Dislocatedthumb
Notability of The Dislocated Thumb edit
A tag has been placed on The Dislocated Thumb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with The Dislocated Thumb. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
March 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Larsen Ice Shelf appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Brusegadi (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Global Warming Scam edit
My addition to Global Warming was reverted, possibly because of ignorance, bias, or maybe theres someone watching the page, to make sure no one puts anything politically unbias. Please, dont revert it again, or Ima spam you! J/k, but really, dont revert it or delete it because you dont think Im right, because if I did that to you, you wouldnt exist. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that your contribution was reverted because it makes controversial claims without citing any verifiable sources. Please review Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources guidelines before you try to edit the global warming article again. Your edits also may be more appropriate in the global warming controversy article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I didnt think that a section as small as that would be bad, I just feel that people should know that global warming isnt "fact" that its "theory" just like evolution. If you dont include the fact that it is just a theory, your pushing the view on someone. Thats like making them look at one part of the story, not letting them see both to make a choice, because when they do find the other side, their going to be a bit ticked.
- Try to remember that the actual observations of global warming and evolution aren't in dispute. We have theories to explain those observations, and those are disputed.
- The article describes several ways in which global warming has been observed. These are objective facts, not disputed by anyone except a minority fringe. However, the theories attempting to explain those objective facts don't enjoy agreement by the scientific community. For example, one theory suggests that the warming being observed is a result of human activity. There is plenty of valid disagreement about that theory. Another theory suggests that the warming is due to solar activity. There is disagreement about that too.
- In that article, it is important to present views not only in a neutral way, but also with reliable sources backing up what you write. You wrote some personal commentary without citing any sources. That's why it was reverted - because of Wikipedia policy, not due to any bias one way or another. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Warning edit
You appear to be editing tendentiously. If you continue, you will be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008 edit
Please do not create hoaxes. Cease and desist from introducing misinformation into Wikipedia if you are attempting to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with universally negative results. Hoaxes are marked for deletion shortly after they are created. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia policy to learn more about this project and how you can make a positive impact. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked edit
