The definition of abiogenesis in this article is completely wrong and gives false information since the very beginning. It starts with is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter. Just by reading this, people that want to check quickly what is abiogenesis about, can understand that abiogenesis is a demonstrated fact, a process as real as any other processes we know in our world. Actually the abiogenesis is just an hyphotesis about the origin of life, that actually was never observed, never proven and chances are, that it will never be proven due to the impossibility of the non-intelligence to create intelligence (aka a single living cell).

A careful look on the article's content reveals the real character of the abiogenesis (a hypothesis), since it is specified that some things on which the abiogenesis relies are speculations/hypotheses. But that is not consistent with the definition given to abiogenesis at the beginning of the article. In my opinion, that definition was written by someone that intentionally wanted to induce the false idea that abiogenesis is a demonstrated fact. I would re-formulate the definition, by specifying clearly, that abiogenesis is an hyphotesis and I would say "is supposed to be the natural process" instead of "is the natural process".

Hi Epetre! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Abiogenesis. If you can not be bothered to actually discuss suggested improvements at Talk:Abiogenesisl, then there is absolutely no choice but to hat the thread, especially since you refuse to grasp or read the other editors' points, and that the thread blatantly runs afoul of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM--Mr Fink (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are false. The text added to the Talk page shows that I actually provided suggestions for improvements, arguments and reliable sources supporting my objections. The Talk page shows very clearly, that nobody was bothered to analyze my input, the only argument, that the majority is fine with the current definition of abiogenesis is doesn't reveal a rational, fair approach.Epetre (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Abiogenesis 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 get 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is the edit war about? Yes, you know. My discussion was closed for false reasons, that I didn't provide suggestions for improvement, which can be checked very easilt that is not true. Another accuse that I didn't show willing for a discussion, also false. All my tries to discuss my objections with arguments were rejected, being provided with false, illogical arguments. The behavior of the editors is absolutely abusive, agressive and intimidating and something should be done here. Epetre (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. There is no provision in WP:3rr for being right. You simply cannot edit war, and breaking that rule will result in a block. And BTW, if another editor edit wars with you, that editor is wrong too. Him being wrong doesn't make you right; it makes you both wrong. Please don't do that in the future. If you have a disagreement, we have methods of resolution that don't involve repeated reverting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I was astonished to see what "methods", but in the end, it wouldn't be fair for me to generalize Epetre (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're interested in learning about how to engage in a dispute, check out WP:DR. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Epetre reported by User:Sarr Cat (Result: ). Thank you. SarrCat ∑;3 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User:Epetre reported by User:Sarr Cat (Result: Warned) has now been closed with a warning to observe our standards for article talk pages. This article has been the subject of many past disputes; that's why there is a FAQ provided on Talk. It is not up to the established editors to re-explain what is in the FAQ. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:Hello. Interesting your answer. Before adding my initail comment in the Talk page of Abiogenesis article, I have read carefully the FAQ section. I wouldn't have continued my inititative, if my concerns were really addressed there. In the FAQ section it is said that abiogenesis is considered in the article a fact because there are reliable sources describing it as such. What if there are also more reliable sources saying the contrary? Shouldn't the article present an objective, unbiased information?. It is also explained in the FAQ why the abiogenesis is not "just" a theory. Knowing that even a demonstrated theory like the theory of relativity is presented with the name "theory", why such a controversial hypothesis like "abiogenesis", that in Encyclopedia Britannica is called an "idea", should deserve even more than Einstein's theory? Epetre (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SPA pushing creationist POV. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for soapboxing, trolling ANI,[1][2] and not being here to create an encyclopedia. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 21:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]