Hi, I think you wrote excellent things on the Darwin Awards page, really intelligent stuff. :) I couldn't stop laughing at that piece that "Whoever keeps putting this bit in..." oh my god that was hilarious. :) Keep up the good work.. I'll try looking for more of your edits if I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.245.35 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working the last day on getting the silly tone borrowed from Wendy Northcutt's website out of the Darwin Awards article. I would like to find some newspaper articles and interviews besides the cnn one that give an idea of what kind of person she is. That might go in her article. BTW, don't you think it's ridiculous and wrong that humans are so cruel to those we think are dumber and more foolish than us, & especially cruel to those who are a bit below average but above retardation? Then with the flick of some switch in our heads, we are suddenly kind to the mentally retarded(as we should be!)But what about people lost in this crazy society w/the wrong brain type but better off than the retarded. It must be so hard and sad!Rich 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add any sourced information you feel would make the physical attractiveness article more accurate. If you feel the article misrepresents what's been shown scientifically, WP:SOFIXIT.--Louiedog (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is unnecessary to show that the road was once called "the Street road". It can simply be referenced to the book without the quote. Also, the sentence "It was called the Street road because, contrary to present usage where "street" is a synonym for road, the original use of the word "street" was a paved road" is referenced to a Wikipedia article which is an unacceptable source. If that sentence should remain in the article, a reliable source should be found. Dough4872 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision used a more reliable source than I did. As an 89-year-old married man, I confirm what Mayo says, but Wikipedia does not allow “Original Research” so I cited WebMD. I have taken on the task of trying to improve the Old age article. Your help and suggestions are appreciated. Vejlefjord (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katha Pollitt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Stefan Molyneux was reverted. You ought to comment on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nancymc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nara milanich for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mcampany (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancymc. I saw your note on the talk page before it got deleted. If you want to rewrite the page, it's better to do it from scratch than with the existing page, because otherwise the copyright violation would still be in the page history. You can create the page with the correct capitalization by clicking on this red link :Nara Milanich. Please read our guideline on notability for academics before creating the page so that you can ensure that she meets the guidelines.

Happy editing! Mcampany (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nancymc: With this edit you added content sourced to pinkerite.com, the personal blog of Nancy McClernan. The resemblance between "Nancy McClernan" and your Wikipedia user name "Nancymc" suggests that you may be the blogger in question. Please review Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources and refrain from citing that blog. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James A. Lindsay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have restored the disputed content three times today. Please stop edit-warring and discuss on the Talk page to reach consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four times: [1] [2] [3] [4] GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder why so many people despise Wikipedia editors. Nancymc (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]