User talk:George415

This user may have left Wikipedia. George415 has not edited Wikipedia since 11 August 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome, George415!

Hello, George415, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm CMacMillan, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few helpful links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Good work on the Karl Hess article

Hi. I just wanted to express appreciation for the changes and contributions you made to the Karl Hess article. I found the additions and alterations informative and valuable. Thanks. Joel Russ 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, do not add your signature in the middle of the article. Thanks. ---Charles 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crips

Thanks for your help on making it a bit better!futurebird

Karl Hess

Regarding the cannibal twin assertion, I am afraid that I have been unable to confirm this. I just bought Hess' autobiography, but haven't had a chance to read much of it yet. Could you provide a page citation for this claim? Also, the term "cannibal twin" does not seem to be in common usage (given the results that google returns, anyway) so I suspect that this assertion, even if made by Hess, would not be suitable for our encyclopedia. Thanks, DickClarkMises 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jacqueline Beaudant

An editor has nominated Jacqueline Beaudant, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Beaudant and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Plato

Can you supply at least one reliable source stating her birthday is in the date you assert? If you continue reverting to the November 1 date without providing a reference, it will be considered an attempt of disruption. Wikipedia is about verifiability: IMDB states her birthday is a day you don't agree, then please provide us a reference for your own date. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check www.thesmokinggun.com, you will find a copy of Plato's autopsy report on which her birthdate is given as 1 November 1963. This information was obtained by the Oklahoma police when they were called regarding her overdose; the police took her birthdate directly from her driver's license, which is a far more reliable source than whatever you may have read on IMDB. P.S. I went to HS with Michael J. Fox, so I know he was born in 1960, not 1961 (which is what his Internet bios say). Celebs do lie about their ages. Please do not be offended if I keep changing Plato's birthdate to the correct 1963.George415 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about "who reverts faster", because that is considered vandalism and punished with blocking. Can you give a direct link to the document? Also, is the document public? -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try www.thesmokinggun.com and enter "Dana Plato's autopsy report." Again, the DP birthdate you've found on the Internet means nothing; what matters is what's on her autopsy report, DL, etc.George415 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References.

Please read Wikipedia's verifiability and biograhies of living persons policies, and provide reliable third party sources for information you add to articles. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-06t09:34z

You've put the unsourced info back: [1]. Please read the verifiability and biograhies of living persons policies. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-26t14:54z

And again: [2]. I'm going to ask for a block if you don't stop. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-25t21:52z

I'm just trying to write and edit good articles, Jeandre. Please be diplomatic. George415 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ronald Wayne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ronald Wayne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Just a warning. If you want the page deleted nominate it for deletion, or discuss on the article's talk page. LAA Fan 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Wayne

You have been warned at least twice about blanking this article, and I provided a detailed reply to your query about how to proceed, but then you still proceeded to blank the page after this advice. If you persist, you will likely be blocked for your disruptive edits. Please follow the instructions and policies pointed out to you. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've (moved and) replied to your comment on my talk page. Please heed that advice and adjust your tactics accordingly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have been warned numerous times and reverted numerous times regarding your edits at Apple Inc. and Ronald Wayne. Discuss the matter on the talk pages if you like, but if you continue making these changes that appear to be without consensus, you will likely be blocked for disruption. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manson

It is absolutely bad faith for you edit a page and leave an edit summary such as Please get your facts straight; read "Helter Skelter." Please look up the word "eponymous"; it fits. Absolutely unacceptable. There have been three extremely well educated persons involved in working on this article. All of us have read Helter Skelter, as well as several other books on Manson. The issue with your change has nothing to do with the definition of the word eponymous. It has to do with the way your wording skews the perspective of the development of the Manson Family. You make it sound as if Manson went to San Francisco and said to himself "I'm going to now establish my cult and I'm going to name it after myself." That isn't how it happened at all. It happened, as discussed later in the article, more haphazardly and casually. In fact, read the entire article. It also covers how it became known as the Manson Family. That had nothing to do with Manson in particular. Finally, no matter how right you think you are, you completely ignored the previous edit summary which noted that the way this article has developed, and the wording of things, including the name of the group, has been discussed to death and consensus has been determined on how things are worded in the article. It is a violation of policy to blindly change things against consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the wording in the lead of the Manson article again. Per discussion at Talk:Charles Manson#Use of "eponymous", consensus has been determined that this wording is inaccurate, both in the conventional use of the term "eponymous", as well as the historical implication that it contains. If you persist in making this change, it will be considered vandalism and dealt with as such. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still say "eponymous" fits. That whole Manson article is mediocre. George415 (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Please note that WP:PUNCT guidelines state that punctuation in a sentence should remain outside of quote marks unless the punctuation is clearly part of what is being quoted. Also, use of the double apostrophe '' should remain inside punctuation because it italicizes everything within it. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Million

I can only assume you mean this edit since you didn't provide a diff for me with your comment. If this is the edit to which you were referring, the statement that Million was harassed by GLOW management for being a lesbian is controversial/libelous and was unsourced, which is why I removed it. If you think my edits made the article weaker, which I obviously disagree with, then how about you find some reliable third party sources and re-add the information. Nikki♥311 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Status. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cory Monteith without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]