User talk:HenryJM

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Diane Messina Stanley. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LiteralKa (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Diane Messina Stanley, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. LiteralKa (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Diane Messina Stanley, you will be blocked from editing. LiteralKa (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Diane Messina Stanley, you will be blocked from editing. as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-23#Diane_Messina_Stanley LiteralKa (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Messina Stanley never worked for Young and Restless yet the information keeps getting re-inserted over and over. There is no reference cited for it. It is not on her IMDB pages. It is not in the WGA credits. This is an example of the sloppiness of Wikipedia and the fact that anyone can write anything and it sticks like glue even though it is FALSE! Her name is even misspelled. It's "Dianne" with two N's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJM (talk • contribs)

The problem is your approach. You are not giving any evidence of your claims, which could very well be verifiable claims, and expecting the other editors of this article to take it as gospel. If you posted a simple explanation on this article's talk page, or just made the changes in the article but cite your sources, I'm sure that everyone would agree to your changes and welcome you as an editor. As it is, you appear to simply be one of the thousand of disruptive people we get every day here at Wiki. Tan | 39 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that since you are removing this due to a lack of sources, I would comment on this at the article's talk page. As it is, just be a little more patient and "hat-in-hand", as you are new here, and I'll give the other editors a reminder that you are correct - uncited material DOES need to be excised and they shouldn't be mean to the new people. Tan | 39 21:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no data on the lady's CV, but you are certainly correct on the spelling of her name, which is Dianne with two Ns. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to explain more in detail on future edits. But the robot like quality with which incorrect material is kept alive is very disheartening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJM (talk • contribs)

Everything I put in, all correct and verifiable, was just removed again. Why can't material be corrected????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJM (talk • contribs)

Please Sign your posts. LiteralKa (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Diane Messina Stanley. The content removed is awaiting consensus, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please, wait until a consensus is reached. LiteralKa (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. RELAX. You get incredibly worked up because things aren't going your way here. "This is deplorable". Really, step back and look at what you're doing - is this information so urgent that you must blow an artery in your first ten minutes at Wikipedia? Tan | 39 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, Removing more than half of the content without consulting *anyone* is highly suspect, fact or not. LiteralKa (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]