From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Hello Szlevi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Finally, Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
|
Getting your info out there
|
|
|
|
Getting more Wikipedia rules
|
|
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
|
Getting along
|
|
|
|
Getting technical
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] May 2008
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to HIV. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Other than disliking some of the personalities in both camps - e.g. I consider Gallo is just as much a hackjob/hoax scientists with literally nothing ever achieved on his own as much as I do most of the 'rethinkers' - I have zero personal PoV with regard to HIV or AIDS. How could I? Even though I in a certain scientific-medical field I'm not a scientists so I naturally don't make analysis or conclusions, it would be way too pigheaded from me, I think. :) I can't recall what you're referring to but if I remember correctly recently I came across a few incorrect statements here and there and simply corrected them - isn'tthis what you've found? BTW interesting you mention violations of your so-called neutral point of view policy - when one side starts calling the other 'denialists' and gets away with it publicly here it makes this comment of yours quite entertaining, I believe.Szlevi (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The term is used because the reliable sources use the term. Antelantalk 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean because it shows up in the same 2-3 links your search results? You're not making any sense - it only shows what I've just said: the fact that the 'scientific community' (put a rolling eyes icon here) resorted to name calling ever since the beginning, nothing else. Or if we start calling you 'egghead' and enough of us will do it after a while you 'officially' become 'egghead'?Szlevi (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If there are only a handful of biased sources that state that Antelan is "a freaking genius", but several hundred reliable ones that say Antelan is an "egghead", then yes, I would think that "egghead" would be the preferred term in the Wikipedia article about me. Antelantalk 05:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- WOW! Talk about blind, idiotic, irrational belief without any afterthought...! So in other words your definition of "reliable source" = enough people say the same thing even if it's obviously complete BS? Now you really sound shockingly narrow minded; too bad, I thought much more abotu Wikipedia - this is exactly just the same old stupid approach of the old, fully manipulated media, only sold in a different way, it seems.Szlevi (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
