I am being blocked for posting accurate information. It is faith that you are using and some mechanisms that you see today. You know what you are doing is wrong because you know you only have faith to make those claims. Not to mention that evolutionary dates change a lot given more evidence. I saw a comment stating that one date wildly contradicted another section. Come clean and admit you are being deceptive. Confess it to God and he is faithful and just to forgive you. You know I posted nothing that promoted creationism. Please allow me to put it another way. We have data from archaeology. Theories are made. Creationists have one, evolutionists have another. Both use the same data. One has eyewitness testimony, another doesn't. Of course, eyewitness testimony doesn't make it right, it's only evidence. Both are theories. Both are using data available today. Both take faith to believe in because we were not there. Do you see? You can have a thousand theories using the same data. Of course, they can't all be right and none of them may be correct. However, it is quite wrong to state as fact what is only theory. What I believe on this is irrelevant to this post. But, if you were interested in truth, you would allow other theories since evolution is also just theory. Thank you for your consideration.