User talk:R.T.Gellar

--R.T.Gellar (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irvington, New York

I suggest you take a look at the history of this article. Please do not revert my edits again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concerning the warning you put on my talk page -- it's a good idea to include the name of the article you're warning about, but also editors with long histories on Wikipedia can take offense, or at least get somewhat annoyed, when they are tagged with a warning which is generally utilized for newcomers. It's probably best to take a moment to investigate the history of the editor you're intending to warn. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: content is more important than formatting. I note that in some of your edits, for instance on New York metropolitan area you've deleted informative or interesting material, apparently because it was not formatted that way you preferred. Instead of deleting material such as that, it's better to find a way to include it in the article which meets your formatting requirements. Also, bear in mind that the Manual of Style is a guideline and not a rigid set of rules to be slavishly followed at all times. As editors, we are allowed to make judgement calls about when it's beneficial to an article to use a non-standard formatting. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)}

I have no need to respond to this users comments but I will insert one here for whoever might read my page. A long history and / or high number of edits on this site merely shows that the User has contributed to the site. Thats it. To claim that one is 'above' certain aspects of the site (such as receiving warnings) is arrogant and inappropriate. My contributions to the article (Irvington, New York) were reflective of Wiki policies and style standards. The site is not a directory for people or places. The inclusion of excess internal links might seem appropriate to the user who commented above, however 'personal judgement' calls do not supercede policy.--R.T.Gellar (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (12th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BlueAzure (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]