malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was from a user named "Sagbliss" who was off the charts in her misunderstanding of what wikipedia is for, and how it works. She was upset by other editors reverting her edits, and asking her to be more balanced. Eventually she threatened to sue the foundation, other editors, admins and the like. She was banned. Bruno23 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you. Thanks for responding. John Paul Parks (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your edits to the above. Do you have a reference for your statement that "This rule is based on the Biblical account of Sarah, whose [sic] bore Isaac, even though she was in her 90's. Genesis 21:2". Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an old law school textbook of mine, Casner & Leach, Cases and Text on Property (Little Brown). I will try to get more complete citation information. John Paul Parks (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted most of what you suggested onto the article. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please note, however, that individual lawyers were never permitted to keep the interest generated on trust account funds. John Paul Parks (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes as suggested. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the terminology as jargon at all, but rather that the terminology is saliently pertinent to the subject. Understandably it may present as being considerably unfamiliar to those not conversant with this somewhat technical subject. The original contributor's information is well written and informative. Furthermore, John Paul Park's statement that "anulment" is Catholicism's term for 'divorce' is absolutely erroneous. There is a definitive difference between divorce and annulment. It needs to be clearly stated and understood that the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce and never has. In other words, where it considers a valid marriage exists then The Church cannot and will not grant an annulment. However, where The Church considers there are sufficient grounds upon which to prove that a valid marriage was not originally entered into, then an annulment is possible, on the basis that a valid marriage never existed - hence an annulment.

On this basis I would suggest that the above marker be removed from the original contributer's explanation. Dingerooz (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, although the inclusion of the information that her grandparents were slaves may or may not be relevant (although I would argue that it is), I would like to state that the ability of your Ukrainian grandparents to raise themselves to the point where their grandson has become a lawyer is hardly relevant, and, indeed, is vastly different from the experience of African-Americans in this country. I am not African-American, but just a cursory study of the hardships that they had to endure, especially in the south where Fannie Lou Hamer was from, would reveal that this specific subgroup in the United States not only had to push against economic constraints, but also psychological and, indeed, physical ones, as well. They were not only looked down upon, but also spat on, beat, and murdered. Should your grandparents had to endure and overcome such hardships in order to succeed, their grandson may not have had the opportunity to become a lawyer. Even with the inclusion of such as these, there are, I'm sure, attorneys practicing law whose lineage includes slaves. -F_N_Miranda@hotmail.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.22.104 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To properly justify inclusion you need to add something to the same effect in her article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share in your critical thinking concerning the authenticity, or lack thereof, of the Ann Frank diary, and I wanted to tell you that I think it SUCKS - for lack of a better term - that anyone who questions the veracity of the diary - or at least what we know of the diary today - is reflixively branded a Holocaust denier, or some kind of antisemite. Patently untrue. It is untrue in my case and clearly it is untrue in yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

BIIITTTCCHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.13.5 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent good faith addition to the Mutiny on the Bounty plot section is really very long and overdetailed; the Mills/cheese episode winds up being as long as the rest of the plot. I'd like to suggest you give it a trim — a serious trim — perhaps summarizing the theft and the flogging in a sentence or two, and then closing it out with Bligh's remark about cruelty with a purpose is efficiency, which speaks volumes about Bligh in just a few deft words. It's easy to "go long" on a Plot section when you love a film (as we both love this one, I suspect), but the guideline is 750 words, which is probably a good length. Readers who haven't seen the picture probably wouldn't care about a detailed Plot section, and those who did don't need the detail. If I can be of any help, please feel free to ask. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good trims. I made a few more myself. Hope you approve. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for making the page better! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, John Paul, it's repeating the "difficult" that gives it the rhythm and makes it a good sentence! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul, if your English teacher had had her way, The Beatles would never have created "Paperback Writer": "It's a dirty story of a dirty man, and his clinging wife doesn't understand." Variety of words is the least important consideration in putting together good sentences! Listen to your own ear, 'cause it'll never steer you wrong. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to your message [1]:

