User talk:Dennisbyron

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Dear Dennisbyron, I noticed your comment about good software company rankings, Talk:World%27s_largest_software_companies and I would like to invite you to join the discussion on whether a ranking like Software Top 100 is a good source for Wikipedia or not. You will find most of the discussion on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your opinion. --BalderV (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch--I was in the process of undoing the edit myself. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Joseph McCarthy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is wrong with the footnote. Also, you're reversing cause and effect and are advancing a POV: that there was widespread subversion which fueled tension. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Joseph McCarthy. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:DCGeist. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charging that someone has "an agenda to misrepresent American history" is a serious matter. If you are incapable of assuming good faith on the part of those with whom you disagree, you have no business contributing here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand any of the geeky wiki-talk above but I tried to make one very reasonable change to the article about Joseph McCarthy. The original article said -- and the article still says : "Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion.[1]" I don't know much about Joseph McCarthy (which was why I was looking up the article) but anyone who has studied U.S. history knows that communist subversion in the U.S. (and probably UK) --dating to the 1920s and especially right before and during WW II -- fueled the Cold War, not the other way around. The propagadists who seem to own this article would want a reader to think that well documented pre-WWII communist subversion (especially well documented since the demise of the Soviet Union) did not exist and that the US started a "Cold War" with the Soviet Union out of fear rather than reality. In addition, Richard M. Nixon was a much more visible face as a proponent of anti-communist activityboth before and after the very short "McCarthy period". It got him elected President of the U.S. The anonymous people who lurk on Wikipedia writing this stuff and "reverting" articles to their propaganda postions can send me an email directly if they like. Barring me from Wikipedia is not much a threat. Dennis Byron

The purpose of the lead section in an article, sourcing and Original Research
Hi,

I had to undo a slew of your revisions to the mass health care reform article. In case you are not aware, the purpose of the lead is for a very short concise overview of what the topic is about, It is not a spot to regurgitate every detail in the entire article, To add unsourced opinion, speculation, Original Research etc. As for sourcing and Original research, you need to source any information you add to the encyclopedia and you cannot add your own original research, everything you add must be sourced inline in the article and from a reliable source. I hope this helps for future editing. -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I came here to make the exact same comment and discovered you were already informed about the same problem three and a half years ago. I'm going to have to do the same deletions. --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

rgordon - since my revisions in November 2013 kept the whole introduction section the same length as it was before my revisions I do not know what you are talking about relative to length (if that is what you are talking about). I kept the length the same because of the note from 2010 above. 2010 is probably the last time I came on to this web site. However your January 2014 change to my Nov 2013 change appears to leave out some of the major facts of the 2012 change to Massachusetts healthcare-insurance-related law as well as to reintroduce some other errors. Since there appears to be no other way to reply to you, I hope you read this and reconsider your change to my change. If you want to communicate with me, I can be reached at dennis.byron@comcast.net. I cannot find any other way to communicate with people on this web site but in general the article is way out of date and full of inaccuracies -- there is even a box at the top put there by someone that says that and invites help -- but there is no way to explain its problems to anyone. Luckily most people who care about this subject know the actual situation; the inaccuracies on this web site will only affect the occasional school kid who will crib from the incorrect information here and get a bad mark in schoolDennisbyron (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My only concern here is what you are doing with the article leads; as you were told years ago, " In case you are not aware, the purpose of the lead is for a very short concise overview of what the topic is about, It is not a spot to regurgitate every detail in the entire article." Look at other articles to get a sense of how our articles are structured. As far as how to discuss these things with people, there are two ways: the way I'm discussing it with you now, on your user talk page; and, more importantly, on the article talk pages. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

jpgordon: OK I cut back the Introduction to basically only the facts as of today. I had previously left old descriptions in the section even though they were no longer true because I did not believe it my place to delete things others had writtenDennisbyron (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)