Whytehorse1413

Welcome!

Hello, Whytehorse1413, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like James Jameson Snodgrass, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

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 Windows 7 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. –Capricorn42 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If there aren't any sources, its your opinion. –Capricorn42 (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Windows 7, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously some time has passed, but I've just had to revert one of your edits that added a 'censored' section to the Windows 7 article. Please don't do this - as you can see it gets reverted quickly and there are more productive ways you can engage in Wikipedia tompagenet (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows 7. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7

I think you have a wrong impression about other editors. I know I have never said and I don't think anyone else is saying that we can not have any criticism in the Windows 7 article. My concerns with the section as you created are that the sources provided do not support that those thongs are criticisms. GrandDrake and I both went into detail about why we believe the sources do not support the contention that they are criticisms. I would welcome any criticisms that are adequately sourced. If experts, not consumers, have published negative things about the OS then add them with the sources to those statements. Just sourcing the price, features or requirements, etc. does not show that any expert has criticized Microsoft or Windows 7 for those things. I hope this helps clear things up some if not I am willing to try to explain again. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop saying "I tried to add this to a section called criticism of windows 7 but it was undone immediately by Microsoft corporate schills" on Talk:Windows 7. This is not constructive and violates talk page guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whytehorse1413 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Assistant

Hello, Whytehorse1413. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Open Assistant, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Neurotypical Disorder. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Neurotypical Disorder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neurotypical Disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurotypical Disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Baturraden

Hello Whytehorse1413. I cannot see the problem with this article, which doesn't appear to have undergone major changes as you state. If your comments were intended to apply to this article, you may want to go back to the talk page and clarify your statements, and be more specific about what parts of the article you consider to be a hoax. In any case please don't insert comments into the article itself: Noyster (talk), 18:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See this edit. It looks like it was weaseled in and the article I worked on was Purwokerto. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purwokerto&diff=653720452&oldid=653710599 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.20.122 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)