User talk:Richard Meredith

Welcome
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! John Vandenberg (chat) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Council of Chalcedon
A few moments of reflection should make it obvious why an online encyclopedia cannot stand having editorial "comments" thrown into a online published article. There are other ways to make a point. I have re-inserted your comments as "tags" which cannot be easily read by a casual reader.

If you wish to change the article, please do so with WP:RS. If you disagree with what is being said, please comment on the discussion page (see tab at the top). If you have a reference that would support an addition, add it. There may be more than one version of events. We are big enough to report both.

Please do not comment inside articles in the future. It is disruptive. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

'Richard Meredith' replies: What you need to realize is that many of the articles on the Early Church in Wikipedia are at least a hundred years out of date and repeat long exploded errors. They are not an aid, but a barrier to learning. In contrast there are some superb entries in Wikipedia on more recent history and more recent authors. Why is the difference so great?

Christ Pantocrator
I'll have a look at this later; some compromise wording should be possible. But it is not right to change a sentence citing a reference saying "A" to one saying "B" that keeps the same reference. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

'Richard Meredith' replies: there is no need to change the reference to Schoenborn's book. The earlier contributor had simply misunderstood it. My correction represents more accurately what Schoenborn actually says.

Lascelles Abercrombie
The literature (Price) you added on 09:27, 6 August 2011 could not be verified. Could you please look into this? --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean that the 'reference could not be verified'? I simply listed an article from the journal of the Friends of the Dymock Poets. Since I wrote the article myself, I know that it exists!

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)