Sjyglm

Please do not add unsourced content that is based solely on your personal observation and analysis to articles as you did in this edit. See the talk page for a further discussion. Talk:Troy_(film)#Differences_between_the_Myth_and_Film MM 207.69.139.133 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from George S. Patton. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sjyglm. I see you're new to Wikipedia, and there's a lot to absorb here. I can see that two editors above have already worked with you to help explain a couple of our policies, including the one I'm mentioning now.

Indeed, this one of the prime policies of this encyclopedia — WP:VERIFY, which means that any claims made here need to be verified by a reliable-source citation, such as a WP:FOOTNOTE. In the case of lists such as this article, that citation may appear in the bluelinked article of the name you're adding. If you're adding a redlinked name, for which no article appears, a citation must accompany it.

In my edit summary, I explained how the Wikipedia article for your bluelinked claims only supported one of them; if you read the Roscoe Robinson article, you'll see there's nothing there about him being the first four-star officer in the U.S. military, but just the first four-star general (which is quite an accomplishment in itself, of course). The redlinked Davision claim, however, had no verifying citation.

I hope you understand, and as I urge all newcomers, the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is a great place to get all the major policies in one place. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey :) I still think you should remove that category on the Edward Rutledge page, because the article already has a strong negative bias. ty :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.235.10 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

PLEASE address this issue!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.198.157 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Its within the article itself that paints him as a "bad guy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.211.22 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please do something about it! (At least make it sound better, since you seem to enjoy painting him as a bad guy....Please be more tolerant of historical people's views.) I'am of course, against slavery, but you really shouldn't make people out to be "good" or "bad" you should be more neutral.

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts# Request for Comment: Pro wrestling. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Kirby Smart has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. --bender235 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is an Encyclopedia, we don't take personal opinions as fact. Where are your third party sources to support your claim ? Why aren't you discussing this on the article's talk page, which is better then arguing about it in edit summaries. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sanford and Son; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cards on the Table, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply