Omegafold

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Edward Leedskalnin, but we cannot accept original research. Original research 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. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1.IF I MUST CITE A WIKIPEDIA SOURCE TO MAKE A WIKIPEDIA SOURCE, AND EVERYONE ELSE HAD TO DO THIS SAME THING, NO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES WOULD EXIST.

2.IF I MODIFY ONLY BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF INFORMATION TO A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, THERE IS NO HARM IN THIS UNLESS THE INFORMATION COULD BE DEEMED INACCURATE.

3.THE SUBJECT MATTER I HAD ADDED IS IN MY AREA OF RESEARCH FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.

4.I'VE BEEN MAKING VIDEOS ON THIS SUBJECT SINCE DEC.2010 ON YOUTUBE WHERE EVERYONE ON EARTH HAS BEEN FREE TO COMMENT IN THE FORUMS BELOW EACH VIDEO. I'VE HAD NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM MY WORK ASIDE FROM A NUT OR TWO. THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY ON THE SUBJECT IS EXPLAINED THEREIN STEP BY STEP.

5.I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE SUBJECT ON WIKIPEDIA EASILY, SO I MADE A HARMLESS SHORT VERSION. IF THE EDITOR DOES NOT AGREE WITH MY WORK, HE SHOULD GO TO YOUTUBE AND ARGUE THERE, NOT CENSOR MY ADDITION HERE, SINCE THIS IS WHERE WE GIVE OUR ANSWERS TO THE WORLD. THIS IS THE INTERNET, IT'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, NOT CENSORSHIP BY BIGSHOTS.

6.THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL WORK, THIS IS VERIFIED THEORY BASED ON REAL SCIENCE IF THE EDITOR WHO BLOCKED MY ADDITION WOULD CARE TO PAY ATTENTION TO. I APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE NUTS OUT THERE WITH HALF COCKED THEORIES, AND NOT EVERYONE CAN POST THEM TO THE LEEDSKALNIN PAGE ON WIKI, BUT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE ATLEAST A REFERENCE SECTION TO THEIR WORK!!! THIS WAY OTHERS WHO SEE THE PAGE DON'T THINK IT'S STILL A MYSTERY TO EVERYONE AND THEY DON'T WASTE TIME TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THEIR OWN. THEY CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP; EXPERIMENTING, BUILDING, DOING SOMETHING USEFUL.

7.IF IT IS WIKIPEDIA'S POLICY TO PREVENT EVEN REFERENCES TO SERIOUS RESEARCH BY PROFESSIONAL OR EVEN UNPROFESSIONAL UNPAID SCIENTISTS, THEN SCREW THIS PLACE. I CONTRIBUTED CASH MONEY TO KEEP THIS PLACE ON THE WEB AND NOW I GET THIS.

February 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2012 phenomenon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Given that you seem to understand our policies and guidelines and have decided to ignore them, I'll give you a final warning. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a really bad idea to abuse Wikipedia email to call me a "frenchy faggot". Wikipedia is not a venue for your ideas. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

I see that you have had a rough beginning to your hopefully long and productive career as a Wikipedia editor. I would like to offer my assistance. I am an experienced editor though not an admin. I have special interest as well as long experience editing subjects that are frowned upon by many mainstream adherents, such as relating to what is here labeled the 2012 phenomenon and what is also considered "fringe views" on science, for example. My position is not that of a "rational skeptic" attempting to weed out expressions of alternative perspectives, but to assist these subject areas, and the articles covering them, in presenting the variant opinions so that an open-minded reader will be able to assess the reality and authenticity of what is presented. The best way of doing this in my view is to understand the Wikipedia culture, learn the ropes, i.e. principles, rules and guidelines that apply equally to all edits made to articles, and avoid conflict as much as possible. If you ask for my assistance here on this page or on my talk page, I will do my best to assist and counsel you. If you want to contact me on Facebook you can find a link to my Facebook profile on my user page. __meco (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)