You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, 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.
We're so glad you're here! — Lost(talk) 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that welcome above seems to miss is that Wikipedia has five pillars. One of them is Neutral Point of View, which means that everything must be written from an NPOV, without any commentary attached to it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone keeps removing the material I add. They are trying to suppress the truth. How can I stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impunv (talk • contribs)
Hi Impunv,
Note: I've moved this from your user page to here instead. Your talk page is where discussions should normally take place.
I should be able to provide some specific things that might help if you can tell me to which article(s) you are referring to, but in general, it is best to assume good faith, first of all, and enter into a discussion with the user(s) involved to try and determine their reasoning behind removing the material. You can do this on the article's talk page, or by leaving a message to the user involved, on his/her User Talk page. To see which user(s) removed the material you added, look at the history of the article in question by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page. Remember to be civil when communicating with other editors (the same obviously also goes for them), and try to avoid an edit war. If you still believe the users are acting unfairly, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I hope this helps. If there's anything else you need, just leave me a message here. —XhantarTalk 10:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is referring to your addition to Higgs boson, maybe you could consider using peer-reviewed journals as your sources rather than your own blog.
Consult WP:OR for guidance.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come and discuss the issue on the talk page rather than just reinserting the removed sections. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there, concerning your request for informal mediation, I have found the cause of why your edits are being reverted. If you look at this link you'll see that your edits were reverted by Kim Bruning (talk·contribs) for being OR, which means that it is Wikipedia:Original research. Wikipedia has standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability that must be kept in articles, and unfortunately your own studies on String theory as explained on your blog do not meet that standard of verifiability. The sort of sources that should be used in an article would be those of published sources. I hope this clears things up. Feel free to respond here and I'll get back to you. Cowman109Talk 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia three revert rule at String theory. Please see WP:3RR for details. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by general disruption and refusal to cooperate with your fellow editors. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. . Yuser31415 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impunv, as has been explained to you NUMEROUS times, stop adding to the Physics articles without discussing things on the talk page. You've been told that Original Research has no place in Wikipedia, and likewise that your own books are no help to your theories unless you can provide evidence that they are taken seriously in the field. Vanity-published books are no different than unpublished theories. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
