User talk:Robert Stevens

What they don't want you to know:

Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers^[1][2][3], a singularly authored paper^[4], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary^[5] to a paper by M.A. Stull^[6].

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs).

You have been listed as an involved party in a mediation case here involving Bible prophesy and Peter Stoner, and I have accepted the case. Please check out the page and let us hear your side. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of assistance on the mediation case. If I had the time and optimism for wiki process I would have gone straight to arbitration; I think you hit the nail on the head when you said this would probably not be resolved by "mere discussion". Also worth noting Ken's charming habit of wiping all warnings and criticisms from his talk page. The Crow 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll mention you as an "interested party". You've obviously been very busy with Kdbuffalo on Bible scientific foreknowledge! --Robert Stevens 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, since you've shown some interest in the past: [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2] The Crow 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

...Thanks, I've now added my contribution. --Robert Stevens 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratso, you don't seem to understand that you have been lied to.

"Creationism is trying to cure stupidity among billions of other things. Your statement that Intelligent Design was a "beautiful disaster" is an absolutely false statement; much scientific evidence supports it."" - Incorrect. Indeed, that's why ID was found to be unscientific in a court of law (Kitzmiller vs Dover case).

"I don't know why you're using nylon-digesting bacteria as an example; the gene for digesting nylon was already in the bacteria, it just expressed itself when the bacteria needed to digest nylon. You're just repeating an old, worn-out argument that has been disproven." Incorrect, it was caused by a mutation (scientists have identified the gene involved) and the argument certainly hasn't been "disproven".

Never did I say that it wasn't a mutation. It certainly was a mutation, but it didn't produce new information. That's what I said.

"Besides, it's still the same bacteria. And if you think that science contradicts the Bible, just you wait and see how it contradicts evolution. Evolution depends upon "good mutations" occuring repeatedly, in every organism on earth nonetheless! You are ignoring this because it contradicts your wishful thinking that evolution is true." - Have you honestly never heard of natural selection? It preserves the "good" and tosses out the "bad". Over time, beneficial changes inevitably tend to accumulate, and harmful ones inevitably have a tendency to drop out of the population. Each generation builds on the best of what has gone before.

"In addition to this, evolutionists claim that organisms are getting more complex and that the world is changing for the better, which is far from the truth. Organisms are breaking down and deteriorating, as is our planet, solar system and universe. Entropy contradicts evolution; you've probably heard this before and ignored it or come up with some silly attempt to counter it, which can't be done." - Natural selection counters it. It doesn't represent any reversal of entropy, because only some survive to reproduce: harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, but natural selection ensures that this doesn't matter.

"In addition to these things, there are no "missing links"; every "ape-man" that has been found has simply been discovered to be either just an ape, just a human or just a hoax. Archaeopteryx, which is supposed to be the link between birds and reptiles, is simply a bird. So it had teeth! Some birds around that time had teeth! And scales? Birds around today have scales! And the Tiktaalik, which is the supposed link between sea and land animals, has also been found to simply be a fish." - A pack of cretionist lies. It is unfortunate that you have allowed yourself to be so misled. There is an unbroken set of human transitionals going back as far as the australopithecines (basically upright chimps, considered "apes" by creationists), archaeopteryx is only one of about thirty dinosaur/bird transitionals in various stages (like Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis and Ichthyornis), tiktaalik is likewise only one link in a whole chain of transitionals (like Panderichthys, Sauripterus, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Densignathus rowei, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Elpistostege), and so on.

These "transitionals" are either one animal or the other; they're not a cross.

"Like I've pointed out before, a gill cannot become a lung; even if this were possible the organism would die because it could not breathe in either environment. I'm sure you'll find some silly, blind way to contradict what I'm saying but you must acknowledge what I've pointed out." - Lungs did not evolve from gills, they are swim-bladders. And are you really unaware of the existence of amphibious fish today that have both lungs AND gills?

