User talk:RevTim0

do you think the museum of hoax's is a valid source of information? 79616gr (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

it's a valid question, please don't just delete it!

79616gr (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it may not be reference material but UM saw some need to have it deleted from Google search results. Thanks.

it sits better a part of the "removed links" section where you have it now. personally i would not include it, but see what others say.

79616gr (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79616gr (talk • contribs)

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) 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk page discussions
It is generally considered bad form to remove comments from a talk page discussion that has reached any length as this creates confusion and can render a discussion unintelligible. The customary form for retracting comments is to strike the text you wish to withdraw. This lets everyone know you are withdrawing your comment without turning the entire conversation into an incoherent mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

wording
"you have been provided with paranoid delusional information "  I do not see how information can be "paranoid delusional information". Conceivably one might say it originates from a paranoid delusional source, but that too is an unusual thing to say. Such terms are ordinarily applied to people. Wording it as you did might seem an attempt to use the words about someone while being able to technically deny it refers to them. Similarly, it would have been better to call their remarks just a conspiracy theory without using "paranoid". I'm not going to go further with this, but please be more discreet. Using terms that might be thought to apply to mental illness of contributors is never helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)