User talk:Crzyclarks

"Previous version was rife with inaccuracies/assumptions"...so you can change it to include your inaccuracies/assumptions? I've seen the only source your provided: a silly "we-the-undersigned" statement which proves nothing except what they want to believe. This website is not going to call their little fairy-tale a fact...not in the least. Karajou 22:39, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

What's wrong with the source? How about you come up with a source that will even come close to showing scientific consensus for your edit. Crzyclarks 22:45, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

June 2012

	You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{requnblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Dear User:Crzyclarks, I noticed that you were recently blocked by User:Conservative. Since you are a new user, I am going to reduce your block so you can edit again in a few days. In the future, please take care to discuss your changes with the user who reverted you, rather than edit warring. I do not like seeing editors blocked, so in the future, please take my advice into account because other administrators will not be as kind as I have been. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:06, 9 June 2012 (EDT)