User talk:Luwilt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Luwilt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! J.Naven 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Article about rerating thingy

Hello. Just a word to say I was just about to make the same edit, and then you did! Nice work :) Skittle (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I

You removed a link from this article because "no-one will confuse the two, or even visit this page unless it is the king's trial that they are looking for". Actually it is possible to get to the article using the random article function or by following a link such as this one that disguises the destination. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But not I think to imagine that it is the article about a current court. Luwilt (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question Relocated

Hi, Lutwilt. Your question on Women on the German Stage was wrongly placed at the top of the Humanities Desk, in the section for March 26, which is just about to be archived. Few, if any, people would have seen it there. I've relocated it for you to April 1; so hopefully you will get some good answers. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, I see you just reorganized the categories for Neil Goldschmidt and Ted Kulongoski. Thanks for the help -- I think! It's tough to understand what you're trying to do, though, without edit summaries. A quick note in those fields is a nice courtesy, please consider using them in the future. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from London Underground. 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. please do not remove tags without first fixing the issues or providing rationale. We know it looks ugly, but it's minor considering the rest of the article's problems. BG7 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a rationale. It is a complete waste of time. It implied that referencing may be required in any place, but it is not required for every fact. Those tags did nothing but harm: they will do nothing to improve the accuracy of the article. The article is very accurate as it is. Spraying some more footnotes around will not address any small slips that may have been made, but will simply mislead those who place excessive reliance on footnotes. If you have any specific concerns about the article, please address them individually. Luwilt (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are excessively fond of automatically generated text. The automatically generated text above is inaccurate, patronising, and insulting. Luwilt (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the article talk page.

BG7 00:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on it to make me change my mind. Luwilt (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)