User talk:Mbevel1972

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622531976 your edit] to Sally Quinn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Time | title=Television: Sallying Forth | date=August 20, 1973 | accessdate=2010-05-23}} A profile in Vanity Fair attributes the "Nobody's perfect" line to editorial-page editor
 * Vanity Fair attributes the "Nobody's perfect" line to editorial-page editor Phil Geyelin. {{cite news| url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/07/sally-quinn-201007 | work=

typo
I have no problem with this edit, but your edit summary says it was a typo fix? —valereee (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Valerie! None of the options for what I did seemed to fit. But you're right, "typo" isn't the exact thing I did. —Mike Bevel (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No edit summary is better than a misleading one ... you can always type your own. Re your message on my talk page, yes, well now that I think about it Wikipedia doesn't strive to be *neutral* exactly, but more a careful reflection on what reliable sources say on a subject. I think the previous wording was better for that. Also compare the opening to [[Adolf Hitler, which I think is a model for this sort of topic, despite Godwin's law. Graham 87 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Master Graham, may I consider the Adolph Hitler page read in the person of my agent (you)? I have looked at enough weird things on Wikipedia that I fear the portrait of me in my attic is starting to disgust itself. Thank you again, and you, too -valereee, for your suggestions and patience. —Mike Bevel (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)