It is unfortunate that few people will see this, because educating ignorant creationists one at a time is not a very efficient use of my time. But hopefully this will be enough to get you started, or maybe enough to at least dent your dogmatic certainty that these falsehoods must be correct. --Robert Stevens 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who's been lied to, Robert Stevens. Frankly, educating ignorant evolutionists isn't an extremely beneficial use of my time, and since you're so blind it's going to be impossible to change your view that these dogmatic falsehoods must be correct. Your calling these truths a "pack of creationist lies" is the absolutely most false comment I've ever heard. You're so biased, so prejudiced, against creationism that you make all sorts of inflammatory comments against it in hopes of changing people's views. Well, you haven't changed mine. And it's obvious that I can't change yours, since you have been misled by these dogmatic falsehoods. I'm through. Ratso 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The falsehood of Biblical creationism was discovered by a scientific community which was initially composed almost exclusively of creationists: the Bible was once considered true by default. Scientists abandoned it when they discovered otherwise. Nowadays, it is the creationists, not the scientists, who must pledge allegiance to dogmatic "statements of faith" on joining creationist organisations: they must decide not to accept evidence that would contradict their belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Whereas evolution is accepted by people of all religions (including most Christians) who are open-minded enough to evaluate the evidence. Obviously, you have made up your mind not to join them - and that is your loss. --Robert Stevens 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather strange to be having this discussion on another user's talk-page (I hope you don't mind, Roland), but... Ratso, why are you so dogmatically certain that mutations cannot produce new information? There is absolutely no scientific basis for such a view. Mutations CAN and DO produce new information: there is no natural law or principle that would prevent this, and we can see it happening. To extend the "letters of the alphabet" analogy already mentioned: do you wish to deny that "AAAA" could be transformed into "I shall go shopping this afternoon" by an appropriate combination of duplication-mutations (to make it long enough) and point-mutations (to change individual letters)? Both of these mutations occur to DNA in nature. So, where's the problem? The filtering-out of detrimental "noise" and the accumulation of "appropriate" mutations is achieved by natural selection. --Robert Stevens 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RS, you're forgetting one important little thing: you can rearrange the letters in the alphabet, but since when can you create new letters? Plus, a simple code like AAAA cannot be changed to "I shall go shopping this afternoon" by a few little point mutations. More likely, this is what will happen: "AUGHEISDFNSIFGE". Can you see what I'm saying? That's a rhetorical question; of course you can't. Ratso 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are only four "letters" in the genetic code, and point mutations can replace any of those four letters with any other. And it's natural selection which transforms "gibberish" into "information". Natural selection is like having a team of monkeys typing random letters into a word-processor which accepts only valid words which fit into meaningful sentences. All the garbage gets thrown out (or marked as garbage and ignored: that's what "junk DNA" is). You would get something meaningful from that, given time. --Robert Stevens 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is that "AAAA" cannot become "AAAAA" you forget that there are diffrent #s of chromosome pairs is diffrent beings. Also all seen mutations resault in a loss of chromosomes and (If I understand correctly) have never ended in losing a whole pair.

Homology can prove intelegent disigne as well as evolution leaving it incenclusive. Say you make a robot that works. When you go to make another robot you will use simeler things inside both computer wise and mechanicly.

The fossle record has huge holes and little to none of the "missing links" as well as the moddle being inaccuret for the fossles are found in diffrent parts of the world. You also musn't forget the cambrien explotion.

I can counter more if you like. I can also list reasons for the bible being accuret. Old and new testements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin012 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he was trying to say, but he was incorrect. "AAAA" can indeed become "AAAAA". Mutations can extend any part of a chromosome (by duplicating that section), and can also create entire chromosomes (by duplicating an existing chromosome). Such mutations are well-known: Downs Syndrome, for instance, involves duplication of all or part of the 21st chromosome.

And, while it's easy to find scientists complaining that they don't have as many fossils as they'd like to have (and some parts of the fossil record are better represented than others), there are nevertheless far more "transitional fossils" than there are Bibles in the world: certainly enough to completely disprove Biblical creationism (which is why scientists abandoned it). Creationists have no explanation for the fact that the fossil record matches the evolutionary "tree of life" pattern of common descent: nobody has ever found elephants among the dinosaurs, rabbits in the precambrian etc. And the Cambrian Explosion doesn't disprove evolution either (a lot of creationists have a very confused idea of what sort of fossils date from this period: there were no mammals, birds, reptiles etc).

