User talk:Researchfellow

Your edit to Mel Gibson
Hi there. While your edits may be factually accurate, they do not belong in this article. I suggest finding the appropriate article and adding the information there, following WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and linking Mel's article to that article. - CobaltBlueTony 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Glossolalia
Again, plese cite the material you're referencing, and try not to rehash so much in your additions. Such exhaustive summarization could be seen as original research. - CobaltBlueTony 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Andrew Newberg, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! CobaltBlueTony 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Your edit to Neurotheology
Hello there, apparent fellow Penn person! It might seem like I'm hounding you, but I think maybe if you understand the nature of contributions acceptable here you'll still be able to contribute effectively. As a researcher, you're accustomed to hunting down facts to see if a picture can be painted and presenting that. The limit on this site, however, is to dispense previously dispensed information in an encyclopedic fashion. So for facts or conclusions, you have to find a verifiable citation to substantiate your statements. If there are opposing views, we accomodate them by merely stating that such opinions or viewpoints exist, cite them, and do our best to approximate the appropriate academic weight based on the authority of the respective proponents and the general acceptance in their respective fields of interest, as well as noting the wider public's views, if appropriate to mention. I hope this helps you. Please continue to be bold, and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)