User talk:Stephen Agnew

Welcome
Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Pioneer anomaly, seem to be promoting a particular perspective on the subject matter. Wikipedia articles require that text be supported by reliable sources, and that articles do not place undue weight on a viewpoint. For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz chat spy  09:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Pioneer anomaly
FYI, I've posted a note on the article talk page asking for another editor to review your text. --Ckatz chat spy  19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Young Earth creationism has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam 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. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/2007/12/creationist-biologist-fired-for-views.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

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. 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) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that you made changes without an edit summary explaining your reasons, and tried reverting when the second change you made was undone. If you continue reverting it will be seen as unacceptable edit warring, and WP:3RR will apply. It's a good idea to explain edits in the edit summary, and to put reasons for proposed changes on article talk pages rather than reverting. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Views have to be carefully balanced in articles in accordance with Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) and it has specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. At the same time we must also avoid original research by being careful to provide a verifiable source for facts and for assessments, opinions or analysis of these facts. . dave souza, talk 21:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)