User talk:American2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:54, 14 March 2008

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, American2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --StuffOfInterest 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!

Your edits to the 9/11 protests with the timeline were excellent. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to United States gubernatorial elections, 2006

Your recent edit to United States gubernatorial elections, 2006 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Praise

I merely wanted to drop a note thanking you for your work in updating the election-related articles. Excellent work! · j e r s y k o talk · 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Illegal drug trade

For helping to make the internet not suck, I ReverendG award to you the Banner of Unsuckiness.

Islom Karimov

Thanks for adding those sources! KazakhPol 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information from www.seds.org

Please do not use information from the SEDS website. The SEDS website is unreliable; much of the information on the website is unreferenced or out-of-date. The distance measurements from SEDS.org are particularly useless. Please contact me if you have questions about my comments. Dr. Submillimeter 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bachmann

Please expand on why you believe that the article is cluttered. I don’t have a problem with moving the segment on her political positions lower in the article or reviewing the wording and layout of that whole segment (most of that went up during the 2006 campaign and could use an overhaul), but I don’t see how cutting and pasting the segments on her history makes the article more readable. The events of her personal life directly influence each stage of her political activity so seperating these into seperate tracks results in a loss of understanding on what motivates and drives her.

--Wowaconia 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Good job on your sourcing campaign. Tewfik^Talk 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. I reverted your edit to the Swift Boat Vets article. The two sources you removed had valid citations, including publisher, author, date and page. That is a valid complete citation, whether there is a live url there or not. I checked the URL's as well, and one that you removed went to a live abstract. But in any case, please don't remove valid citations to reliable sources, just because there is not a convenient and free url to click on. Citations were being written long before the internet existed, and those articles can still be verified through purchase, library microfilm, or other methods offline. URLs are only there as a convenience. A complete citation with no URL is actually preferable to a URL-only citation, because when the link goes dead, we still have the publication information, and a new URL can usually be found using that info. - Crockspot 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- update I went back and double checked, one of the sources (Boston Herald) didn't actually have all the cite info needed to verify, (no date of publication), and I was not able to find the original article in a news archive search based only on the title and publication name, so I removed that one again. Just be careful about links. They are not required for a valid citation. As long as there is enough info for some kid to look the news article up at his library, it's good to go. - Crockspot 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Las Vegas

I saw that you added a 'reference'. Please try to use the reference tag and one of the citation templates so that the references can be fully attributed in the article. I updated this one for you so you can see what to do. Thanks. Vegaswikian 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead ref's

Please read WP:DEADREF to learn how to deal with dead references. Simply removing the entire reference is not appropriate. --Veritas (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 I saw that you added a 'reference'. Please try to use the reference tag and one of the citation templates so that the references can be fully attributed in the article.  I updated this one for you so you can see what to do. Thanks. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
+== Dead ref's ==
+Please read [[WP:DEADREF]] to learn how to deal with dead references.  Simply removing the entire reference is not appropriate. --[[User:Veritas|Veritas]] ([[User talk:Veritas|talk]]) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)