User talk:75.37.206.111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ron Paul reversion

Sorry for my unexplained reversion to your Ron Paul edits. I meant to say that the Political positions section is already too long and should not be broken down further into subsections (I don't believe any other candidate articles have this).--Daveswagon 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Gary Busey. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Kylohk 10:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Boomers

There are plenty of references in the article talking about the phenomenon with regard to different countries. —AldeBaer 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral observer comment

I've been watching the conflict on the Baby boomer page, and I'd suggest that you take it to the page's discussion page, and leave it as it was for now. There are obviously two sides that people can see the issue from, first, people who are born in the US and call anyone in any country who was born during those years a baby boomer, with no regard to whether they are US citizens or not, and those who consider the term a "US Only" term, that should not be applied to foreigners.
To avoid edit wars, and the possibility of losing posting privileges based on the WP:3RR I would suggest that you concede for now, and take the discussion to the talk page, and if nothing is solved, then you can request mediation of the issue by a neutral party. :) Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 09:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sam Brownback. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Popkultur 06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Sam Brownback:

Your recent edit to Sam Brownback (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Mike Huckabee:

Your recent edit to Mike Huckabee (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the lengthy discussion section on Huckabee and try commenting on it before reverting edits. It is not my intention at all to whitewash Huckabee. All the information was summarized in the first sentence. Jmegill 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disparaging

It sure is passing judgment, because the cited source pass judgment. Would you prefer "smear"?[1] ←BenB4 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration

Ron Paul has never said he wants to reduce legal immigration. He wants to increase it and decrease illegal immigration. Please cite a source for your edits next time :). Welcome to Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion on Miscegenation

Sorry about this, was examining diffs quickly as part of RC patrolling, and I based my revert on the large removal of text in the edit I was examining. Providing an edit summary can help prevent these misunderstandings in the future, particularly with edits that may accidentally be misinterpreted as attempts by vandals to blank sections of an article.

You may also want to consider creating an account. This helps build trust with other users, as well as protects your privacy by not displaying your IP address to other users anymore. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, welcome to Wikipedia, and my apologies for the misunderstanding. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley is nice

Nice editing of Shirley. Some so obvious it should have been done earlier, some subtle but a nice bit of polishing. Please create a user name so you can take credit for your future work. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Wannsee Conference

I suggest that you read WP:PUNC with regard to the placement of closing quotation marks. Also, one cannot indiscriminately remove the word that introducing relative clauses and noun clauses without often making sentences incomprehensible. (And changing "of whom" to "of who" is just plain weird.) Deor (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Brigitte Bardot has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Sceptre (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindbergh=

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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. Bzuk (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

Bzuk, when I was verifying the sources of the article, many of the citations are from the student paper. I didn't notice it was a student paper until now. Regardless, I only added sources the paper cites. He cites Lindbergh's biographer Scott A. Berg. I was going to post the direct sources he uses later but I wanted to organize the article first.

Feel free to verify everything and please remove the cit requests. Btw, you don't need to call it "vandalism."

75.37.206.111 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse the note as it is a tag file that indicates a reversion for errors (it happens to be called a vandalism tag but at the first level, it is merely a mild caution about a reversion). As to the notes you have used, please go beyond just copying another editor's citations as there was an inherent style that was different from the Harvard Citation and Modern Language Association style guide in use in the Charles Lindbergh article. You have to be aware that changes you institute must provide a benefit to the article and since these new reference sources are being provided based on another researcher's interpretation, for now, I am leaving the citations in place, but a check to the original source material is the standard procedure and that will now have to take place. It is not inconceivable that the sources are incorrect, as the citations certainly were not correctly formatted which already raises "red flags." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Earhart

The section in question is one that was a consensus-driven section that arose due to a conflict over wording about the spirit of adventure. See Archives of article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC).