User talk:Thwonk121

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Thwonk121, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

December 2009
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kansas evolution hearings. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Kansas evolution hearings, you will be blocked from editing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations found on a website making biographical claims about integrity of living persons are not good enough: please do not add material without a reliable source. Also, since you seem to be in the habit of restoring edits that contravene policies, be aware that you may be blocked for edit warring if you continue: please present your case for changes on the talk page. . dave souza, talk 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kansas evolution hearings. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Please note - I am not the blocking admin. User:Secret performed the actual block. I am merely adding this as a courtesy notice. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)