User talk:Welsh-girl-Lowri

Introduction
Hello, this is Lowri here and I don't have a clue what to type here so I'll just leave it like this. All I know is that I did one thing right so I'll continue experimenting:)

Big Bang-Biogenesis "proof"
I'm not sure what you're talking about, whether it is creation science, or some other variant, but there certainly is no proof using biogenesis that the Big Bang is wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe that biogenesis is disproof once and for all of the Big Bang. Biogenesis, as the proof of how life cannot spontaneously generate from non-living material (proved by Louis Pasteur in I've forgotten what year) would mean that at the very beginning there must have been something living when the BB theory suggests that in the first few minutes all there was were hydrogen and helium atoms. Actually, I've changed my mind, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Big Bang never happened, but if it didn't then it's proof that there is indeed a God. It is either proof for one or the other, I just chose to say it's disproof of the BB because of the two scenarios that's the one that's probably more likely to be accepted by the wider scientific community. Some Atheists may have trouble accepting that there is a God and will believe anything as an alternative.

Therefore, the Big Bang may actually have happened. But if it DID, there must be a God. See the logic? :) Lowri (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but you cannot include your idea on Wikipedia pages because you are not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that, that is my research but I have reason to believe that someone hacked my account for a joke and started distributing what they believed to be my research in ways I wouldn't have chosen. I mean, if you'd done a load of research would you first publish it to a science journal or leak it to Wikipedia? (It's exactly the kind of cruel prank someone would play on me) so I'll try to find these things that were written from my account and delete them. Those morons have gone too far this time. Lowri (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i just reverted your edit on Vanessa Hudgens' album "V". The link that you deleted as "Incorrect", is actually a correct link. Edgehead5150 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Delta Goodrem
Hi, just drawing your attention to the initial GA comments at Talk:Delta Goodrem/GA1. —Giggy 10:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know where to check! I'll look now:)

GA Review Reminder
-epicAdam (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hope 7 - Breakthrough.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hope 7 - Breakthrough.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks
Please stop removing redlinks. See Red links.

Thank you. Rebecca (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hundred More Years
I see that you wrote an article for the album. I'm fairly certain that it is notable enough to deserve an article. However, our verification policy requires that content be sourced by reliable sources. This article was not reliably sourced. So another author, who was watching our newest pages, redirected the new article back to Francesca's article. You can restore the article by undoing this author's action, but you need to provide reliable sources. I find very many while searching on google, including iTunes and Amazon. My point is if you want content to be kept, you need to provide reliable sources. I know that you spent the time to write the article, so if you'd spend a little more then it would be kept. You can find out how to cite sources at Citing_sources. Or you can always leave a message on my talk page and I can help answer any of your questions (even if they're complicated!).  Royal broil  02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you. When I was writing it it did occur to me that there were no sources, which I realised was a problem but I wasn't sure how to add the ones I found. I'll just read up on that and sort it out. Lowri (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Breakthrough (Hope 7 song)


The article Breakthrough (Hope 7 song) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)