User talk:Aristolle

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578076470 your edit] to Women and video games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * have been shown to try and close the double standard when it comes to gender and technology.

Addition of improper sources to Women and video games
Hi Aristolle, I've again reverted your edit adding sources to the "Women and video games" article because in addition to degrading the grammar and adding an unneeded "citation needed" tag the sources themselves also have little or nothing to do with the topic of the subsection into which they were entered. They sources are good inasmuch as they seem to be reliable sources, but they are irrelevant to the subtopic. I've started a section on the talk page here inviting you to discuss this edit rather than simply reverting to restore it regardless of the objections. In accordance with Wikipedia's traditional Bold-revert-discuss cycle I'd like to ask you to please post your thoughts in this section of the discussion page and let us reach a consensus before we make any more edits related to this issue within the article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -Thibbs (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)