User talk:The Armchair General

Warm welcome
Hello there, I am User:TheCaliforniaKansan. I saw your input in the Paul Ryan talk page,and I wanted to thank you for that. It seems that you do care about Wikipedia and its content. I suggest you further edit your User page! Take a look at mine if for some help. Here are some templates you might want to include on your page:

-TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome. Just trying to make accurate changes and updates to Wikipedia. I'm still very new to editing but I hope to fix my page up shortly. The Armchair General (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC
A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=725763875 your edit] to International Association of Athletics Federations may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"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) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * s track and field team from entering the Rio de Janeiro Olypics.

Michael Weiss article
Much appreciate your note. Always glad to meet an editor who deals fairly with BLPs. Not always easy when there are COIs and possibly sockpuppeting. cheers, Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you very much
Your endorsement is much appreciated, TAG. I still think we were on the right side of the argument, but that's the way it goes, sometimes. Best Regards. Motsebboh (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you. Apparently the SPLC has a lot of admirers and will protect them from criticism even when it's appropriate. It also won't stop them from disregarding the rule's they're citing, to protect the SPLC, in order to pepper groups the SPLC doesn't like with criticism. However, it is not worth arguing with everyone on the back end. Even if your argument is grounded in facts, challenging everyone will only lead people to become more guarded and cling to their initial opinion. TAG (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)