User talk:Italus

Causes of World War I
I see that you recently edited the July Crisis portion of Causes of World War I. The July Crisis portion of the article is in pretty good shape containing sufficient facts and footnoting, but the rest of the article is unsupported fluff. I'd like to revamp the article as I wrote on the discussion page, but no one has responded and the scope of the article I think is more than I can handle alone. Could you read my "moribund" comment on the discussion page and give me your feedback?

Werchovsky 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in sympathy with the views you are expressing, laying blame more at Poincare's feet than at William II's. The place where you have inserted the new comments about Poincare are off the timeline. Could you add them to the French Domestic Politics section instead?

Werchovsky 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see in Albertini in a footnote on page 428 that slightly before 5PM on July 25 it was decided that the fleet would return to Kiel with the implication it was due to the Serbia rejection of the ultimatum. I remembered this very poorly. The countermanding of the order to disperse the British Fleet and dismiss reservists was on the afternoon of July 26th, and sinse the disperse and dismiss order was in effect in the morning of July 26 it took Germany some time to detect the change. I will change the article accordingly back to something more like what you wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werchovsky (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. your edit I dorftrottel I talk I 10:36, December 4, 2007 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read Neutral point of view if you haven't already. Using words like "glaring unethical conduct", especially of course the adjective, are unacceptable in a neutral encyclopedia article. You would need to find a much more neutral wording, and if you have reliable sources, cite them (click these links and read those pages). I dorftrottel I talk I 23:14, December 4, 2007

I returned the article to a NPOV state. Please refrain from adding any other wordings like "convoluted solutions" (the adjective is pure POV). Likewise, reformulating your prior addition of "glaring unethical conduct" to "it would appear that Marilyn demonstrated glaring unethical conduct" is not NPOV, it's the very same POV under disguise. Please consult Words to avoid, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid peacock terms before further editing any article related to Marylin vos Savant. It appears you have a strong POV, and I must ask you to please strictly keep that out of the article. Discuss along reliable sources (i.e. not forums and blogs) in a neutral manner.

Also, placing links and references into the sections is less than ideal. Please consult Citing sources and Citation templates for further information.

If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask e.g. at Editor assistance. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 10:37, December 6, 2007

Mark Steyn talk page
Please don't use the talk pages for rants or to insert irrelevant commentary about the subject. The talk pages are used for discussing ways in which to improve articles, which you should know by know. You may want to take a look at WP:NPOV before these things spill over into articles.— DMCer ™  03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Garibaldi's letter.
Do you have a source on the first sentence of the section you added to German Unification. Otherwise, I'd like to work it into the article differently. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Council of Sirmium into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)