User talk:2tuntony

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 2tuntony, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Paul Marcinkus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been a bit hesitant since making what was probably an ill-advised edit to Lee Harvey Oswald a few days ago, so I'm quite happy to be met with approval. 2tuntony (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Try using the preview button. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very good idea. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

How did you determine that Kowalski is a "verified" case? This is NOT about your opinion, Wikipedia should reflect outside sources.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% correct. It reflects outside sources, as approved by WP:RS, rather than those "required" by those who feel that they own the article. 2tuntony (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Choules

Hi 2tuntony. I have made a contribution re: Claude Choules on the surviving veterans discussion page which may be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldovanmickey (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there. I wish to extend my most sincere thanks, for your comments, as well as your research. I continue to be amazed at the lengths to which editors will go, on their own time, to attempt to improve articles. 2tuntony (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (band)

Thanks!
Although I don't agree with everything you say, it's a pleasant change to have a more objective editor involved. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I took a cursory glance at that article, and realized that it needed much work. Please let me know what you disagree with, and feel free to make any changes to what I've done. 2tuntony (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and realized that it needed much work - I see you are a master of the art of understatement ...

Please let me know what you disagree with - Nothing worth specifically mentioning.

and feel free to make any changes to what I've done - Thanks. If I ever feel the need ...

Again: Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! 2tuntony (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Threshold knowledge

There is a discussion at WT:Talk page guidelines#WP:TPO clarification regarding the fact that you have been repeatedly removing another editor's comment at Talk:Threshold knowledge. While it is often desirable to remove soapboxing or totally misguided comments from talk pages, repeatedly removing a harmless comment is not helpful. The talk page guidelines make no provision for the repeated removal of such comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Perino

Hello. You have my response to your comments at at Talk:Dana Perino's talk page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]