This on page 5, third column, you don't believe it happened? http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90059522/1888-03-08/ed-1/seq-5/ Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! discospinster 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- I'm in middle of a short task and you have interrupted.
I will certainly continue with this project and and explain.... Why don't you just chill for a minute until I've completed this project. It would be much more constructive if you wait and then if you want, you can restore. I suspect you are idiot robot. !!!!22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you help?
Having found your name listed among editors that may want to jump into edit disputes, I am posting this note rather than doing a full-blown dispute resolution, with wich I'd rather not bother. Article in question is Wolf attacks on humans. If you're interested, I've posted a lot of stuff on talk page there. When I try to remove material that I consider to be blatantly lacking good sourcing, I get shot down, so to speak. My main contention is merely that topic is science (animal behavior) and sources should be weighted accordingly. BTW I've held hunting licenses for bear, deer, turkey and small game including canines, but not wolves.126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken a quick look, and you do appear to be removing sourced content from the article in a concerning manner. I also note that despite being reverted by several different users, you continued to remove the content. Such behaviour tends to alarm experienced users, and may result in blocking your account - see WP:Edit war. In general users tend to follow a procedure called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is that you may be WP:Bold in removing content, but when someone reverts your edit, you enter into a discussion rather than getting into an edit war. I note that you have made some comments on the article talkpage. That is good. You now need to explain your concerns more fully and clearly on the talkpage, and in the meantime stop removing sourced content from the article. Bear in mind that we often make progress very slowly on Wikipedia! If you feel you are expressing yourself clearly, and other contributors are not appropriately listening to or engaging with your concerns, then please get in touch with me again. SilkTork SilkTork 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Right. Thank you for your Wikiness. I will seek more engaged input. Certainly, I don't want to do an edit war over this article, which is at present mainly a vehicle for a fringe political view. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolf attacks on humans. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
IP address in East Lansing
I didn't move your comments, I simply added a section break and proper margins as per editing other people's comments, specifically "Fixing format errors", "Fixing layout errors", "Sectioning", "Section headings", and so on, where those edits I made there are explicitly allowed.
Please, when you change the subject, start a new section.
Please, do not start new sections without changing the subject.
Please, level your indentations reasonably and consistently as you see others do. Don't have practically each line be at different indention levels with no clear rhyme or reason. The point is to clarify what you are replying to, if you are replying; or if you are starting a new point about the same topic.
Please understand that, if you do not do these things, and others do it for you, you cannot rightly get upset, because it is allowed, because it fosters talk page progress.
Welcome to Wikipedia!
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider '. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (184.108.40.206) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the . If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place before the question on this page. Again, welcome! 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- religion as ornament." <ref>Adorno, The Jargon of Authenticity (trans Tarnowksi & Will), pp68-9),</ref> Adorno further believed the poems reinforced the German value of commitment that supported
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.