While Denmark might have a state religion, the Netherlands doesn't have one officially - although one could say that the officious state religion is Protestant Church in the Netherlands / (Dutch Reformed). The general term "Protestant" is used in the same way in the Netherlands as it is in the US - denominating any non-Catholic Christians. Please feel free to adjust the link in the infobox to "Protestant Church in the Netherlands" if you think it would be clearer to US readers - I think the current version was put there mainly for brevity's sake. Regards, Niels^{? en | nl} 22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing your tag for clarification on the remains. Divers found the crew compartment of Challenger. A large number of sources from the period mention this, including [2]. The remains were processed at Dover Air Force Base [3] and those that could be identified were returned to the families. I didn't include this level of detail on the McAuliffe page as it seemed beyond its scope. Details of the remains, processing ceremony, and distribution seem more appropriate for the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster page. - Thanks, Jh12 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for your kind words! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the documentary's bias towards teams from the Eastern United States and I imagine that it must piss off basball fans west of the Bos-Wash corridor.RatdePatinoire (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to quorum call. The confusion about the competing meanings of "table" comes up more frequently than one might imagine. ("Table" is one of the few English words with two meanings that arguably mean the opposite of each other. Two other examples are "sanction" and "cleave.") Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clearer about what you want. "According to whom" isn't much to go on. Do you want me to quote the source directly? Or are you asking whether the Observatory actually had the right to name Pluto?

The answer is the International Astronomical Union; not sure that needs to be included though, since it's true of every astronomical body discovered since 1919. Serendi^podous 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now I set a wikilink to Peary Land which has a brief mention; This could be expanded. There seems to be material available, but it's more than I can take on right now. If you are interested, go ahead, otherwise I will probably get to it sometime. Enjoy. Dankarl (talk).

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. Accurizer (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you want to discuss how to make your contribution work in the article, please bring it up for discussion on Buchanon's talk page. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Talk:James Buchanan worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Illustrations of the rule against perpetuities. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Equal Rights Amendment. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from comment on my user talk page - I reverted your edit for being OR, not for being incorrect. Frontiero v. Richardson split 4-4 on whether to apply strict scrutiny to sex distinctions in the law reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. So no decision was reached on the correct standard. Three years later, in Craig v. Boren, the Supreme Court decided on intermediate scrutiny (a less strict standard) as the standard for reviewing legal sex distinctions. The ERA would at least require the application of strict scrutiny (the standard for legal race distinctions). SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm glad to see any attempt to impart some balance to the RS article, but please provide a source for something that "obviously confirms Spencer's assertion." For those who would like to use the article as a platform to bash Spencer, something like that, sans source, invites "tit for tat" edits and emboldens them to hack at the article some more. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. Obvously inappropriate entries, even when immediately withdrawn, are typically considered to qualify as vandalism. It wouldn't likely come back to haunt you... unless it becomes a habit. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I removed part of your edit to this page and added a ^{[citation needed]} for the remaining portion. The article's talk page explains my reasoning. If you have the book, I can easily cite this edit or show you how to yourself, just let me know either way here or here. Mainly I would need the page numbers. Thank you. Kresock (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Woodrow Wilson. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bills C-1 and S-1. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at your posts on the Franklin Prophecy - do you realise that talk pages aren't for general discussion of the subject, speculation, etc, but just for discussion of the article? You were treating the talk page a bit like a forum. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Silent Scream. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed they reverted your changes. The reason is that it's unsourced, so it appears to be original research. And besides which, the following counterarguments can be made:

