User talk:Nickneachtain

July 2013
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ''Please read the various article talk-page discussions on these matters. Consensus is that the categories you removed are relevant to the article topic and content'' Haploidavey (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see I was wrong to call this a "Categories" issue; even so, the "See also" links you removed appear to have been agreed on in various talk-page discussions and edit summaries. Of course, you're free to bring the matter up on the article talk-page; this would be the next proper step when your edit has been reverted on the grounds of an established consensus. Haploidavey (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The categories 'pseudoscience' and 'pseudoarchaeology' considering what the meaning largely held with these words, is when made in association with the Bosnian discoveries grossly misleading and a petit attempt at disregarding a fact whose very existence unsettles the established views of scientists in the relavant fields. THE CONSENSUS IS NOT SEEING THESE DISCOVERIES AS UNTRUE. It seems brandishing using words 'pseudoscience' 'pseudoarchaeology' or 'hoax' is the only approach you people have left, because the evidence is becoming clearer everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickneachtain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 31 July 2013‎
 * I don't understand what it is you mean, but please don't remove them again. Instead, please follow the previous suggestion to discuss the matter on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you not understand what I mean? You can understand english right, I think it is fairly plane regarding the changes i made. Is this not the place where I make this point? If not here then where? And why then can I not change something that I see to be wrong? {NickneachtainNickneachtain (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)}
 * It's extremely fragmented English, to the point that at best the meaning isn't clear at all. Statements like "THE CONSENSUS IS NOT SEEING THESE DISCOVERIES AS UNTRUE" simply make no sense.
 * The discussion should take place on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Your recent editing history at Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilfrid Kendall


A tag has been placed on Wilfrid Kendall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  GILO  A& E&uArr;  11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)