It appears during my short experience with Wikipedea that:
1) if someone else has been associated with W. longer that their authority to wag the tail on W. trumps the contributions that can be made by others that follow. This is based on many articles of varying subjects, types, quantities and arrangement of information.
2) if appears that people who have this ability do not recognize the implications of their actions. By reverting the third opinion notice I was given the impression that you were along with the other reversers having more ability to impact the system than those that proceed. If in fact your action was preliminary then in order to avoid confusion should have said. If a point of "too much time" is offered then on what criteria is it that the "doer does." If something is significant then it deserves the appropriate attention.
3) following this experience I believe that it is something that I would not want to continue association since as has been seen over time various people have, for example, attempted to rid the world of those they perceive as both inconsequential and undesirable, this is the image with which I am present, not with one experience or one person but many. People have through time imposed things on people with the most sincere of reasons when in the long run these have been found fraught with problems. Look at the First Edition Encyclopedia Britanica asnd it clearly will show how what was then "acceptable" writing is today too confusing for any one to systematically explain. I must have been mislead by the person who told me about W. Good luck with the changes.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breaking Upwards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sam Rosen and Michael Benjamin (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hollywood Foreign Press Association may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- the United States for information outlets ([[newspaper]], [[magazine]] and [[books]] publications]], [[television]] and [[radio broadcasting]]) predominately outside the U.S. There about ninety
- redir_esc=y Through their eyes: foreign correspondents in the United States]</ref> by [Los Angeles]]-based foreign journalists that wanted a more organized distributing process of cinema news to non-
Reference Errors on 29 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:The English Patient (film). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Thank you for the assistance. Much appreciated.A1Houseboy 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)