User talk:Allthenamesarealreadytaken

Welcome!

Hello, Allthenamesarealreadytaken, 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!

Hey, thanks for your contribution on Fleet Command. I added a cleanup tag to it so that editors will see your article and help out with some formatting; I'm not very experienced as a wikipedian myself so hopefully some of the other editors can jazz it up a little bit with the standard wikificationing! BigNate37 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign comments on talk pages (like Talk:Fleet Command). Also, please click the + next to "edit this page" to add comments to a talk page by creating a new section. This makes it easier for others to come in and add comments or read comments about different parts of the page creation without needing to read the entire page — this becomes very important for large pages. Thanks. BigNate37 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH! thanks, I was wondering how one signed one messages. I'm used to PHPBB forums that won't let you post unless you're loged in,. and always show who posted what; The Wiki way seems a 'wittle wonky to we', but I'm learning. Allthenamesarealreadytaken 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi

I was wondering exactly why you made this edit. I added that line, which is a well-reference tidbit on Pelosi's early experience to politics, and you deleted it without explanation. May I ask why? -- Dgies 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between well-referenced and well-documented. Referencing an editorial does not mean you've got credible evidence. Show me some actual news articles (not editorials) that back up the allegation that "Nancy helped (her father) maintain a ledger of political favors..." and then you've got credibility.--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist is generally considered a reliable source. While the article was an editorial, the statement was presented as background factual information, not editorializing. -- Dgies 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's factual, then reference an article that details the allegation rather than referencing one line in an editorial. Otherwise, don't post it.

Consolidated PBY Catalina Recent Edit

Weird, esp. after a month has passed. I'm about to delete this, which was a re-insertion of an otherwise excellent image - but from a banned user: re-introduced by a sock. Any objections? Cheers... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. I only have passing interest in this subject. Only reason I posted about the FARS project was that I heard a documentary about it on CBC radio. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

.submitted to Apple for approval and will soon be available on the Mac and iTunes App Stores."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/34086/baldurs-gate-enhanced-edition-update-v1-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States presidential eligibility legislation; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.You have been repeatedly told that others disagree with your near-blanking of this article. If you do this again, you may expect to be blocked from editing without further notice. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]