User talk:WonderWheeler

Welcome!

Hello, WonderWheeler, and

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

• You should provide some links to sources where readers can get more information about the subjects and/or
  verify
  what you have written.
• Please
  context
  . This also gives your article greater credibility.
• Try to categorize each article with as many relevant categories as may apply. For instance, I added [[Category:Ceilings]] to your article on popcorn ceilings. You can probably find other categories that would apply just by searching.
• If your first version of an article is a bit short, consider adding a
  stub
  template, which serves two purposes: it lets others know you'll be adding more material later, and encourages other editors to also add relevant material.
• Do not sign the end of each article with four tildes ~~~~. That's only done on discussion pages like this one.

Keep on writing! You're off to a good start. Realkyhick 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks Thanks for the info --WonderWheeler 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energy audit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy audit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Robert M. Schoch, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. and "fringe scientific" is an oxymoron Doug Weller talk 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is libel to say it is fringe research. Your accusation is without merit, archeologists are not geologists and are not experts in erosion and earth movement like civil engineers. Although all important research is fringe, when it is new it is a derogative term. Archeologists are only partly scientists. Scientific Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry7Mr1Trt24

New scientific discoveries happen at the fringes. Not by repeating old theories handed down. WonderWheeler (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of a crime? Even though geologists refute him? It also appears you haven't even read his article, his fringe ideas cover a wide range of subjects. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See