Hello Donreed! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini
Why did you remove the sentence about the jaccuzzi? I don't know whether it's true or not. It seems kind of silly, which is I think the point of that paragraph anyways. Is it incorrect? Is there some magical aircraft jaccuzzi? I can imagine there would be... ... aa:talk14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't kill it: I moved it to another article, either the "Tom Cruise" article or the "Gxxx" article, which you get when you search for "G-4".
Just so you know, I reverted out your addition to the Resistance disambiguation page. A disambig page really isn't the place to go into that much detail, and it's unfortunately impossible to confirm that this was a notable organization with such a generic title in Google. If you want to go make a The Resistance article and add in some references, then by all means, you can put it back on the disambig page. SnowFire05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how aftermarket treatment of open wine bottles fits into an article about replacements for cork-tree-derived stoppers in the industry. This material, properly sourced, might be more appropriate as a stand-alone article. — Saxifrage✎19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right; I'm not sure how to start a new article. After all, I started with commas a few months ago. Many articles have commas in the wrong places, or missing or extra onesOccasionally, I'd add a sentence or two. Recently, I've added whole paragraphs.[reply]
Thanks with the help on copyediting! There are a lot of articles that need just that kind of attention to detail given to them.
Starting an article is easy once you get to the page with the right title: you just start editing that page. However, getting there is the tricky part. The easiest way is to create "red link" somewhere (your user page or the sandbox are the best places) and then click on that to make it a real page. For instance, if you wanted to call it Aftermarket wine storage, then you could make the link, save, and then click on the red link to start editing that new page. Once you save your work (after a short delay if the database is busy) the red link will be blue when you reload the page and the article will exist. If you decide later that the name you chose isn't the right one, don't worry! Articles can be retitled by moving them to the right place either by you (if it's an uncomplicated move) or by an administrator (if there are complications, like an old redirect page in the way). With all this, there are lots of people willing to give advice if you ask.
If you don't mind, I'm going to remove the text from Synthetic closure now. You can get the text you wrote back by looking at the old version by going to the History tab, and choosing the last version with your name attached. Alternatively, I can do that and paste it in here for you if you like.
For help on formatting and other issues in creating a fresh page, you can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (if you have a lot of time!) or you can ask someone (like me!) to look it over and give you some pointers. There is also Wikipedia:Requests for Feedback, which is a page dedicated to answering requests for feedback on new articles.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Chris53516(Talk)14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a funny shirt, by fannish standards; but the material doesn't belong in an article about fandom, especially when combined with a rambling discussion of Silicon Valley. --Orange Mike16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Donreed! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Condom. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol01:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I like the bit about piano wire being used for gravel screening, but with the new tighter WP regulations we can't use it without a published reference source - can you please add one to Piano wire? Thanks, Opus3306:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your additions to the "plot" section of the article. The initial sentence, "The film simplifies the story, perhaps too much" is NPOV because it is stating your opinion. If you can find that information sourced, feel free to include it. The rest can be found in the Guy Fawkes article (which is linked right above) and, while interesting, it doesn't have a lot of bearing on the plot of the film. Cheers!
Verybigfish8607:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it appears that you may still be having problems understanding wikipedia policies. I would suggest you read or read again the policy on Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:NPOV at the minimum and also consider reading other policies. If you continue to have problems understanding them, you may want to try asking for help, as the person who introduced you to wikipedia suggested.
I reverted both your edits to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In the first case, it appeared to be unsourced speculation on your part. Also, the wording was somewhat misleading as not all countries with syariah law for example use the sword to carry out the death penalty. Also, there are countries without syariah law with the death penalty. In the second case, I'm not quite sure what you meant by the Daniel Pearl article. If there was a news report you were referring to, please provide it as a source and please mention who's article it is (e.g. according to a report by the BBC, according to multiple reports). If you were referring to the Daniel Pearl article, please note that we do not refer to wikipedia articles in that way as it is inappropriate. If there are any details from wikipedia articles that you feel should be mentioned in other articles, you should summarise them, along with sources.
Don, your additions to The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer are personal opinions and do not cite sources. If you want to add something to the article, please cite a reliable source. Do you know what we mean by that? Nbauman16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... were reverted. You should either have clear evidence when making such serious allegiations or refrain from doing so. -- C. Deelmann13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate the p.700 statement. The material further down the article says p. 362, which suggests your contribution ought to be reverted. --Ancheta Wis11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this is not the first time you have vandalized an article on Wikipedia. Additional offenses will result in your being blocked from editing articles.
