User talk:WatchAndObserve

Regarding your edit to Serius Jones:
Your recent edit to Serius Jones (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

G'day, I looked at what you tried to add. Looked good to me, so I did it for you. Cheerio. Mathmo Talk 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Craplet
An editor has nominated Craplet, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Sandbox
Hey, would you mind not transluding the templates and instead just putting a link to them on your talk page. Otherwise, they show up in Wikipedia maitenance categories. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil McGraw
Your edit was along the right idea but it really messed up the tone of the allegation. When someone says "their relationship was both sexual and stupid" it could mean "he touched my breasts and I let him". When someone says "he denies having sex with me but I say the relationship was sexual", now that's a whole different ball game, and implies that she is saying he had sex with her, which is not supported in the reference. Please look at my suggested edit on the talk page for Phil McGraw.

Thanks 199.125.109.138 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ENS article/website
The website emptynosesyndrome.org is very appropriate to include in the article on ENS. The site was blocked as it was linked by an unknown user it seems. The link is valid though. Please include it. Should I add it in again?

Steven Houser MD


 * I removed all the links to emptynosesyndrome.org because that domain is listed on the Spam blacklist. I don't know why it is there, and I didn't put it there.  If you want to report a possible error, the place to do it is on the talk page.  Thanks.  WatchAndObserve 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

SocialPicks
I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus
Hi,

Regards your recent edits to Elizabeth Loftus, since the lead section is designed to summarize the article, it is generally considered unnecessary to include citations. The exception is for extremely controversial articles, where every fact is disputed, in which case citations are more useful.

Or for articles where the lead is inappropriately written and does not adequately summarize the article.

Just an FYI WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I still believe that this citation should be included in the lead section, given the specificity of the claim (ie. Loftus was ranked 58th in a list).
 * WatchAndObserve (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that since it's cited specifically below, it doesn't need the citation. But really, it stands out the most because the lead is now too short.  It doesn't really matter either way, it's a convention.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)