User talk:80.192.68.143

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Republic of Texas (1861). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, 80.192.68.143, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dave Dial (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to British Israelism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:British Israelism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Original research
I just want to add that you really do need to read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY to understand why your edits are being reverted. Or maybe you just disagree with our policies on this, but that won't help you. Now if you can find some criticisms of Parfitt that we can use, that would be a big contribution. Nonsense or not, at the moment he meets our criteria as a source, we need reliable sources criticising him. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Doug's comments. If you wish to discuss the article, do so on the talk page, but try to stick to content issues. By the way, new comments should go at the bottom of the Talk page, not top. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)