User talk:Angelwriter123

Welcome
Hello, Angelwriter123, 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.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please 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: 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. Again, welcome! dougweller (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Hello Angelwriter! Please ignore what user Doug said about your edit not confirming to our verifiability policy. Doug made a mistake, there was nothing wrong with your edit. The kid hopes it will be the first of many. xx Mrthekid97 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As there was no reference at all, there's no way to verify it. I think both of you need to read WP:VERIFY. dougweller (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug, the kids glad your watching here as he didnt want to critcise you on your user page. There is a reference, immediatly after the block quote, and it points to http://www.bcca.org/ref/books/bwf/0811yearetheangels.html. The text Angel writer added was present in the reference but missing from the wikki article. The kid can see your'e very busy, and you do a lot of fine work here as does hrfran, but please take a few seconds to verify before you tell a new user they are  violating a policy! Its not very welcomeing. Mrthekid97 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the confusion here. Sure there's a reference for the block quote, I didn't suggest there wasn't. It's the section that was added about 'Fallen angels' that wasn't referenced, see the diff here: . That's what I was referring to. I hope you agree that that is unreferenced, and that is what I was trying to explain to Angelwriter - I guess I should have been more specific. dougweller (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right, sorry for saying you made a mistake. the kid's glad you alerted him to the section of fallen angels, which he hadnt noticed.  On looking at the main article, there was an appauling example of bias, where anyone who sympathises with angels might have been traumatised by thinking their is no hope for their redemption. The kid has added the more realistic view. Mrthekid97 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Twinfools


The article Twinfools has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * neologism w/o WP:RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Twinfools
I have nominated Twinfools, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Twinfools. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)