User talk:Webley442

Hello, Webley442, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Chittleborough (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 September 2007

I have noticed your edits and would like to make a comment, I hope you will accept it with good faith. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars above. cygnis insignis 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to resolve the Bolt Manne discussion in the Stolen Generation article I have moved the to and fro about their interaction to Talk:Stolen_Generation#Unencyclopaedic_content_moved_from_article_.22Bolt_said-wrote-claimed.2FManne_said-wrote-claimed.22. What is needed is a summary of the interchange in the article. Paul foord (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for correcting a glaring error about the invention of metallic case catridge revolvers. The credit does indeed belong to S&W, not Sam Colt! Trasel (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than undoing single edits. The easier way to do it is use the history and select the last version that you wish to revert too. Once the text is on the page, select the edit tab. The software will warn you that you are editing an old version, ignore it add a comment to the comment line starting "rv: an explanation" and save the old text as you would if editing the current version. --PBS (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider removing this edit as we are concentrating on the first sentence and all it is going to do is get a rambling reply about that sentence and that will not help the uninvolved admin see the wood from the trees. --PBS (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you refrain from that for the moment until user:Theresa knott has been given a chance to comment. If you give here too much information it will make it harder for her. --PBS (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the HW talk page. Not even going near my email as yet, though I know there are some from you in there somewhere. Thanks for the good wishes, it’s nothing to worry about, my cardiologist says there has been no further deterioration since my last check-up in May. Just a virus, made breathing difficult for a while but no lasting effects. L’s still at it, I see. I saw your comments regarding me – not exactly right, it isn’t that he makes me angry, I just see him as a time-waster. Doesn’t know what he’s talking about but is utterly convinced he knows it all and you and PBS are the unfortunate bunnies who have to keep on dealing with his nonsense. I wouldn't waste my time with him. But now for the most important thing: while I was in hospital, Lizzie took the opportunity to tidy up my study, I’ll be months finding anything but she did locate your copy of A Land Half Won. She’s left it for you with Kim at work where I’ll see you soon, hopefully.The Schoolteacher (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Likebox has been unusually quiet lately. (He’s not coy about naming ‘names’ so I don’t see why we should be either). Has he given up? Don’t tell me that you finally convinced him that he has got it wrong about Tasmania? It would be nice if he would leave it to someone who’s actually gone to the trouble of reading widely on the subject and not just rely on what can be googled but I refuse to believe that he’s capable of accepting that he’s wrong. Perhaps he’s building up for another one of his massive rewrites of the article. It’s like waiting for the other shoe to drop. How is it progressing otherwise? Reply on my talk page please, or email if you like, I’ve cleared the backlog.The Schoolteacher (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping you will not respond to HiLo48's latest comment. I agree he seems to just be complaining about lack of indigenous sources without proposing any solution to the problem and it seems that he is deliberately misconstruing your comments but it seems pointless to continue with the discussion. I suspect he is simply stirring trouble by being insulting eg his reference to 'whinging' and then pretending to be an offended innocent. Don't respond and starve him of oxygen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Webley442. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a heads up that I have quoted something you wrote at WP:ANI#User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- PBS (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- PBS talk) 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use edit summaries such as "Ideologically motivated vandalism" [1]. There is a consensus for something along the lines of Wayne's edit. Please engage in reasoned discussion on the talk page. Misarxist (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you sign large additions like that - placing a large amount of text like that is problematic unsigned SatuSuro 11:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it difficult to follow why a large amount of text like that sits on the talk page without any context - if you didnt place it there - fine - someone should have signed why and explained how it got there SatuSuro 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few comments on the DP that probable weren't tactful but the self-importance of that lot bugs me. But seriously, I recommend giving Wikipedia up. I'm going to. It's a failure in terms of an encyclopaedia, no-one takes it seriously. I know you are concerned about the effect on students who use it but frankly you'd be better off putting your energy into a Don't use Wikipedia campaign, advising just how unreliable it is. Reply Here BTW203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still around, Ron? I'm considering it. Doesn't seem to get any better.Webley442 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]