Hello, Jamesmichaelsf, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your massive insertion of information on the Same-Sex marriage article, I would suggest you adequetly source it, before it is removed by other editors. Also, it would be nice if you could split it up a bit so that it is easier to read. Don't get me wrong, I'm against prop 8, but I still follow policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edits on Same-sex marriage, I would agree with Daedalus above. I've removed a large chunk of your edits because they appear to be a copyright violation. On wikipedia, it's best to summarize or restate the information given. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a comment on the talk page of the article, I'll also include it here just to make sure you see it. Please don't insert huge chunks of direct quotes on wikipedia pages. Summaries work much better anyway, and direct quotes are a violation of copyright. Please do not directly add that material again. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Same article, on the talk page, largely supporting your version of the disputed passage. You have my support in adding it, if cites, and the noted distinctions are given, and of course the typo fixed. This may take some time and therefore patience.
Additionally a request that the section on Rauch and his work be cited, and that notability in the context of scholarship on the issue be confirmed for both. An even bigger issue and even more work. I hope http://books.google.com/books and http://scholar.google.com/schhp will be of help to you if they aren't already. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've fixed several incorrectly-formatted citations in articles, as has Moni3... You've been doing this:

This sentence is false.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox]</ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox]

This results in double links in the text, one to the footnote and one directly to the URL, and it also doesn't provide any helpful footnote text.
There's a citation tutorial in WP:REFB - a simple way to provide a valid and useful inline citation is this:

This sentence is false.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox Dictionary.com definition | paradox]</ref>

You can test edits in WP:SANDBOX to see what I mean.
Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Same-sex marriage. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to learn about WP, both in terms of stylistic and content guidelines and in terms of the overall culture of collaboration. Not all writing that is high quality in other forums is appropriate for WP; moreover, not every type of social interaction that is helpful elsewhere is necessarily productive here.

One of the many guidelines that I think would be especially helpful for you is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Pay attention especially to the helpful flow chart there. The point, in short, is that it's fine to make bold changes, but the very moment other editors revert or object to them, it's time to discuss and reach consensus (and NOT time to edit war over the conviction you are more correct). WP:AGF is important here... in particular, I haven't seen the slightest whit of evidence that any editor active on the same-sex marriage article has even the slightest sliver of the anti-gay bias you repeatedly and continually accuse us/them of. You would do much better to step back and ask yourself why a large number of much more experienced editors take exception to your specific edits (hint: it ain't the political bias you jump to so fast).

In a general way, I would also really recommend trying to edit in a wider range of topics. Clearly, you have some knowledge and reasoned opinions about same-sex marriage. But there is something inherently dangerous for the quality of content to have editors who address a topic because they care so much about the topic rather than about the encyclopedia. It's hard to understand this until you've edited a while, but it's a real and repeated pitfall of well-meaning new editors. Try editing some topic that you know something about, but that you aren't so personally invested in (e.g. maybe some music you listen to, some town or landmark your are familiar with, some public figure you are aware of but neither love nor hate, etc.). You would be amazed how much doing that helps an encyclopedic perspective. LotLE×talk 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Me black white 10-06-2008 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]