User talk:Yomrlax

September 2014

Hello, I'm Jfdwolff. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to kashrut because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please 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! JFW | T@lk 20:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Montown

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Montown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Montown, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Montown. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Association football, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Narcissistic personality disorder with this edit, 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, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Addition to Narcissistic Personality Disorder Article

This section uses a controversial political candidate as a test subject, and provides no justification for doing so. Since this is a scientific article, it is pertinent that a reason is clear for the use of any test subjects, subjects of scientific studies, or theoretical studies. More so, the articles cited, which identify the test subject as an example of a narcissistic disorder, are not serious scientific studies. Even if this theoretical study was serious, which it's not, it would belong in the article titled "Narcissism", as is stated clearly at the top of the page in this article: that "clinical research" pertaining to narcissism should be contained in the article titled "Narcissism" and not in the "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" article.

It is highly likely that this addition was politically motivated. Politically motivated content is out of place in an encyclopedia.

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly...Modernist (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]