User talk:ArmAndLeg

Thanks

...for reverting my errror in changing to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun - the previous user has unloaded many questionable source images - I should have left this one. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

New York State Route 19A

Your change to the page New York State Route 19A was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. I don't understand why you need to feel a need to insert a random fact tag following the first sentence of the article. If you question whether or not the road exists, then look at a map. If you question the article's notability, then take it to AfD, where precedent has declared that all state highways are notable. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Why you revert my contribution in article Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès? Some IP user was mes up iw links. But now iw links are corrent again. --Uusitunnus 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I should write better edit summary in that article about it I reverted vandalism. --Uusitunnus 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

please sign your comments on talk pages

You have made many contributions to talk pages, but you do not sign your comments. Please use four tildes ~~~~ at the end of yoru comments so others know that you are making them. Please also read the Wikipedia Policy on signing comments for more information. --Jayron32 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You said What if I don't always feel like signing my comments? Like now, I feel like being difficult. on my talk page.

That's fine, but you should be aware how others will perceive you and your comments. If your intention is to make good contributions to discussions, and to have others listen to and care about what you have to say, then you should sign your comments, and in general follow the rules. If your only purpose is to be disruptive, as the above comment seems to indicate, then you will not be welcome for long. --Jayron32 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You said Now your making threats? That seems a little out of portion. on my talk page. Nope. I want you to be a helpful contributor. You have valid things to say. I want your voice to be heard. The fact that you don't sign your comments means that it will not be heard. Merely a practical consideration you seem to be discounting. --Jayron32 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please try to be a little more civil in your edits. These two stand out particularly. [1] [2]. Thanks. --Wafulz 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Shannon Larratt

The page that you referred to is from a website run by him. That does not mean much. I can show you enough about me on several websites in at least three countries. Does not make me notable. Notability criteria have been established for a reason, please read the AfD pages. Thank you. Metlin 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mariawald Abbey

It's hard to believe that you sincerely doubt the veracity of all of these statements. Did you even try following the external link to the official site linked from the page and see if you could verify any of this yourself? Or make any effort to do even some of the most obvious Google searches to see if you could verify any of it? - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[copied]
Articles should cite their sources. I don't see any citations where it would be appropriate. Isn't that what the fact tag is for? ArmAndLeg 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[copied]

Not exactly. In this case, it would make more sense to tag the entire article with {{unreferenced}}. {{fact}} is more for either of the following:

1. To point up one of the few statements needing citation in a basically well-cited article.
2. To point up a particularly suspect statement.

In other words, the {{fact}} tag is to draw attention to a particular phrase, sentence, or paragraph that is more at issue than its surroundings. To mark up every sentence in an article with it is not much use: it's like saying that everything is high priority to cite, which effectively means the same as that everything is low priority to cite, because both simply mean nothing is more important than anything else.

I'd also add in this case: did you even take a look at the external link provided & see if you could do some of this yourself? Also, given that the history reveals that the article was anonymously translated from an intial entry in German, wouldn't it be more effective to press for sources on the German Wikipedia (where, by the way, there is a far more comprehensive, but also uncited, article)? - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)