User talk:Id447

Categories are not "see also" links
Hi - Looking at your edit to Global warming conspiracy theory, which was reverted by another user, I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the Category: links on Wikipedia. They should not be used indiscriminately on an article to link to related categories. They should only be used when the article actually fits in the category. (If you think it would be useful to link to related categories which are neither subcategories nor parent categories, you can do that on a category page.)—greenrd 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial Presidency
A couple of notes for you: Thanks. Bearcat 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not wikify surnames in isolation, such as "Nixon" or "Lincoln" — these almost invariably lead to disambiguation pages rather than articles about the presidents. Wikify either the whole name (Richard Nixon, Abraham Lincoln, etc.) or nothing.
 * 2) Do not wikify general terms such as "Congress", "Constitution", "Civil War", "Senate", etc. — again, these are dab pages, not articles about the American topics. Wikify the whole term (United States Congress, Constitution of the United States, American Civil War, United States Senate, etc.) or nothing.
 * 3) Don't wikify every appearance of a term in an article; wikify the first one only. If you choose, you can wikify the term again later in the article, if the article is exceedingly long, but at the very least don't wikify the same term twice in a single subsection.

Links
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Will Beback, My recent links to audio files are to radio programs produced on community non-profit public radio. I consider this relevant material to the topic. Why would anyone object to that? Do Wikipedia editors wish to discourage the improvement of this encyclopedia? Id447 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Climate Feedbacks
Category:Climate Feedbacks,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * It's not just that you're edit warring, but as Fat&Happy says, your edits are original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

VAP
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with VAP, Voting Age Population, a common statistic used to determine voter participation? Here some links that you might want to dispute Methodology & Sources, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008, Elections: Voting-Age Population and Voter Participation, Voter Turnout, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996. I suggest that if editors wish to delete edits in the future you might first start a dialogue. Just because an editor is unfamiliar with VAP doesn't mean that it is original research. By starting a dialogue you might find out something new.

Id447 (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Dispute Resolution Noticeboard post
Hi there Id447, this is Mr. Stradivarius from Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks for your post there - it is always worrying when something of this nature happens. One thing that I'm glad about is that your browser told you there was a malicious script - that means that the script hasn't actually been run on your machine. As the other commenter on that board suggested though, it is very hard to know where that message could have come from. I just wanted to ask you though, do you remember the exact page - or even better, the exact URL - that you visited that brought up the error message? If we know this there is a much better chance we can do something about it. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)