User talk:LikkerdySplit

Hello, I'm Saturn star. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Saturn star (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Saturn Star
I am assuming this concerns the Mississippi election articles I just edited.

Well thanks a lot for doing that, but I think its self-evident that the state flag of Mississippi is the state flag of Mississippi, exactly why should I provide a citation when none exists elsewhere? And whereas this onerous requirement is not made elsewhere?

The State flag was adopted in 1892, I have noticed it is standard to have the state, or national flag (as applicable) as a little image at the top of statewide (or nationwide) election articles, whether for Florida, Wisconsin, California, North Carolina, Australia, United Kingdom, etc. Where have I offended?

By the way, I understand you have a copy/pasted message and you gave no thought to your reversion, but its really hard to reply to you when you have expressly had that prohibited.

-Eli

I apologize I think I must have misinterprited one of your edits also my talk page was protected because someone left a death threat there a year or so ago and I have always meant to get it removed but I have been so busy in real life I forgot Saturn star (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, no problem, sorry to hear that happened, some people really go to seed with these internet arguments, God bless you - Eli

Welcome!
Hello, LikkerdySplit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MB298 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Invite
MB298 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Brandon Bell (Virginia Politician)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Brandon Bell (Virginia Politician), LikkerdySplit!

Wikipedia editor Ramaksoud2000 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!"

To reply, leave a comment on Ramaksoud2000's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

December 2016
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Creigh Deeds
To reuse a ref, add a slash "/" Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.

Help on references
See Help:Referencing for beginners and help:footnotes. Regarding reuse, see Help:Referencing for beginners Jim1138 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, I fixed it.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No comma before Jr. or Sr.
See WP:JR. Please re-check and correct your edits. I've done some. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Check any modern style or grammar guide if you're relying on old style with comma as being definitive of what's correct. E.g. Strunk & White's 1979 third edition, or current fourth edition, which reversed what they recommended in earlier editions (e.g. what the NYT review argued against in the 2nd, 1959, at ), and gave the explanation for why, which you can read here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well any is not any, just last year that's what I was taught in my College, and that's what the 2012 ed. Book said, I do not accept this Strunk feller who you advance, nor his reasoning - "Consensus says parenthetic, but logic says(read: but I say) restrictive."


 * If you don't mind I will proceed the way I am taught, Wikipedia's asinine, arbitrary, ever-changing 'manual' notwithstanding, if there seems to be an established rule or it bothers somebody I will not overturn the applecart - But on articles which I am responsible for I'll follow Wikipedia's arbitrary, asinine rules as far as they go and not an inch further, and I'm sorry if Wikipedia doesn't like inches - not a furlong more.


 * You can find a survey of what modern guides say about this at Talk:Comma. If your 2012 source isn't listed already, maybe you could add it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, it's not that Strunk and White were making this up. It took the NYT and other publications 20 years to convince them that this was the new way it's done. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll not die fighting for it, but I do not accept their authority to change the English language, for that matter, personally I view our language to be in a state of precipitous self-destruction and I do not intend to partake in it, nor carry water for the devil, it seems to me there are a great lot of "new ways its done" that I'm not a part of, they came unannounced, unheralded out of the gloom and they're leaving us all the worse for wear.

Notice relating to articles related to the post-1932 politics of the United States
Neutralitytalk 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Beauchamp Vick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logan County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Policies you seem to not know or if you do dislike
The basic one you don't like is WP:VERIFY. You need to read it along with WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2018
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kurt Eichenwald. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Mississippi
JonathanTheLibrarian (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edgar Heap of Birds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Pope. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Bayonet
The book was completed and first published in 1606, the second edition came out in 1630

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%B5%E9%8C%84

《兵录》是明朝吴郡（今江苏苏州）何汝宾（字寅之，号仲升）于万历34年（1606年）作成的一套军事丛书，之后历经改版，崇祯3年（1630年）的刊本共有14卷.

"Bing Lu" is a set of military books written by He Rubin (Zi Yinzhi, Hao Zhongsheng) in the 34th year of Wanli (1606), Wu Jun (now Suzhou, Jiangsu) of the Ming Dynasty. It has been revised since then, Chongzhen 3rd year (1630). There are 14 volumes in the journal. - bad google translate

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)