User talk:A1b43789erzsd

Your recent edits to Galileo Galilei article
Thank you for your recent attention to the article Galileo Galilei, particularly for supplying a source for the claim that Galileo "managed to evade the Roman Inquisition for a year". Unfortunately, neither that claim, nor anything like it, appears in the source you provided (viz. Finocchiaro's review of The Person of the Millenium from The Historian. v69, i3, p.601). I am therefore presuming that you have been misled into accepting these claims by some other source which you have accepted in good faith. This raises a couple of issues:
 * It is a Wikipedia style guideline (and considered obligatory in good scholarly practice anyway) that when you provide a source for a claim it should be one you have checked personally. In other words, if source A is the one where you have found the claim, that is the one you should give. If source A asserts that the claim is supported by another source B, you should not give source B as your source unless you have actually consulted that source and verified that it does in fact support the claim.
 * The assertion that Finocchiaro's review supports the claim is so blatantly false that it must cast some doubt on the reliability of the source where you found it. Of course, it's possible that the source's author has simply made an innocent mistake (by mislabelling its references, for example). However, the claim itself does not correspond very well with accounts given by several other reliable sources I have read, so I would be reluctant to accept anything else asserted by your original source unless it can be verified from some other which is known to be reliable.

P.S. Do you really want to redirect your user and user talk pages to the Wikipedia article Moron? This may make it difficult for inexperienced editors to find your talk page and leave you a message, and hides any such message from view unless the "edit this page" tab is used. To make this message visible I have taken the liberty of commenting out the redirect.

&mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Minor
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Minor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Icestorm815 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sakawaki
Sakawaki, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Sakawaki satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sakawaki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Sakawaki during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Caesura(t) 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of misinformation into articles
Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. —Caesura(t) 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
A day and a half off whilst people try to unpick your recent edits. This block is preventative, to stop the addition of more problematic whilst the existing ones are cleaned up. This avoids even more of other peoples' time being wasted. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)