User talk:Werty26262626

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Biological value, 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 changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --Quarte t 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Biological value, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.--Quarte t 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edits [1] there is sufficient evidence to beleive you're a sockpuppet of User:Messenger2010. I'll be requesting a checkuser shortly. --Quarte t 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll apologize to me, in/on this very page, once my innocence has been proven via checkuser! I realize this is just your job, but still, I don't believe that you're being fair at all! By the way, how long does that operation(checkuser) take? I hope that it doesn't take more than a couple of days! --Werty26262626 (talk), Monday, 9 June 2008.

Sorry but your edits to the biological value article, including the Colgan citation[2] are very similar if not identical to those made by a vandal whose random name/number sockpuppets (much like your username)[3] have been repeatedly blocked by a number of administrators since early 2007. I'm not going to turn this into a witch hunt at this time, though I'll be watching your edits with great interest. --Quarte t 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartet, I think it would be better if you resorted to checkuser. Because that would prove once and for all, that I'm not a sockpuppet. As for my username «Werty26262626», know that I chose it simply because the letters «w», «e», «r», «t», «y», appear alongside each other on my keyboard, and that simply makes it easier for me to log in, whenever I need to. The number 26, appears because that's my birthday, and it appears 4 times, because April was the month of the year in which I was born! If my username is similar to any of the «usernames» adopted/created by «Messenger2010», that's a simple coincidence! So, as you can see, I've got nothing to hide on that department. As for my first two edits... Well, let me just say, that I was new to wikipedia, and I really didn't know any of its rules. Nonetheless, while those edits were indeed very poor ones, seeing as how they lacked verifiable supporting documents, the figures I gave weren't made up. You can look it up on the web, yourself! And again Quartet, I'd much rather be subjected to usercheck right away, then have someone questioning my honesty, as well as my identity! So please, use that utility, as soon as you possibly can! --Werty26262626 (talk), Monday, 9 June 2008.