Burleigh2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Burleigh2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Darwinius masillae. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Darwinius, 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The statement you keep putting in the Darwinius article -- "Some concerns are that while other evolutionary steps have many more examples, this species is currently known only from a single fossil specimen" -- is not supported by any sources, firstly. What "other evolutionary sources" have more examples? Also, it appears to be original research, in that it's your opinion that this is a concern, rather than the view of someone you're citing. Lastly, I don't know what "evolutionary steps" are; it's not a term that would be used by a biologist, as far as I can tell. This has been discussed in the talk page for the article, and the consensus is that this sentence doesn't belong there. You're engaging in an edit war now by continually restoring this deleted sentence; please discuss this issue on the talk page and try to change the consensus, rather than repeatedly inserting the same text. Agathman (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing articles on controversial topics

I hope you don't mind a bit of advise: I stongly encourage new editors to focus their editing efforts on articles with non-controversial topics. Otherwise you can get a very skewed perspective on the amount of disruption that occurs in Wikipedia and what is done to resolve such disruptions. I've collected a number of links (some humorous) on the problems and solutions frequently encountered while editing articles on controversial topics, problems that are relatively rare with most other articles: User:Ronz#Unfortunately, it's not all WikiLove. --Ronz (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Secondary welcome

Hi there, if you need any help with accessing pay-per-view papers in the scientific literature or advice on biochemistry-related stuff, please drop me a note. I'm always happy to help. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

QuackWatch

QuackWatch has been determined a reliable source - see here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please use review articles

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)