As for the Bible: that's another topic entirely. But the Bible is known to be moderately accurate regarding the times in which the books were written, and not very accurate about other times. --Robert Stevens 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You created the above AfD as a subsection of an existing AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punctual objection to evolution, rather than as its own discussion. I have fixed it. In the future, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I find the shortcuts that appear in the AfD box on the article page after you add the {{subst:Afd1}} tag are the easiest way. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to Magicman182. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Ursasapien (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Looking at this users edit history, I can not see the nonsense to which you are referring. It would be more helpful to be specific about what edits you consider nonsense. For example, Garlic eating men in Manhattan was patent nonsense. Ursasapien (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Magicman182 had launched into an edit war, making inappropriate contributions without consultation and continuing despite being reverted: thus wasting everyone's time (including his own). He needed to slow down, to realize that he was being reverted, and to discuss why. As for what he said: he described macroevolution as an "unconfirmed" theory which has been "somewhat" conistent with empirical data (replacing "overwhelming": there is no data which contradicts macroevolution), he falsely asserted that "no missing links have been found" and that "ape-men have been disproved" (and put that falsehood straight back in after it was reverted... TWICE). --Robert Stevens 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you had a "content dispute" and you chose to ABF because it conflicts with your POV. Macroevolution is an unconfirmed theory or at least a disputed theory that can not be irrefutably proven. Overwhelming vs. somewhat consistent with empirical data is subjective. I think "consistent with empirical data" is sufficient, as long as there is a note about the discrepancies between empirical data/observations and the generally accepted macro evolutionary model. Transitional forms are one of those oft pointed to discrepancies. Although I think it is deceptive to say, "ape-men have been disproved," I would not go as far as calling it a falsehood because some evidence may have convinced some people at some time. You have been around longer than Magicman182 and you should know better. The best way to get him to change his behavior is to give him some guidance. Not tell him he is being silly. Ursasapien (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Macroevolution is an observed fact. There is no scientific dispute regarding this, and transitional forms are not a "discrepancy" (there are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record: Darwin's prediction of their discovery was spectacularly confirmed). Of course, creationists would like to believe otherwise (often by carefully quote-mining scientists who had no such doubts, such as Stephen Jay Gould). And, yes, "ape-men have been disproved" is creationist nonsense, pure and simple (the citation he provided was a creationist website). But, more pertinently: there can be no doubt that he was edit-warring and repeatedly reversing the reverts. It was gone midnight here when I posted that warning: I wasn't about to stay up all night for a prolonged discussion, but others would probably have set him straight if he had continued. --Robert Stevens 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, at what point have you (or any one else for that matter) "observed" macroevolution. Regardless, you were edit-warring and repeatedly reversing the reverts with increasingly derogatory edit summaries. You, as the more experienced Wikipedian, should have either gone to bed and left it alone or have taken the time to properly "set him straight." Ursasapien (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Macroevolution (speciation) has been observed. Have you never heard of www.TalkOrigins.org? Of course, there's also a huge body of observations supporting the fact that macroevolution has occurred in the past: all the evidence for common descent (the fossil record, DNA analysis etc). But, on topic: this was an editor repeatedly posting garbage (yes, "ape-men have been disproved" is garbage) and continuing to do so after multiple reverts (not just by me). He showed no sign of stopping. If I were to continually post "Jesus was a criminal and a lunatic" over and over again on the "Jesus" page: would you advise other editors of that page that I be "left alone"? It is perfectly normal to swiftly revert inappropriate edits to Wikipedia: it happens all the time. --Robert Stevens 08:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

...BTW, I've just checked my "increasingly derogatory edit summaries" as I didn't recall making any (derogatory or otherwise). Sure enough, I said nothing at all on my edits (other than the comment I finally added to his userpage): I merely reverted him without comment, and the Wiki software inserted the usual "Undid revision..." message. Would you mind explaining how total silence can be "increasingly derogatory"? --Robert Stevens 09:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please cease entering your blantantly false POV into this article. Your tendentious editing is not improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to make a similar criticism of your own antics, Ursasapien. So far, I have reverted a false (and unsupported) allegation that criticism of Hovind's education was based on opposition to correspondence courses in general, plus an inserted comment which had the effect of rendering "invisible" the rest of the paragraph in which it was inserted. What is this "blatantly false POV"? --Robert Stevens 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When referring to other users with Wikilinks, please type it in like this: [[User:(username)]]. Without the User: prefix, the link points to an article of that name. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Callon and Sirius are likely; th other two are possibly them, according to Deskana. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I want the articles to be accurate and unbiased. The thing I think that people here are missing is that to state what IDers or astrologers or flat-earthers believe to be true is not to endorse what they are saying is true. That is misrepresentation. And I see a lot of that. These articles seem like soapboxes for people who do not like creationists. Now you are I might not like them but they deserve to have their case represented accurately. I really am embarassed by the unscientific tone of many of these articles. Hignit (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Many creationists have claimed that evolution is unfalsifiable, but this is bunk."

