User talk:Tribulation725

Stop it.

De Gaulle

If you really think that Charles De Gaulle was as significant as Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, or Chiang, please take it to Template talk:WW2InfoBox. Grant | Talk 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to a relevant official policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, which says: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon."

Please explain on the talk page why you think De Gaulle is worthy of inclusion. Grant | Talk 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Please remain civil. If you continue to make comments like this, you're likely to be banned in incivility. Please tread carefully. Parsecboy 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I don't know if you bothered to read the talk page or not, but if you did, the consensus is pretty clear. Oberiko, Halibutt, Caranorn, LtWinters, Dna-Dennis, and I all supported alphabetical ordering. The discussion started a month ago, and there were no objections to making the change when I did so. 6 editors, and no dissenting opinions is the definition of consensus. Please stop reverting, and discuss at the talk page. Parsecboy 12:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Pig War pig

Just happened to notice your change on a rare drop-by to my watchlist; theoretically I'm on Wikibreak but sometimes just can't help myself. I see your point, but "famously" the casualties of the war are often summarized as "and the only casualty was one pig", or something to that effect. I think perhaps the editor/contributor who put it in the tablebox was being cute; but it (the pig's death) was indeed the one fatality of the war, as well as its inception; I can't think of an example of the "only casualty being a pig" observation, but it's very common in histories of these events; mentioning it in some way remains a propos.Skookum1 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to World. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. William Pietri (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Barack Obama. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Newross (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

Well, we've both reverted three times. WP:3RR in case you have not been informed of the policy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]