User talk:Jlbv123

Welcome!

 * }

Question marks and quoting
Hi, and thanks for your contributions!

On the blunder (chess) article, I notice that you have added a second question mark to the Fischer-Najdorf example. While an objective evaluation of the move probably merits a second question mark, and the second question mark is included in most of the section, this particular text happens to be quoted directly from a book by Najdorf. When we quote, we recite the text exactly as given, and in this case the book only used question mark on that move. It is for this reason Bubba73 has removed the second question mark again.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Blunder (chess), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Conservatism in the United States does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

United States pro-life movement is covered by discretionary sanctions
EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 05:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jlbv123! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel(talk) 07:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Renewed discretionary sanctions alert for the areas of abortion and post-1932 American politics
Doug Weller talk 11:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)