of course.

"The REAL situation is that evolution, like gravity, is so clearly factual that it's hard to imagine that it will suddenly be discovered to be false (just like gravity won't suddenly be discovered to be nonexistent)."

of course.

I am not being a jerk, but every single scientist felt the exact same way about Newton's laws of motion. Newton's laws of motion are older and have an virually infinate more evidence that evolution, but yet it is still wrong. And we STILL use Newton's laws to design our society because they are far easier to use than Eistein's, but again, they are still wrong. "Scientific Certainty"? No, not at all. Best choice, yes, but certain, no way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmkass (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"In other words: the creationists have misrepresented the scientific certainty about the fact of evolution in order to present a bogus claim that it's unfalsifiable."

of course.

"The original wording did NOT claim that the widespread empirical support for evolution was itself actually accepted by creationists as part of the creationist argument: YOU made that link, Geoffrey. "

The original wording was a sentence that started "This is because." The word "this", at the surface level, appeared to refer to the previous sentence, which began "creationists claim". To the extent that "I made that link", I made it only by attempting to read what the sentence literally said.

"Your edit was erroneous. I hope that clears things up."

My edit was an attempt to make it clear what the sentence actually said. If the word "this" actually referred to something else, it would be desirable for the people who wrote it to make it clear, and in the talk section I asked them to do that.

"The original analogy with gravity (NOT made by creationists) "

The paragraph in question was summarizing the arguments made by creationists. If the original analogy was not made by creationists, it belonged somewhere else-- in the next paragraph, perhaps, refuting the argument.

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read a physics book, anyone who knows the hard sciences as sees "so clearly factual" realizes that you really don't know scientific method at all and clearly are ignorant of the history of Newtonian physics. Its a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmkass (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is fact, just as gravity is fact. The mechanisms involved may be subject to revision, just as Newtonian gravity was replaced by Einsteinian gravity: and, indeed, Darwinian evolution "evolved" into the Modern Synthesis. Darwin didn't even know about genes, or mutation. You really need to open an evolutionary biology textbook at some point. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In your revert, you reverted a {{fact}} tag that was not discussed on the talk page. Please be more careful when reverting (I assume you did not intend to revert the {{fact}} tag). Ra2007 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I don't know how to revert one specific user's edit without affecting anything posted since. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What I would do is edit (but do not save) the old version you mostly like, copy what you want, then open the latest version, and paste what you want to revert over what you want gone. When the text you want to recover is not contiguous, you may have to use a text editor or word processor, and cut and paste in smaller chunks. Ra2007 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you have apparently (and perhaps inadvertently) begun an edit war based on an oversight on your part.

Please see talk entry here and consider my request that you undo your revert.

riverguy42 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Robert, I have responded to you on the talk page.

If you were to take the position of working with me, you might be surprised to find that I am strongly aligned with many of the viewpoints you (appear) to hold on creationist intrusions into secular life, especially in politics and in education.

