User talk:Limonns
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] March 2008
Please refrain from posting tabloid junk on Wikipedia. The material on Jackson family finances is not substaniated with facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoldello (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Wilhelmina Will. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message on my talk page. Please take a little more care when reverting users, especially when using tools like Twinkle. Thanks, Gwernol 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re:Camden Town. Hi, using Twinkle, you are responsible for your edits and replacing adverts for estate agents is NOT considered good practice. Please take more care and read the edit summaries (and in this case, the talk page). Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2008 (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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
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 (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ku Klux Klan
Sure why not. I just figured I'd put them down somewhere. I dunno where exactly to place them myself,, just figured they'd be worth a mention. Nicknackrussian (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rajendra K. Pachauri
Hi Limonns. I think that the content is from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm so I deleted it. And I wrote this into the summary field. --88.84.21.192 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your revert
You are "almost positive they have". Really? And are you an expert on pheromones? Did you actually bother reading the so-called reliable sources cited? Well then, let me demonstrate. The source that supports why this is relevant to the article is:
Traill, R.R. (2005) How Popperian positivism killed a good-but-poorly-presented theory — Insect communication by infrared. Ondwelle: Melbourne
Looks good, right. Except have a look at the publisher, Ondwelle's website: [1] Isn't it odd that all the "books" and "monographs" published by this reliable publisher is by the same person, a certain Traill, R.R. I wonder who runs Ondwelle Publishing? Well, the contact address is there. What a surprise, its rrtraill4@xxx.xx.xx
What we actually have here is some one promoting their own pseudo-scientific theories by vanity publishing, then trying to give it credibility by inserting into a Wikipedia article. So are you still "almost positive"? Please revert yourself, since you have re-added misleading information lacking reliable sources. Thanks Rockpocket 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-reverted. You are free to disagree all you wish, but you are not free to re-introduce material that does not meet WP:RS simply to promoting vanity theories. If you plan to revert content editor of an administrator, especially one that has contributed largely to sourcing the article, its probably a good idea to do some research into what you a reverting. Rockpocket 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Box
You recently reverted a contribution to box and foolishly claimied it to be vandalism. Please do not be so quick to slap a negative label on an edit you disagree with. My contribution was positive: I removed and simplified some material which is duplicated on another main page. There is no point to have the same thing said twice identically. Pkgx (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
