User talk:Luiscabrejo

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nazca Lines has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/pages/El-Codigo-Nasca-The-Nasca-Code/111144338914903?ref=ts. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Please read WP:COI, in particular the guidance on editing with a conflict of interet. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazca lines
Dear Luis Cabrejo, thanks fopr contributing your interesting theories about the Nazca lines. I regret to say that wikipedia cannot at this time include your theories. Being an encyclopedia there are certain policies for including content that we try to enforce, most of this policies are explained here, where wikipedia defines what it is by stating explicitly what it is not. One of the things wikipedia is not is a publisher of original thought - ideas that are included in wikipedia should already have been established independently before being included, for example by being covered in many reliable sources. While your theories have been published - the publication form does not pass the standar for being a reliable source which is given here this standard requires that the source is not self-published but has been professionally published or at least given a significant amount of attention by media that are unrelated to the author of the theories. These requirements have not yet been fulfilled in the case of your theories which are so new that no media unrelated to yourself seems to have covered them nor have they been given any attention in academic peerreviewed publications. I hope you understand, and will continue to edit wikipedia in concordance with our policies and guidelines. Best regards. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)