User talk:Ai6pg

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ai6pg/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ai6pg/sandbox Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiisawesome&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Ai6pg/sandbox reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia /talk 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm Wikiisawesome. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wia /talk 21:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
/wia /talk 22:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
/wia /talk 00:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Fiddle  Faddle  18:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum T&#124;C 04:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

Wikipedia does not tolerate advocacy of any kind, either pro-gun or anti-gun, patriotic or subversive, whatever -- this is not a "letters to the editor" page of a newspaper, nor is it a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)