User talk:Fergdoug

Speedy deletion of Creepy treehouse effect
A tag has been placed on Creepy treehouse effect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lopez Tonight, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you.  M J 94 23:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557703150 your edit] to Robert Ford (politician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 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].

Iowa caucuses
Re: "re-arrange paragraphs to make a NON-CRITICISM appear last; one could rationally argue it doesn't belong at all under this subheading because it's not even criticism, but support."

No, not really. Now, your edit was not bad (though most of what's in that section could just be removed because they have no sources), but your reasoning is not valid. Criticism doesn't necessarily mean opposition. To quote Dictionary.com: "1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. [...] 3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc." And WP:CSECTION says, "the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment" -- which it should to follow WP:NPOV. Thanks, Musdan77 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not mark major edits as minor
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. &mdash;J. M. (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)