User talk:Johntheadams
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Johntheadams, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
--Jerzy•t 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
(July 2011)
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 July 2011
January 2012
[edit]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United Airlines Flight 93. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave no opinion. I merely pointed out that the official version of the events came from federal authorities, and implied that proof is still lacking, which it is. Wikipedia should not be acting as a U.S. government mouthpiece. Suppose, say, in a few years, the official version is deemed a fabrication. Then what will Wikipedia be saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntheadams (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2012
- Your "allegedly" and "supposedly" insertions are your opinions, and do not reflect reliable sources in mainstream publications, which are the basis of Wikipedia. Should those sources change their minds, Wikipedia will change its text. Until then, 9/11 conspiracy theories is where reliably sourced material on such matters is reported. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
November 2012
[edit] Please do not add or change content, as you did to Roman Polanski, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ada
[edit]Your edit summary reading
- Rephrased the term "legitimate child" as ALL children are legitimate. This is VERY insulting.
reflects an approach on your part that is fundamentally at odds with WP's well-established principles. While it is a rare editor who would flatly reject those sentiments, we've collectively spent a decade learning that accepting conclusions like your proposed remedy would wreck the project we are engaged in. I reworded without consulting the record of how or why your wording got there, essentially because your double negation "not ... out of" read so clumsily. It was only later, in looking back at how the passage evolved from there, that i realized what your concern had been; otherwise i would perhaps have acknowledged your edit, and added a link on the ambiguous term, addressing the occasional harm of the ambiguity that your rhetoric (including the shouting) rests on.
--Jerzy•t 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a legal term, and the correct one. Give it up. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Warning about edit warring
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ada Lovelace. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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; 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. Yworo (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to second Yworo's warning: please don't revert again. Edit warring is not the way to go. You made a bold change, which was fine, others reverted it, which was also fine, so now you need to discuss it on the talk page. If the talk page discussion doesn't work out in your favor, then you need to accept it and move on. This is not a contest of who gets the last revert in, it's a collaborative project. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you need to refrain from calling other people "pompous bigots", as you did in your edit summaries. There's nothing bigoted or pompous here, and using those terms to describe others is inappropriate and unnecessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)