1. Dorothy runs away from home, taking her dog, Toto, with her, so that Miss Glutch will not be able to return and take him to the sheriff to be destroyed. At some point in the movie, Dorothy's reason for running away from home is subtly re-characterized as evidencing Dorothy's wish to pursue her heart's content. - She had already been persuaded, by Prof. Marvel, to go back home. The tornado put a crimp in those plans. The film's wrap-up comes full circle with the song "Over the Rainbow", as she discovers that she's already there in some sense.
2. After Dorothy is in Oz, and is following the Yellow Brick Road on her journey to see the wizard, she comes to a fork in the road where the Yellow Brick Road continues in three different directions. After interacting with the scarecrow, she and the scarecrow head off in one of the three directions, but it is never explained how or why they made that choice or where the other potential routes would have led. - One can infer that all the yellow brick roads lead to Oz.
3. Dorothy and the wizard attempt to leave Oz in the wizard's balloon, but Toto goes after a dog in the crowd and jumps out of the balloon's gondola. Dorothy goes after him, and the wizard leaves without them. As it turns out, Dorothy still had the oil can with her, which would have left the tin man without any way to remedy his chronic rusting problem. - They're in a city, so locating some more oil should not be a problem.
4. The fate of Miss Gultch is never explained; thus viewers do not know whether Toto was safe or not. - True, although it's inferred that she was swept up by the tornado. But if not, presumably they would have dealt with it. Dorothy defeated her in Oz, she could stand up to her in real life.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "source information for a list of inaccuracies", are you referring to things like the questions you've raised above, or "continuity mistakes"? The most glaring of those is probably the witch talking about "sending a little insect to take the fight out of them", which of course refers to the deleted scene about the "jitterbug". That movie has been sliced-and-diced for generations and there are countless web sites and books that talk about oddities in Oz. The tricky part would be to find reliable sources, as many of those sources tend to be personal opinions and/or user-input (i.e. like wikipedia). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing things out based on observations of the film can take you into "original research" territory. It's much safer to take comments from the specials and commentaries that come with DVD's, since those are the presumed "experts" talking. Just an aside: This film having become a classic due to so many TV appearances shows the value of the "small screen", which can hide some details. I'm thinking specifically of maybe a dozen years ago, probably one of the "anniversary" releases, when it was shown in movie theaters for awhile. At least two things jumped out at me. One was that the "hanging munchkin" was a product of seeing a small and ambiguous image. On the big screen, it was obviously one of the birds in that set piece, flapping its wings. However, that nifty backdrop when Dorothy was dancing away from Munchkinland was very obvious also... like they yelled "cut" just before she ran into it. (Either that, or it was poorly-executed matte-painting work.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Paul. Just a courtesy heads up to let you know I reverted your recent edit to List of The Waltons characters and why. Basically why was because there is no Wiki for Ashley Longworth and doubtful ever will be. While of course mentioned dozens of times over the course of the series, Mr. Longworth was never seen and would have a hard time qualifying as even a minor character on the show, let alone one deserving of a dedicated Wiki. Hope you understand and don't take offense. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please provide a reliable source for your addition to the duration section of the article, or I will revert it as original research. Please avoid signing your additions of content to main space. Sign your comments on talk pages and other discussion pages. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted it, with the following edit summary: Reverted unsourced, oddly-worded "attack" paragraph. Why use the word "attack"?

