User talk:AlgisKuliukas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ape theory

Your entry at March 5 about ape theory, while it may be notable has no support for the date being March 5 in the article. That is the primary reason it has been removed from the the list of events. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AlgisKuliukas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

[edit] COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Aquatic ape hypothesis, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Adding links to your own website is usually not seen as a good thing. There is a slightly more in-depth reply for your comments on my talk page. WLU (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page guidelines

Hi,

Please read our talk page guidelines for communicating on talk pages - currently your comments tend to be difficult to distinguish from other editors on talk pages, which makes things harder to read. They are easy to follow, and it is a big help to other editors to have standardized comments. WLU (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifications

Regards your citation of your qualifications, it's better to cite sources and edit neutrally than claim qualifications. Since it's the internet, anyone can claim any level of erudition, and I could claim to be Dick Cheney editing under an assumed name. This is why sources are more important than qualifications. A critical example of this can be found in the Essjay controversy. This is the controversey I was alluding to before, I just turned up the link (Thanks Ariel!). The discussion can be found here. Note that FQ is an admin, and from what I can tell a well-respected one. And she has excellent taste in socks. WLU (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Note that your comment to Tat on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis was not, by any means, a vicious attack. But any comment about the contributor rather than contribution is not looked upon charitably and you're better off getting in the habit early. Please provide rebuttals in the form of citations to scholarly works rather than commenting on the other editor's understanding. WLU (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks, UTC... I appreciate the help!

Thanks for the timely advice! AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is UTC? UTC is normally a datestamp found at the end of signatures, unless you're talking about Mufka. WLU (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops!! AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TALK

Please review WP:TALK - new comments should be posted at the bottom of the discussion, not intermixed with old comments. Pages should read from top to bottom, spaced uniquely for each edit chunk. WLU (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm getting on board slowly. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the civility, it's appreciated. You may want to try reading User:WLU/Generic sandbox, it's an essay I wrote for noobs to get them up to speed on wikipedia in a very broad form. You may also want to look into WP:ADOPT if you're interested in sharpening your learning curve further. WLU (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gutted aquatic ape

Hi Algis,

I've gutted the AAH page. If you want to do the page and wikipedia a huge favour, could you re-populate the page with good, sourced and referenced information on the AAH, positive or negative? It was such a horrible mess that I didn't think it was worth trying to pick through the original research, syntheses and unsourced name-calling and 'common sense' to be worthwhile. I'm sure there's information that can be added, but it needs to come from good sources rather than being a back-and-forth between supporters and detractors. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that this was necessary and congratulat you for doing so. I'll try to add some content over the next few weeks. AlgisKuliukas (talk)!

Regarding [this] recent edit to Aquatic ape hypothesis, it would be best if you could provide references to support it. What you've written doesn't look particularly controversial, but maintaining WP:Verifiability is very important. Thanks, Jefffire (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)