User talk:Mbevel1972
Welcome!
Hello, Mbevel1972, 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
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sally Quinn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
- Time | title=Television: Sallying Forth | date=August 20, 1973 | accessdate=2010-05-23}}</ref> {A profile in <em>Vanity Fair</em> attributes the "Nobody's perfect" line to editorial-page editor
- <em>Vanity Fair</em> attributes the "Nobody's perfect" line to editorial-page editor Phil Geyelin.){{cite news| url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/07/sally-quinn-201007 | work=
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
typo
[edit]I have no problem with this edit, but your edit summary says it was a typo fix? —valereee (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Valerie! None of the options for what I did seemed to fit. But you're right, "typo" isn't the exact thing I did. —Mike Bevel (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- No edit summary is better than a misleading one ... you can always type your own. Re your message on my talk page, yes, well now that I think about it Wikipedia doesn't strive to be *neutral* exactly, but more a careful reflection on what reliable sources say on a subject. I think the previous wording was better for that. Also compare the opening to [[Adolf Hitler, which I think is a model for this sort of topic, despite Godwin's law. Graham87 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Master Graham, may I consider the Adolph Hitler page read in the person of my agent (you)? I have looked at enough weird things on Wikipedia that I fear the portrait of me in my attic is starting to disgust itself. Thank you again, and you, too -valereee, for your suggestions and patience. —Mike Bevel (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- No edit summary is better than a misleading one ... you can always type your own. Re your message on my talk page, yes, well now that I think about it Wikipedia doesn't strive to be *neutral* exactly, but more a careful reflection on what reliable sources say on a subject. I think the previous wording was better for that. Also compare the opening to [[Adolf Hitler, which I think is a model for this sort of topic, despite Godwin's law. Graham87 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)