User talk:63.76.234.250

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Illustrated Man, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Petroleum do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

[edit] Please research before removing information

Then what you need to do is exactly what I stated in my edit summary. Supply the link so that your reference is retrievable. As it is right now, the reference just says "in an interview" which is insufficient. Also, I would prefer it if you qualified the statement as "Wahlberg claims that . . . " since the police records make no mention of it. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there and take a deep breath. No one is attacking you. I did not say the link was insufficient. I said the reference (footnote) is insufficient since it doesn't contain the link. The link is fine. What is not fine is the current footnote. Understand? — Myasuda (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is hard to confirm the veracity of the footnoted statement. I would not have removed the statement if the link had been available. Anyone can insert a footnote "I heard it in an interview" and then force the reader to take their word for it. There wasn't even a date for the interview given, which made the footnote appear suspicious. What Wikipedia needs is verifiable references. Links help greatly in this regard. There is a wiki page on citation templates that you can use to improve the footnote: Wikipedia:Citation templates. Ask me if you need help. — Myasuda (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: canvassing

Read up on it. Contacting users sympathetic to your cause exclusively is considered bad practice. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The specific disputes have to be highlighted in Wikipedia: Request for comment. I have ensured that the wording is neutral. Even though you are not telling them how to vote, you are only contacting users that are sympathetic to what you want, which is considered bad practice. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
User: Masem has commented on the discussion. Please have a look, and tell us what you think. Hopefully we can reach a compromise so this article can reach FA. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Decker

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ed Decker, 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to May 5

Dear 63.76.234.250, Some of your edits on the page May 5 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:

The page you linked to is a Disambiguation page.

Please choose the individual that you mean from that page, and link to their Wikipedia page. If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. PseudoBot (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

The recent edit you made to May 5 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. treelo talk 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Fast and Furious. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MrStalker (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)