User talk:Curandero101

Welcome!

Hello, Curandero101, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  --Christian Edward Gruber 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to give another spin to the article on Subh-i-Azal. You will find more support if you can give citations and references for the statements you are making. Also add something to the discussion page of the article about what you're doing, so we can discuss it. Thanks! Wjhonson 14:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating a more complete NPOV article is laudable. Giving an article a "spin" is not. More spin is not the same as creating a neutral article. I would encourage you to add missing material, or missing perspectives, with appropriate citations, and trust that you will abide by Wikipedia policies around removing verifiable and cited material, and that you will also attempt to create a neutral article. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And I would suggest that there is no reason to be so hostile and nasty to a new user. Which apparently he is (no user page). And by "spin" I simply meant a new perspective. Assume good faith. Thank you. Wjhonson 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As Wjhonson emphasizes, I intended the above comment with an assumption of good faith, but rather merely wished to highlight certain Wikipedia policies that must govern all of our edits. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If I somehow cma across as hostile or nasty, it was entirely unintentional and I apologize. I'm not sure how Wjhonson got that idea. I can't quite see how pointing out policy is hostile OR nasty, but I guess what you intend isn't always what people perceive. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Note that everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable, by reliable sources. Thus the information has to be published in some form, and self-published sources such as personal websites, forums, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Note that you are on the verge of going past the WP:3RR policy. -- Jeff3000 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported for passing WP:3RR, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Jeff3000 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Mr Jeff, you people are breaking Wikipedia policy by posting sectarian Baha'i propaganda as articles. I am happy to take this matter as far as it goes. All my points changed in the article are referenced. Your references are the sectarian sources of your own creed, such as biased screeds by Shoghi Effendi. If you call this impartial, I would like sell you a bridge overlooking Sydney Harbour. You people are clearly abusing Wikipedia to propagate your own biased sectarian agendas. Now if you want to talk over specific points, fire away.

Curandero101

Where are your sources for your statements in the recent development sections? Are they published in any reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Bring them forward. Where are your sources for there being populations in Uzbekistan? Bring them forward. Unless reliable sources as defined by WIkipedia are brought up, information can be removed. Please read the associated Wikipedia policies. Regards, --- Jeff3000 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You should also read What Wikipedia is not, specifically the point about it not being an indiscrimate collection of information, which leads to the WP:Notability. If a subject is not notable it can be removed, and further there is Wikipedia's undue weight policy which states "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all" -- Jeff3000 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been reverted because your edits there are not at all neutral in tone, include uncited original research, include non-notable items, and have lacked any edit summaries or talk page discussion. MARussellPESE 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 11 2006 to Bayani

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have extended you block for creating a sockpuppet, and using an IP address, to continue your agenda whilst being already blocked. Kilo•T 11:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)