Sounds like the paragraph was about some type of wild non-human mating. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This edit introduced an inaccuracy into the article. Thatcher was never a pharmacist. Could you please be more careful? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article needs clarification. The English use the word "chemist" when Americans would use the word "pharmacist." If she was a research chemist, then that needs to be stated explicitly, in order to avoid confusion. In my view, Wikipedia should use American English and not try to put on airs with British English.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR. You might as well say that we should standardise on British English. Our actual policy is to use whichever dialect is appropriate to the subject. As Thatcher is English we use that version on her article. --John (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Charles Lindbergh, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bzuk (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Charles Lindbergh club checking in. Seriously, there are countless accounts of Lindbergh's efforts to enter the war, including that of Berg who said on p. 435 of his landmark biography, "Lindbergh ... felt it was a mistake for America to enter the war but that decision now made, he stood behind it – eager to help in whatever way he could be most effective." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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. A contribution you made to Caroline Kennedy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Special-T (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Profiles in Courage. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Special-T (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women's Equality Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nineteenth Amendment (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) 11:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry, but I reverted your recent additions to this article. You added a section claiming that the resolution 'falsified history' by stating that American women were first given the right to vote by the 19th Amendment. While it's true that before it was passed, most states permitted women to vote in at least some elections, it is accurate to say that they did not have the right to do so: as women's suffrage was not protected by the Constitution, any state that permitted it could theoretically have taken it away. Only when the Amendment was passed did women's suffrage become a Constitutional right, guaranteed for the first time to all American women (well, except those who were disenfranchised for other reasons, like black women in the South). Hence the language of the resolution. While you could say it's overstating the importance of the 19th Amendment, you'd have to be wilfully misinterpreting it to say it 'falsified history'. Such a claim is not consistent with WP:NPOV. Robofish (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair comments, I take the point about the 19th Amendment also being potentially open to repeal. I doubt that Bella Abzug was as ignorant as you suggest of the history of women's rights, though; I still think the meaning of the resolution is clear, that it was commemorating the first time women's suffrage had been constitutionally protected across all states. In any case, the reasons I removed your criticism from the article are that it was non-neutrally written and not sourced. If you can find a source demonstrating that the resolution has been criticised as historically inaccurate, then you can say so in the article, as long as that criticism is written fairly and neutrally. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Yale Law School seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adding a specific note about women not serving as dean is POV. Suppose we said no "Brazilian-American" or person under age 26, or Shikh, or bald person had served? Point is, info about certain classes or types of persons NOT serving as dean is not encyclopedic. S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message posted on my user page. Please, that is not the place to put such messages. When you wish to respond, use the talk pages. (As for your comment, I will post it on the YLS talk page and respond there.--S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy (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) 10:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (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) 10:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed the link you added in the see also section of Christiaan Barnard, because the see also section is not supposed to contain entries that are already linked in the body of the article. Graham87 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stetson University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Forbes (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) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rosemary Kennedy, 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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your good faith edits HERE for they don't present either side of the controversy. To clarify, by "either side of the controersy" I mean either party, either faction, as opposed to either viewpoint (which you did present). I suspect you intended well, but I note that what is really needed would be to [WP:RS|cite]] a supporter of the pro-English side arguing in favor of English in Puerto Rico AND using in their argument the New Mexico statements you used. For example something like, "The San Juan-based "Pro-English Puerto Rico" organization has stated that English in a Puerto Rico as a state of the American Union would not represent a precendent as this already happened when New Mexico was admitted to the Union (Citation: Some Author. Some Book. Some Publisher. Some Publication date. Some ISBN. Some page number)," would satisfy the NPOV policy in this regard. The fact that you did not include such citation, introduces an element of WP:OR, and I am sure that was not what you intended. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Constitution.2C_Agenda_section.2C_opening_sentence_of_lead.2C_etc..

In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there.

I'd advise looking at this previous version of the page [4] that had a subsection on the Constitution in the Agenda section for material and sources that will be addressed in the ensuing discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because the changes were not sourced . Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Flat Out let's discuss it 05:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per [5], see Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons" is "never acceptable". DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aconitum fischeri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aconite (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) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit at United Nations Security Council veto power is editorializing.
• This set of edits at Metrication in Canada is childish editorializing.
• More editorializing at Roger Mudd.
• Still more at Candid Camera.

Wikipedia is not your blog. If you can't cite a reliable source, you should probably not make the edit.

I'm going to be reviewing all of your contributions as this appears to be an ongoing problem. If you feel is unfair or unwarranted, you're welcome to take thus up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Garamond Lethet
c 18:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted the following:

• Original research see WP:OR at Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections.
• This at Jimmy Carter. This is even more problematic, but has already been reverted.
• Problematic, but already reverted (Roots: The Saga of an American Family)
• Editorial, already removed (The Four-Way Test).

