User talk:Aum108

Welcome!

Hello, Aum108, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —WikiLen 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! —WikiLen 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Criticisms[edit]

Nice work at this section of the article. Seems there are still issues to address. See my comments at the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLen (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I note that the New Age Criticisms section in the article has not received additional citations. I have looked for suitable citations myself and find none. I conclude that this section should be deleted as not meeting the Wikipedia policy on acceptable content for Wikipedia articles. I base my conclusion on policy stated at, Wikipedia:Attribution, in particular, on what it says about original research. I appreciate what you have done and believe you are well informed and wrote what is the truth. Unfortunately, Wikipedia needs more than yours and my word that what you are saying is the truth — needs recognized "reliable sources". —WikiLen 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirthing[edit]

It is unfortunate that the term is used as you describe and also as the technique that was used on Candace Newmaker that caused her death. All the citations show that that is the correct term, but it is used in two very different ways for two very different processes. I'd suggest describing that confusion in the article on rebirthing and linking to the Newmaker article so people can see the two are not the same. DPeterson^talk 01:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AnnaleeSkarin.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:AnnaleeSkarin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to circumcision[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

While your theory regarding Leverage (TV series) is interesting, it is entirely original research and entirely unsourced. Even a cursory search on the development of the show would lead you to see it was largely inspired by 1970's American caper shows such as "The Rockford Files" and "The A-Team" as writer/producer John Rogers has often said in interviews. Regardless of its origins, we cannot insert entirely original research without reliable secondary sources. Consequently, I have reverted the section. Drmargi (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to New Zealand, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. XLerate (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]