User talk:WaltWilliams

Criticism of the Federal Reserve
Please discuss your change about the FRS never being audited on the talk page. It's patently incorrect as a brief amount of searching would tell you. The oft-made claim on various anti-fed sites that it has never been audited is, like many other statements they tend to make, incorrect. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the section is talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, humorously enough, you really should read through the report mentioned just before your "no audit ever" comment. You'd actually find mention of an independent, external auditor for the FRS.  I know, hard to believe, but there it is.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Political correctness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=465293425 here]. Wasbeer 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to respond to comments here
Wikipedia replies on collaboration, and this includes responding to posts on your talk page and using edit summaries. Please do not make any further edits without using edit summaries, particularly as your edits are clearly controversial. And even on talk pages, please do not post hoaxes such as the Texas A&M claim (which has been credited to Duke as well, to several different years, etc). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)