User talk:Wolfgang Dan

Welcome!

Hello, Wolfgang Dan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Articles in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. Your recent additions are neither reliably sourced nor factually accurate. Please read the guideline I have linked to and follow them in the future. If you have further questions, you should consult the Reliable sources noticeboard. Also bear in mind that you should not give undue weight to minority sources. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again - please do not make edits like this one. The statement: However, this criticism is known to be inaccurate, considering the differences between creationism and ID is simply untrue. It has been well established, by many sources, that intelligent design is creationism - please see the intelligent design article, for example. To begin with, as I mentioned above, you need reliable sources for your additions to Wikipedia. "Known to be inaccurate" according to whom? You must specify this. And given the fact that there's a wealth of high-quality sources that contradict this statement, you need to come up with equally high quality sources. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: this edit: However, the article is known to have more then met the criterion - based on what? Known by whom? And But, this too appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of ID, considering that the scarcity of ID papers is considered by its advocates to be do to persecution - this needs a source! Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligize, i am unfamialir with how wikipedia works, and would, if i knew how, be more then happy to cite sources. Do you simply wish me to cite it in the bibliography? As i said, i am more then happy to cite my sources. I am not even sure how to message the person sending me these notes.

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Stephen C. Meyer, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have continued inserting specious material on biographies of living people despite repeated warnings above. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw factully inacurate material, and i changed it. Simply because you are to bigoted to permit other view pionts hardly makes those viewpionts vandalism. I admit that i am not very skillfull in editing, but i always post a link to the source. It hardly constitutes vandalism simply because you disagree with it. Furthermore, if anyone is vandalzing these pages is it you. Putting knowingly incorrect materiel on these pages, for instance, saying that Meyer stoped teaching to promote creationism is in stark contrast to the fact that he himself denies that he did this. Meyer promotes intelligent design, which is inherently sperate from creationism ,which Meyer condemns.

January 2011 (part 2)

These edits on Stephen C. Meyer contained the following problems:

Removal of well-sourced material without discussion, let alone WP:CONSENSUS.
Addition of unsourced material in violation of WP:Verifiability
Misuse of the WP:MINOR edit tag.

Please cease and desist making edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, and discuss your edits first (and preferably produce a reliable source to support your changes) before making controversial edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]