User talk:Josephmd

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chinook wind, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Chinook wind was changed by Josephmd (c) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2007-10-22T21:57:55+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

April 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. SparrowsWing (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I talked to User:SparrowsWing last night, suggesting he cut you a little more slack, and he's agreed. Needless to say, you should try to be careful about adhering to the rules -- check the Five Pillars, especially, and good luck!  Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi, I noticed your edits to Black hole, which do have an element of truth, but didn't quite meet Wikipedia's standards. You are right that the existence of black holes has not been absolutely proved, and there are still a few reputable scientists who doubt their reality. The trouble of course is that we can never "see" one, only see their effects, and ask "what could possibly do that?" Combined with the theory (general relativity, which is moderately well established) it seems pretty certain that they are real, and almost everyone in the field accepts their existence as the baseline hypothesis, until they are disproved or we have a better theory. There is a lot of discussion and question and answer on the talk page, you might like to read that and some of the more elementary articles to learn more about the subject. The BH candidate Cygnus X-1 has just been promoted to "good article" status, it covers some of the observational evidence for the earliest (and still one of the best) convincing case. Anyhow, I hope the links above will give you a start on learning more about how Wikipedia works. I am not a true expert, but I know a little bit about black holes, so feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)