48
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + + + +
Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis (view source)
Revision as of 22:10, June 29, 2011
, 22:10, June 29, 2011→Unlock this article: new section
::Alchemy was around a long time too. In science, evidence should be the decisive factor, not naturalistic philosophy. Anyways, [[Shockofgod]] said he is going to drive a stake in the heart of evolutionism biology textbook buying though his Texas assistance to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which could certainly take a huge bite out of Darwinism. No real point in having a long discussion given the upcoming collapse of Darwinism. Have a nice day. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:54, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::Alchemy was around a long time too. In science, evidence should be the decisive factor, not naturalistic philosophy. Anyways, [[Shockofgod]] said he is going to drive a stake in the heart of evolutionism biology textbook buying though his Texas assistance to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which could certainly take a huge bite out of Darwinism. No real point in having a long discussion given the upcoming collapse of Darwinism. Have a nice day. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:54, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I have reverted your vandalism of this page. It was a well written and researched article until you came along and destroyed it. You then came on to this talk page and arrogantly dismissed the concerns expressed by the editor who had taken so much trouble in writing it. Your behaviour has been that of a bully. This is a wiki and, as such, relies on co-operation between editors. What you have done is calculated to drive contributing editors away. It was a destructive and disgraceful act. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 17:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I have reverted your vandalism of this page. It was a well written and researched article until you came along and destroyed it. You then came on to this talk page and arrogantly dismissed the concerns expressed by the editor who had taken so much trouble in writing it. Your behaviour has been that of a bully. This is a wiki and, as such, relies on co-operation between editors. What you have done is calculated to drive contributing editors away. It was a destructive and disgraceful act. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 17:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
== Unlock this article ==
Conservative, you have hijacked this article in the most outrageous display of high-handed, arrogant behaviour I have ever seen on a wiki. You have destroyed a significant and considered contribution, refused to respond to requests to explain your appalling behaviour and now compound your disgrace by locking the article. This wiki is not your personal fiefdom. It is a co-operative project requiring multiple editors. Acting the way that you have done can only have one result. The eventual decline of this project. Unlock this page and act in a co-operative manner towards other editors. Collaborate in the development of a good article. Don't behave like a child who snatches all the toys for himself and runs off to play alone. Behave like an adult who is capable of co-operative enterprise. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 18:10, 29 June 2011 (EDT)