User talk:Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from White-bellied fat-tailed mouse opossum. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RFA (band)


A tag has been placed on RFA (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   05:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ᅠ
ᅠ Bacrens (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Hi Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals. I thank you for your appreciation.Gardenkur (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Murder on the Orient Express, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Bgsu98  (Talk)  01:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It was not original research, but I can see why you’d regard it that way, since I cited nothing. Thank you for being polite, and yes of COURSE I should have cited sources. I made that edit on the spur of the moment, that’s all.
 * I happened to be reading about that Christie novel, while I’ve had a little obsession with the Lindbergh kidnapping for years. I felt bothered by the lack of any mention of all the good reasons to doubt that Lindbergh’s baby was ever really “kidnapped” at all. (Abducted by his own father seems more likely to me.)
 * I can recall arguing for Hauptmann’s innocence (in my own mind) nearly five years ago. And over the last year, I’ve become more and more convinced that Lindbergh himself was the true killer.
 * This is the first time I’ve ever believed in a conspiracy theory. But this conspiracy theory is different from most other ones, because this one makes way more sense than the established story, which has dozens of plot holes undermining it. Check out an interview with Ms. Lise Pearlman, on YouTube, among other things.
 * ANYway, I saw the thing about Agatha Christie being inspired by the Lindbergh kidnapping, and I thought “this isn’t fair, they’re presenting Lindbergh’s side of the story as if it were the established truth, not mentioning the hundreds of plot holes that disprove it.” Nobody did anything wrong, but considering what I personally know about the case, I found it unfair that Lindbergh’s fabricated hoax of a “kidnapping” is still considered the official story.
 * Yes, of course it’s unacceptable that I cited no sources. Perhaps - if I get around to it - I will eventually write up a much shorter version (just one paragraph) of the same thing, but with every sentence properly cited. And I’ll put that into the article. If I ever get around to it.
 * Trust me, though: this does deserve to be mentioned in the article, because it’s morally outrageous that Charles Lindbergh got away with murdering his own kid and hoodwinking the whole world into believing some evil villain did it from outside, instead of himself. Even more outrageous was that Hauptmann was killed for Lindbergh’s sins.
 * For the sake of justice itself, society should never again discuss the Lindbergh kidnapping without at least *mentioning* that the established story has been repeatedly challenged. ………And that it DESERVES to be challenged! Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ANYway, I saw the thing about Agatha Christie being inspired by the Lindbergh kidnapping, and I thought “this isn’t fair, they’re presenting Lindbergh’s side of the story as if it were the established truth, not mentioning the hundreds of plot holes that disprove it.” Nobody did anything wrong, but considering what I personally know about the case, I found it unfair that Lindbergh’s fabricated hoax of a “kidnapping” is still considered the official story.
 * Yes, of course it’s unacceptable that I cited no sources. Perhaps - if I get around to it - I will eventually write up a much shorter version (just one paragraph) of the same thing, but with every sentence properly cited. And I’ll put that into the article. If I ever get around to it.
 * Trust me, though: this does deserve to be mentioned in the article, because it’s morally outrageous that Charles Lindbergh got away with murdering his own kid and hoodwinking the whole world into believing some evil villain did it from outside, instead of himself. Even more outrageous was that Hauptmann was killed for Lindbergh’s sins.
 * For the sake of justice itself, society should never again discuss the Lindbergh kidnapping without at least *mentioning* that the established story has been repeatedly challenged. ………And that it DESERVES to be challenged! Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Trust me, though: this does deserve to be mentioned in the article, because it’s morally outrageous that Charles Lindbergh got away with murdering his own kid and hoodwinking the whole world into believing some evil villain did it from outside, instead of himself. Even more outrageous was that Hauptmann was killed for Lindbergh’s sins.
 * For the sake of justice itself, society should never again discuss the Lindbergh kidnapping without at least *mentioning* that the established story has been repeatedly challenged. ………And that it DESERVES to be challenged! Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the sake of justice itself, society should never again discuss the Lindbergh kidnapping without at least *mentioning* that the established story has been repeatedly challenged. ………And that it DESERVES to be challenged! Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)