User talk:John Paul Parks
- 1 Welcome John Paul Parks!
- 2 Regarding your edits to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
- 3 James Buchanon
- 4 December 2007
- 5 Get Talk Page
- 6 September 2008
- 7 Illustrations of the rule against perpetuities
- 8 Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
- 9 December 2008
- 10 Robert Spencer
- 11 World Series
- 12 Disagree re Too Much Jargon
- 13 Francis Wilkinson Pickens
- 14 Johanna Brandt
- 15 RE: Your comment on Fannie Lou Hamer
- 16 February 2010
- 17 March 2010
- 18 Anne Frank Diary
- 19 Dated cleanup tags
- 20 Talk pages
- 21 March 2011
- 22 Your addition to Mutiny on the Bounty
- 23 Wizard of Oz
- 24 RE: List of Waltons Characters
- 25 Sexual intercourse
- 26 Margaret Thatcher
- 27 Charles Lindbergh
- 28 May 2012
- 29 Disambiguation link notification for August 27
- 30 Women's Equality Day
- 31 September 2012
- 32 Disambiguation link notification for November 23
- 33 Disambiguation link notification for November 30
- 34 See also section
- 35 Season's tidings!
- 36 Disambiguation link notification for February 20
- 37 March 2013
- 38 RE: King Willem Alexander
- 39 RE: Political status of Puerto Rico
- 40 Tea Party movement and the Constitution
- 41 Recent edits to Gay pornography
- 42 Personal attacks
- 43 Disambiguation link notification for August 4
- 44 Christa McAuliffe
- 45 Multiple problems with editorializing
- 46 RE: Baseball
- 47 "table"
- 48 Pluto
- 49 Peary Channel (Greenland)
- 50 Original research/editorializing
- 51 Disambiguation link notification for February 9
- 52 March 2014
- 53 Editorializing on Andrew Greeley
- 54 April 2014
- 55 Disambiguation link notification for May 6
- 56 Greenwood High School (Mississippi)
- 57 Dewey Defeats Truman
- 58 Disambiguation link notification for June 19
- 59 Abe Fortas
- 60 Richard Whitney
- 61 October 2014
- 62 Eh
- 63 Tag on Accession Declaration Act 1910
- 64 Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Welcome John Paul Parks!
|Hello, John Paul Parks, I'm malo and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!!
Regarding your edits to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
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)
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)
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)
Get Talk Page
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Disagree re Too Much Jargon
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.
Hello! I removed part of your edit to this page and added a  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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Anne Frank Diary
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)
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). BIIITTTCCHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Your addition to Mutiny on the Bounty
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)
- Good trims. I made a few more myself. Hope you approve. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
Wizard of Oz
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
RE: List of Waltons Characters
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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).
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)
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)
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.
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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.
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.
See also section
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)
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.
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)
RE: King Willem Alexander
Hi, in response to your message :
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)
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.
Tea Party movement and the Constitution
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  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)
Recent edits to Gay pornography
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)
Per , 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)
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.
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 . The remains were processed at Dover Air Force Base  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)
Multiple problems with editorializing
- 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.
- I've also reverted the following:
- 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)
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)
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)
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. Serendipodous 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Peary Channel (Greenland)
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).
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.
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 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:
- 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
Editorializing on Andrew Greeley
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)
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)
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.
Greenwood High School (Mississippi)
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)
- 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)
Dewey Defeats Truman
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Tag on Accession Declaration Act 1910
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)
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 (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.