User talk:Varith
The timeline for Evolution.
[edit]I'll still need to get the citation for m argument about erosion from my professor, however, the evolution timeline doesn't match up. For example if the earth had eroded at this speed techtonic activity wouldn't have compensated because it is much to slow and takes billions of years (according to evolutionists) to move around, this offsets the timeline. Alsi if we were to shorten the timeline enought so that erosion wouldn't be a factor (several million years) there wouldn't have been time for evolution to occur.
Sub judice
[edit]I'm not going to edit war over something as trivial as a talk page banner (especially as the page is now protected) but if the template is as useless as you believe I reckon you take it to deletion. By the way, there are templates existing for other jurisdictions, albeit British colonies or former British colonies. I have no feelings either way. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You should note that the rule of sub judice exists in a number of countries, where English law is practiced. This is Paul (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Jo Cox shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- There have been numerous occasions when a UK judge banned publication of material during a trial because it might be prejudicial. While it would be easy for a person outside the UK to break this ban if they really wanted to, publishing it on Wikipedia might cause the trial to collapse and Wikipedia would get the blame. All that the sub judice template is asking for is for people to stick to material that has appeared in reliable secondary sources. If material from Twitter, blogs etc is added to the article or the talk page, there is a risk of prejudicing the trial. Please don't edit war on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)