I noticed that you added a section to anaphylaxis that adds flavor to the article. My concern, however, is that the text is simply opinion, and I am planning on removing it because I'm not certain that it can be reworded in an encyclopedic way. Should I hold off? Antelantalk18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another vote for removing or substantially revising that edit. It sounds like something in a blog instead of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, MSG isn't a true allergen (a person is "sensitive" to it; it's not immunogenic), and very few people need epinephrine in response to smoke (which typically triggers asthma attacks and headaches instead of anaphylaxis). I would, therefore, pick other examples: shellfish or milk, for example. I'd also lose the hostile statements about uncooperative tobacco users. I'd like to hear what your goal was; perhaps we can come up with a way to improve what you've written. WhatamIdoing03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your edits to the Performance section of the Radio clock article. You brought up some good points (the need to place the clocks in a window sometimes, and the confusion about setting time zones), but you used a sarcastic tone and brought up some irrelevant issues, such as the schedule for the companies' tech support. In addition, you did not cite any sources. Please remove the irrelevant parts, rewrite the good parts in a more encyclopedic manner, and cite your sources. Thanks! ThinkingInBinary01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your fix of the Endeavour/endeavor thing was a good catch, I must have just been so used to typing it that way I forgot, lol. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold05:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw a change you made to a page I'm watching. I noticed you didn't use an edit summary. Looking at your contributions, I see you apparently never describe your changes in edit summaries. I see I'm also not the first to comment on this. Please read the page Help:Edit summary, which explains what edit summaries are, how to use them, and why you should use them. Please also read the page Wikipedia:Etiquette, which gives an overview of how Wikipedia works as a community. We'll all be better off if we work together. Thanks for your time. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just noticed you edited Gunpowder and step by step changed all the instances of "sulphur" to "sulfur". Such editing is not necessary or desirable in wiki, per WP:ENGVAR. Basically, if one particular usage either American or British is already prevalent in an article, you should try to conform. Thanks. Arthurrh23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I reverted your edit on Fred Thompson as the wording may be construed in a legal way. If we can find a source that says he changed it, then we can use than and change the wording. Thanks! Spryde21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Larissa Volokhonsky, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Richard Pevear. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to FAQ, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thebestkiano10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don, I have been reviewing - and reverting - some of your edits. While you make many worthwhile grammatical improvements and some useful factual additions, on the whole your edits tend to be off-topic, trivia not worth including, or otherwise unconstructive. They are frequently unreferenced, or consist of personal opinions or views on the subject of the article. I don't think my views on your work are original, seeing the frequency with which other editors seem to revert your edits, and many of the previous comments on your talk page. You should try to improve your work; consider the editor review process, for instance. Or, look back over your edits frequently, see which ones have been reverted, and try to learn to be much more cautious in your editing. You seem to be well-intentioned, but far too quick to add ill-thought-out material to articles. Brianyoumans11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Donreed, I don't know why you keep inserting your personal opinions into the anaphylaxis article, but I'd like to encourage you to think about it as an encyclopedia article instead of an opportunity to gripe about heedless tobacco users and careless servers in restaurants. Anything you add to that article needs to be backed up by a published source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Urban legend, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that your are trying to improve Wikipedia, but I have just reverted out nearly all your edits on the page Professor, mostly for being unencyclopedic, off-topic, etc. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for your self-described "apocryphal tales", anecdotes, and opinions. I also note that you edit a page, save then immediately re-edit the same paragraph repeatedly, indicating lack of forethought and failure to check your edits. I see from the comments of many others above that this is a comment complaint about your edits. As so many people revert your edits anyway (and there are many that people have not yet got around to reverting), I respectfully suggest that you would be better off limiting yourself to reading Wikipedia, rather than editing it, in the future. --David Broadfoot (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are the topic of discussion on the administrators' noticeboard
I am concerned that you do not understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. A discussion has begun on the subject of your editing patterns, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problematic user User:Donreed. Please comment in that thread, and explain why you are making the edits that are mentioned there. Several users have expressed concerns here on your talk page and I wonder if you understand why these sorts of additions are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please do not make any other edits to Wikipedia until you have joined in the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. ··coelacan10:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has repeatedly been pointed out to you by others, you have displayed a pattern of behavior that Wikipedia considers disruptive editing. Do not continue to insert information which is not attributable to reliable sources. A detailed catalogue of some of your recent edits in this regard is presented here. In order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, continued disruptive editing will result in suspension of your editing privileges. You have shown that you are capable of making constructive contributions. Please continue to edit constructively, but refrain from adding conjecture and anecdotes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is especially important to not add unsourced material that is, or could be construed as, negative when the sublect is one or more living people. This needs to stop immediately. (I also echo the general concern that you need to engage in discussion about your content edits. )GRBerry15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. Please engage with those who are trying to help you. It's a waste of your time and everyone else's to behave in this way. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even after your block, your editing still causes concerns and problem - I have asked that you be again blocked until you engage in dialogue with your fellow editors about why many of your edits are such a problem. I suggest that you join in the conversation - which is here --Fredrick day (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please engage in talk conversation; at least here on this page. If this doesn't happen, I expect that editing restrictions will eventually occur. GRBerry21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Your repeated failure to use the preview button results in a far greater number of entries in the edit history than is desirable, and it it makes it harder for users to delete your contributions. Repeated corrective edits is also considered by some as a ruse to hide previous edits, or to make it more difficult to revert your edits. Now that you have been advised of that, continued failure to use the preview button is more likely to result in you being blocked again. Please take note, thank you. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit [1], you changed "the girls's name" to "the girl's nam(a claim now disputed by paleoanthropologists)e". Please be careful when editing WIkipedia, and use the preview button. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your useful copy-editing. However, your most recent edit [2] is unencyclopedic, constitutes original research, and makes unwarranted assumptions, unsupported by any evidence provided. You also continue to refuse to use the edit summary box and the preview button, nor do you respond to anyone in the Wikipedia community. Please read this Wikipedia paragraph on disruptive editing. This is your last warning before I request an indefinite blocked. --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you again. Your copyediting edits (changing "which" to "that", comma fixes) etc. are helpful, but as you have been told many times before on this page, your addition of uncited anecdotes to many articles like this edit to tow truck is very unhelpful and violates Wikipedia's verifiability and probably biographies of living persons policies. If you wish to contest this block, either add a message to this talk page or email me using the "email this user" link from my talk page after adding and confirming an email address in your preferences. Graham8709:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. John Reaves05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
\(caint) 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Condom. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 01:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fruitarianism, you will be blocked from editing. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
