Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Madchester 14:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Galaxy formation and evolution‎, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Galaxy formation and evolution‎, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Reversions of contributions

My edits of the Galaxy formation article were well within the wikipedia guidelines. Your reversion of such edits is somewhat pretentious. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just take a little look at the edit you made here. WP:V requires a source ... oops, you didn't provide a source. Next, let's see ... does it have an edit summary? Oops again, no edit summary. And let me check the guidelines for marking an edit as minor ... nope! Removing an entire sentence is not a minor edit. So it looks to me like there are three policy/guideline violations. So please ... don't tell me to stop pointing out your policy violations when you don't bother to read and/or follow the policies. And more importantly, don't call me "pretentious" when I follow Wikipedia guidelines. That is a personal attack and can get you blocked if you do it again. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==

I apologized and relented to reversion. In my opinion the matter is settled.

Hurricane Floyd (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=

Be careful, according to Wikipedia policy, unfairly accusing people of personal attacks is in itself considered a personal attack, and thus can get you blocked and/or result in loss of authority. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of ARCHIVE 1

A tag has been placed on ARCHIVE 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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. NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Teena article pronouns

Good day (or evening or morning)! I didn't intend to dissuade you from continuing the discussion on gender pronouns at this article, I just thought I'd give you a heads up on the potential contentiousness of the issue by listing prior discussions. Sorry...You're certainly welcome to continue chatting on it as I'm not sure there is a proper answer/solution here - none of us know Brandon's thoughts! ZueJay (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didn't perceive it as such, just didn't want you to feel discouraged from contributing! Keep trying here...It takes a while to get the hang of this thing, and it can be easy to unexpectedly stumble onto a contentious issue without even realizing it; I've done it myself more than once, and literally left the Wiki for a few days to let the situation settle back down! ZueJay (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]