I've gone through your past year of contributions, and the further back I go the better the edits get. You've done some really solid work here, and I'm hoping we see much more of the same. Garamond Lethet
c 19:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the original research and editorializing. This edit to Girard College puts forward an opinion unsubstantiated by any source provided. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (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) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Scott may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• he was disappointed when he did not receive it.<ref>Woodward and Bernstein, The Final Days at 186 (New York: Avon Books 1976.</ref> Actively assisting in the behind-the-scenes transition from the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an editorializing edit on Andrew Greeley. You've been warned about this for 6 years or so...one of these days, someone's going to decide you've done it enough. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to History of Catholic education in the United States seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission: Impossible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dossier (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) 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the external link to the school website was incorrect. I took 30 seconds and fixed it. I'd like to share with you, from WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING, that "if you identify a issue with a page, and yet the issue is trivial or has a straightforward solution, it's usually best to fix it yourself!" Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note back. I'm not sure what you mean about having your edit reverted. You only made one edit to the article, and it wasn't reverted. All I was trying to say is, this was a simple fix. Part of the fun of editing is adding new information. By doing this fix, I got to read the school's website. It can't be much fun adding tags to articles. Anyway, take care. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Dewey Defeats Truman. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minerva, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Walters (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) 08:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Abe Fortas, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Richard Whitney (financier), you may be blocked from editing. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Knights of Columbus. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding unsourced claims to articles like you did in Eh. I have rolled back your edit. --Sennsationalist (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with your addition of a "how" tag to Accession Declaration Act 1910, but I am puzzled by your edit summary: "see talk page". The talk page is empty! Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur W. Mitchell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican. 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) 08:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Gregg_v._Georgia, you may be blocked from editing.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Victim theory. In addition, the material you added appears to be factually inaccurate, and while I don't have access to the reference you have cited it seems unlikely it supports the material. If the material is supported by the source, please respond at Talk:Victim theory § Removal of Sound of Music paragraph. Thank you. TimofKingsland (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conventicle Act 1664, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles II and Charles I. 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) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John J. McCloy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• I. G. Farben]]. By the time he left for government service in 1940, McCloy earned about $45,000 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|45000|1940|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|r=0}}}} a year and had savings of $106,000 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|106000|1940|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|r=0}}}}. His involvement in litigation over

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1964 presidential election and 1976 presidential election. 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) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed information added to the Peanut Corporation of America added by this edit and this edit concerning US bankruptcy law. If you want to discuss the finer points of US bankruptcy law, provide sources so we can verify any claims made. Int21h (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that information which you added to this article has been removed, as it did not comply with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are not the place to add your own opinions or personal commentary. Please read and familiarise yourself with our policies before making similar edits in future. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Mormonism and polygamy does not have an edit summary. Please review Neutrality policy

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit on Faithless Electors as it was quite frankly unhelpful. However, the point that I think you were trying to make is a good one, and I have started a talk page discussion about it. I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. Vyselink (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bonanza. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Creativity-II (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Paul: I was editing the Carolyn Hax article and saw your question, "Since she married only five months after her divorce, does anyone, even she, know, for sure, the identity of the twins' father?" in the history section. The content of the NPR reference makes it clear that she and Galifianakis separated a year before they divorced, and that she got pregnant by her second husband long after the separation began. All the best, Nick Beeson (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Shirley Chisholm. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ogdensburg, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston King. 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) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circular letter. 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) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freehold. 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) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeated violations of the No Original Research policy, as you did at Minor v. Happersett. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ukrainian Americans are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marvin Gaye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiger Stadium. 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) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Paul Parks. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlton W. Reeves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Bars. 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) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barabbas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary. 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) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Paul Parks. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take photographs to add to Wikipedia articles? If so, are you in proximity to the Detroit area? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from School segregation in the United States, which you proposed for deletion. Factual inaccuracies are not a valid reason for deleting an article. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John F. Kennedy Jr.. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change of the word "killed" to "kilt" on the page Investiture of the Prince of Wales, "kilt" is not a British way of spelling "killed", it is a Scottish item of clothing.Dabbler (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Paul Parks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oakland Cemetery (Atlanta), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned them at Talk:Pork Chop Gang. Where did you hear of them? deisenbe (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to R. Budd Dwyer, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at this. --bender235 (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have at look at this issue? --bender235 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to May 25. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prosecutor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on O Canada. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You stated that Howard Moscoe made the statement but failed to support that with a reference. It would also be good to offer balance and not give Moscoe's opinion WP:UNDUE weight by pointing out that individuals are required to learn and sing the anthem at their induction ceremony. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at William O. Douglas. "FLbiogs" is not a source, particularly to support so harsh an edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Gerald Ford. Unless you provide sources backing your position, just rambling about how the article is incorrect is disruptive. Another editor reverted your talk page comments and I endorse their actions. If you want to change the content of the article along the lines of your rants, make a WP:BOLD, well sourced edit, see if that flies, and then discuss it if it doesn't per WP:BRD. Posting unreferenced distribes on an article talk page is never constructive. John from Idegon (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated violation of WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY over several years.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 11:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]