User talk:Albertoarmstrong

Rumble Strips
Hi Alex Sims, Why did you remove my sections? I'm new to wiki and I assume that "rm unsourced POV" means "removed unsourced point-of-view", however, I did provide the sourse of my quotes. Also, I intend to provide more references soon as I had indicated.

I didn't remove anyone else's work even though I don't agree with their "point-of-view". Alberto


 * Hi - If you're wanting a response from someone, you'd do better to post on THEIR talk page.... Peridon (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, None of your material is sourced. Any contribution should be verifiable. There is undue weight to your criticisms. Please have a read of WP:NPOV and also the material above. Alex Sims (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Employee assistance programs, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Vrenator (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted my reverts as requested as although I haven't checked the citations they were there so I was probably a bit hasty. The tone of the article does come across as pretty biased so probably needs to be reviewed and toned down to make it more encyclopaedic. Vrenator (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
I noticed you have been in a prolonged edit war with another user on the article Employee assistance programs. Please note that edit warring is not an appropriate way to resolve a content dispute. Please see dispute resolution for some appropriate venues to resolve this dispute. I recommend starting with seeking a third opinion or the neutral point of view noticeboard. In the meantime, I have requested full protection of the article in question, so that some consensus can be gained before any edits can be made. If an administrator agrees with my rationale for protection, only administrators will be able to edit the article, though anyone may request an edit on the talk page.

Please note that I am not taking any side in this dispute, and I will be leaving this same message on the other involved user's talk page. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a report at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, I'm Evanh2008. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kristallnacht seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kristallnacht, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Talkback
Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rumble strip over reaction accident.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rumble strip over reaction accident.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Solutrean
Thanks, but sources for this article need to mention Solutrean, or for the section in question, the Solutrean hypothesis, and of course the source you added doesn't do that. The article is embarrassing in any case, as it has so little on the actual subject. There's more on the hypothesis than on the culture. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * By process of elimination, who else could it be? Furthermore, this statement: "Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources (see the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations,.." is flawed because it doesn't actually rule out the 'Solutrean hypothesis' as it could be easily explained away by either: 1) the DNA could have been from a mixed-race individual (Native-Solutrean); or 2) the Clovis artifacts may have been booty that was taken after a battle in which the Soutreans were defeated.   Its similar to claiming that because Christian relics were found buried in Sweden with a Viking skeleton that they we produced by the Vikings, but we know they were taken by the Vikings during raids of monasteries in Britain.  If you can delete my reference because it doesn't say Solutrean, then I should be able to delete the 3rd paragraph because the reference can't disprove my 2 plausible explanations about the DNA.  Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To be more specific, we don't use the process of elimination in writing our articles, that is considered original research, see WP:NOR. You were reverted at Solutrean hypotheisis for that reasoh. This comes as a shock to some editors - certainly I tried the same thing at an article about a book trying to show Troy was in England, where I put forward a lot of evidence showing the book was wrong and was reverted because my edits were original research. Writing articles here is not at all like writing an essay or a paper for a scientific journal. 05:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)


 * The quote ""These grooves are clearly the result of human activity and together with new radiocarbon dates, they indicate that humans were processing a mastodon carcass in what is now the southeastern United States much earlier than was generally accepted which is that Americas' first people arrived in the New World via the Bering Strait 'land bridge', when sea levels were much lower, some 13,000 years ago" doesn't seem to be in the source by the way. Quotes obviously have to be in the source, which does say " demonstrates that the earliest people to enter North America were exploring the Gulf Coastal Plain at the same time other areas of the continent were being populated." If this whole subject interests you, you should read Settlement of the Americas, particularly discussion of the Long chronology. Note that what the researchers are suggesting is "“The logical way people could have come to Florida by 14,600 years ago is if their ancestors entered the Americas by boat along the Pacific Coast,” Waters toldDiscovery News. “They could have travelled by boat to central Mexico, crossed and come along the Gulf Coast. They could have entered the Americas via the Columbia river and then travelled inland to the Mississippi river and followed it down and entered the Gulf Coast, eventually making their way to Florida."  Doug Weller  talk 08:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)