User talk:Helvetica/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Helvetica/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Vsmith 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are involved in a bit of an incipient revert war on Big bang. Please be aware of Wikipedia:3RR and use caution. Cheers, Vsmith 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message - I looked at the 3RR thing, and it says that it doesn't apply to ververting vandalism. And I regard the removal of clearly notable content - the views of a Nobel Prize Winner - as just that - vandalism. Helvetica 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that others will not agree about the vandalism bit there. Plasma cosmology is a rather contentious issue with various people and it appears the disagreement is over that issue. Again, use caution and discuss more before reverting. Vsmith 23:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a scientific viewpoint is without merit then the evidence should show that. It doesn't need to be censored as heresy. And it's certainly notable if a Nobel Prize winner holds that view point. The burden of proof is on them to prove why it shouldnt' be included. Not the other way around. Censoring clearly notable views is vandalism. Helvetica 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of comments. Firstly a view doesn't become notable because a Nobel laureate hold it. Many laureates hold extremely fringe beliefs that are clearly not notable. Winning a prize doesn't make their opinions any more valid. Seondly the onus is very much on you to prove the notability of the material you wish to insert. Finaly describing edits as vandalism when they clearly aren't is extremly rude and may be viewed as incivility. Please disuss your opinions on the talk page and try to show civily to fellow editors. Jefffire 09:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on all points there. The views of very notable people are by definition notable. I think the real incivility here is the effort to censor even the mention of opposing viewpoints. When I first added a section on opposing views - simply to let readers know that opposing views exist and to link to them, you reverted it and called it "pov pushing," so don't lecture me about "civility!" I will discuss issues related to the article on its talk page. Helvetica 05:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--ScienceApologist 03:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Big Bang

My problem with the article was not content based but some wordings. I do feel it is a very good article and worth its featured title. I have pied a look at the talk page, I don't see clear exemples of repression of valid arguments about the sort of edits there should be done. I don't think that with the quality of contributors on that articles and the work they have done that they are closed to reasonate propositions. But if you do have clear examples do provide them. Regards. Fad (ix) 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! StoptheDatabaseState 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is subject to significant controversy and any major changes should be per the talk page discussion. Your unilateral reversion was not, and describing your rollback as a revert of vandalism is highly disingenuous. StoptheDatabaseState 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Anthony Anderson (urninator)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anthony Anderson (urninator), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anthony Anderson (urninator) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anthony Anderson (urninator), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]