User talk:Subzerojones

Hello, Subzerojones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! GDallimore (Talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Hi G. Dallimore. OK by me if you wish to redact my comments on the 300. We gotta play by the rules or there would be anarchy. I just never thought there was anything contentious in my input, particularly as it was under a banner claiming that this section was 'speculative'. Apologies..
 * Perhaps you would be sweet enough to restore the grist of the matter (in some form agreeable to you) as my update about the 300 becomes more widely known. My input was based insofar as evidence goes on the reproduction of a letter and associated license agreements sent out to applicants around mid-April. These have been reproduced by applicants to the 300 on several websites including Steorn's public forum. - the other sites, being a forgetful sod I did not bookmark.


 * Regards and thanks. (Subzerojones (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I suggest waiting until Steorn announce it officially or some news outlet mentions it. Then something can be added to the article. The thing with the "speculative" section does not mean poorly verified information can be added but means that anything that is added should be kept to a minimum. ie reporting that the 300 have been chosen and will make their pronouncments in the future should be only a very minor entry in the article (if at all, given that the original jury idea never came to fruition, so why should anyone expect this new plan to do so). Once the pronouncements have actually been made, then there might be the opportunity to expand on it.


 * Particularly in an article on a topic that's got lots of people trying to guess the future, it is important that these predictions not overwhelm the actual facts that are known.


 * By the way, you'll see I've reformatted your comments above. You can use colons to add an indent to separate your comments from the comment before. Also, don't add a space at the beginning of a new line or the text ends up being put in a box. Finally, the instructions above about how to sign your name are a bit confusing. They say to use "four tildes ( ~ )". Note that you should not include the brackets.


 * All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

March 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to BankToTheFuture, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. January ( talk ) 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)