User talk:NikosSimpson

{{unblock-auto|1=209.236.250.213|2= Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ToyotaHarrisburg". The reason given for ToyotaHarrisburg's block is: "

July 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Clayton College of Natural Health. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Clayton College of Natural Health ‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ''Your speculation on the possible reasons why CCNH gets criticized are, at best, original research. Wikipedia can't publish speculation by contributors like you and me; we need verifiable content from published sources. '' Orlady (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that adding factual information about the school's admission process was "biased" information. I thought that this was a wikipedia page, not some sort of right wing lobbyist group for the medical profession. My apologies for trying to add non-biased, factual information gathered via my work at the Los Angeles Times to your page. I, as well as the millions of other wikipedia users, will TRY to humble ourselves to folks like you in the future.

Nomination of Ebony March for deletion
The article Ebony March is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ebony March until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tassedethe (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The March Issue


The article The March Issue has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable magazine; no 3rd party references

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. Tassedethe (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated posts on Requests for Undeletion
I reverted your most recent addition of text on WP:REFUND. You have already posted in this section: Requests_for_undeletion. Any additional comments should go in that section. However, since the article itself has not been deleted any discussion you want to have about the fate of the article must occur at Articles for deletion/Ebony March. Otherwise your comments will never be seen by the closing admin or other participants in the discussion. Any additional insertion of commentary on the REFUND page will be reverted. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)