User talk:JHobson3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, JHobson3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Courtier's Reply 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:
  • ignorant of its toughest case?"<ref name=Eagleton>[[Eagleton, Terry]] (19 October 2006).[[[http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching "Lunging, Flailing,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Courtier's Reply[edit]

Hi. Please do not add your own personal viewpoints to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Courtier's Reply. The source in question never mentions or alludes to The Courtier's Reply. Rather, the criticism of "ignorance" in that essay was directed at Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and not The Courtier's Reply. The essay also contains no mention of Myers nor creationist ignorance, much less the assertion these things constitute "special pleading", as this is clearly your opinion, and not Eagleton. As I informed you repeatedly back in May here, here and here, editors cannot add their own personal viewpoints to Wikipedia articles, as this is a violation of the site's policy on WP:NEUTRALITY and Original Research. Again, please click on these links and familiarize yourself with those policies if you intend to edit here.

Also, why, during this subsequent edit, did you move the closing ref tag containing the citation of Eagleton's essay from after "London Review of Books. Vol. 28 No. 20 pp. 32-34" to after the title and link to the essay, so that the citation no longer contained that latter publication info, which was now left in the visible article text? And why did you write the new criticism passage so that the phrase "According to Terry Eagleton" was followed by a colon, the citation and a comma? Did you not notice this?

Lastly, citations go at the end of the material that they support. Not in the middle of it, as indicated by WP:PAIC. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Calvinism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. — Confession0791 talk 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Macassar oil 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:
  • Lord Byron|Byron]] called it "thine incomparable oil, Macassar" in the first canto of ''[[Don Juan (Byron|Don Juan]]'', and [[Lewis Carroll]] also mentions "Rowland's Macassar Oil" in the poem "[[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)