User talk:Emiliogt

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Richard Kuhn analyzed the Tilma in 1936. NASA did not exist in 1936. You might want to check your source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The facts I wrote are correct, but I can see how the way I wrote it might mislead people, the Wall Street Journal does not mention that the studies occured at the same time, or in the same year, so Richard Kuhn analyzed the Tilma in 1936 and the scientists that have worked for NASA, since it was not NASA directly also made the claimes mentioned in the article, I will fix it during the week. Thanks Emiliogt (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, I'm Dougweller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Charlesdrakew that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Peggy Noonan
We couldn't use the article in any case, we would need to use the original sources that she used. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

=3rr== You have broken the 3 revert rule at Our Lady of Guadalupe. I suggest you self-revert and then start a discussion on the talkpage so I won't have to report you to the editwarring noticeboard, which will likely lead to your being blocked from editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using the Talk page, and for making me aware of this rule, I think you should do what is best for the Wikipedia Community.

I would also appreciate if you can point me to the rule of Wikipedia were it states that using as a reference a Catholic University when talking about scientific reaserch related to religious subjects is forbidden by Wikipedia Terms and should be deleted immediately, as well as any rule that states that when an alternative reference is posted to the one that was contested, the research should be also erased without the need to give any reason. Emiliogt (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't realize you were a new editor. The Rule about reverting can be read here. There is no rule against citing catholic universities, but there is a rule that says that all sources must be reliable which you can read here. The concept of reliability is not clear cut but must be determined individually in every case, which is why the correct thing to do when your added material is contested is to go to the talkpage and start a discussion of why you consider the material to be relevant and based on reliable sources. The onus is always on the one who wants to include material to establish a consensus among the other editors that the material is both relevant and sufficiently well sourced. I still suggest you self revert and do that now, I'll be happy to chime in to the discussion. Happy editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you haven't self-reverted. You really need to read WP:3RR - there are no exceptions except for obvious WP:VANDALISM and WP:BLP violations and if you continue you will be reported and almost certainly blocked. You also have now been reverted by 3 editors so you really must get some agreement on the talk page, see WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)