User talk:Skylurker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Speedy deletion of Skylurker
A tag has been placed on Skylurker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BananaFiend (talk) 10:54, 15 April 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) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Skylurker
Hi! I noticed your comments and thought I'd chime in. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, so this isn't the right place for you to publish your findings. After significant sources have started writing in detail about your discovery, though, it'll be inevitable that someone without a conflict of interest will create an article about them. As I'm sure you know, there are no shortcuts in science; the process of documenting a new discovery and publishing the evidence is thorough and time-consuming, and you wouldn't want to compromise your results by self-publishing, when you know that such publications are rarely taken seriously. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you FisherQueen, at least that was a constructive response. It is really strange though, there is no scientific direction to choose from and I certainly do not want to get in a box with alien abductions etc. or anything religious. The least reaction that I expected was that of doubt, or give me the benefit of doubt, but labeling it "patent nonsense" without having a clue what it is about puts a light on Wikipedia that is shamefull. The behaviour that I was confronted with is indeed offensive, no matter putting a standard line in the text that it is not. You can't offend someone and than say that it is not offensive. By stating that you're just being a bully. Because Wikipedia does by no means equal truth or knowledge or wisdom. It is limited by the quality of their moderators/administrators.
I hope somewhere in future Wikipedia is brave enough to admit THEIR ridiculous behaviour towards my article. We'll see.
Again however, FisherQueen, thank you for YOUR thoughtfull response. Skylurker (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The editor was choosing from a list of pre-set tags, and the list is a little limited in its range; I can appreciate that its wording wasn't perfectly accurate to this article. The user who placed it feels badly for choosing a tag that seemed insulting, and has already asked me which tag he could use that would fit this situation but be less offensive. Wikipedia does use a rule requiring all information to come from published sources, in order to be as accurate as possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