• However, I am repeating my request that you undo your revert based on my (second) refutation of your reasons for reverting my edit. I'd suggest, that while I endeavour to continue to WP:AGF, you might want to review this definition and this WP:TEND essay. riverguy42 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We are already discussing this issue on the article talkpage, therefore this discussion is superfluous. I have explained (there) why I think the reversion was justified. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "wording" was the most appropriate term to use for the Bible Prophecy article. Good call.--Jorfer (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon is back and posting 'rebuttals'. There's no point trying to change their mind, and if they try to change the main page, I doubt it will last. WP:DNFTT!! I'm hoping that a week with no attention and they'll get bored. WLU (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on his contributions list, ready to act if he starts editing actual articles. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he will - the 'smart' trolls know the talk page is where the action is, while editing mainspace will get 'em blocked. Ignoring may be more successful, and it's obvious that he's not trying to engage. WLU (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think your removal was totally unreasonable, and I can see why it was done. At the same time, I think these types of bold behavioral actions need to be much more neutrally applied to serve a purpose. You could say that the comment veers off topic, and suggest that any discussion of non-article related issues be carried out elsewhere, without deleting his post -- much of which does relate to active discussion on the page. I just wanted to clarify this, to the extent you may otherwise think I replaced the comment arbitrarily. Mackan79 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert - Hello. Please explain on the Talk page for the article why the NPOV tag is not warranted. Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

...Done. You did not provide an explanation of a specific problem. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert - The discussion page is filled with examples of the very slanted pov in the Expelled article. Just 1 small example: In the 2nd paragraph, the article reads "While a number of conservative and Christian media outlets have given it favorable reviews, the general media response has been largely unfavorable, and the science community's response to it has been widely negative, asserting that it is propaganda." The article then gives 2 very negative reviews, without giving any examples of the previously mentioned conservative or Christian media reviews. When I added 1 balanced review by a Los Angeles newspaper, it was banished as pov. It would seem under that standard that 2 very negative reviews by liberal newspapers would also qualify as pov. Considering the actions It seems this article has been the target of people with an ax to grind. Please note that the discussion page opens with "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." Please explain why the npov tag is not warrented when the contents of the discussion page overwhelmingly indicate there IS a dispute over pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas399 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that revert wasn't about NPOV, it was about relevance (apparently the "viral satire" wasn't referring to the movie), and did not appear to be a "positive review" (the review calls the movie a parody). See "Positive reviews" on the talkpage. You did not discuss this. Why not? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see your proof that Deschner was not in the German Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and was awarded the Deschner Prize, named after German Army member Karlheinz Deschner."... what ludicrous nonsense is this? The Deschner Prize isn't awarded by the German Army or any representative thereof. It isn't even sponsored by the German Army. Nor has Richard Dawkins ever received any other award from the German Army, as far as I can see. And Karlheinz Deschner is NOT a member of the German Army, nor WAS he a member of the German Army when the award was given. Indeed, the only tenuous connection I can find is that Deschner HAD once been a member of the German Army for three years at the height of World War 2 (like millions of other Germans of his generation), more than sixty years prior to the award! Any other irrelevancies you'd like to share with us? "Kindergarten pupil Karlheinz Deschner", perhaps? --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins has gone out of his way to tell us that his father, Clinton John Dawkins, was in the war-time British army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

R.Dawkins' father was in the British army. R.Dawkins' friend was in the German army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Deschner has been wallowing around in post-war guilt since 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, a discussion you were involved in earlier, on this subject, is ongoing and I think your continuing contributions would be useful: Internal consistency of the Bible. --Rbreen (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Robert: I see you've been involved in the article Internal consistency of the bible: I've just made some edits there to the Old Testament section (my personal area of interest), aimed at shifting the emphasis from whether or not inconsistencies exist, to what they mean. You might like to offer your opinions. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good direction to go in. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to revisit your edit as there is duplicated information below it. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

...Oops. Fixed. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, as a recently active editor on the article, you might like to give your views on the current vote on 20th century scholarship and Noah's ark. PiCo (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Bible prophecy. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

+24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

{unblock-auto|1=212.219.57.11|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Robert Stevens". The reason given for Robert Stevens's block is: "3rr on Bible prophecy".|3=William M. Connolley|4=1386790}

Something odd going on here. I was blocked for 24 hours, so this should have expired by now. Yet what I'm seeing is:

"This block has been set to expire: 10:54, 9 April 2009."

What gives? This IP address is a Further Education college, so the whole College is now blocked (has someone else here been doing something they shouldn't?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was a lingering autoblock (unfortunately, they don't always expire at the same time as the original block); try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's working OK now from my home PC (thanks). I'll find out tomorrow if the College is unblocked. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've learned for myself that your beliefs are not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi please tell me how you know there are people who read the bible and think there are no prophecies? Id like a citation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaMario13 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)