User talk:Editormichaelmorrison

Editormichaelmorrison, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Editormichaelmorrison! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cecil Ince

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cecil Ince requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cecil Ince for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecil Ince is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Ince until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Editormichaelmorrison, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed.

One can "reuse" references as well. Jim1138 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... how to say "thank you" to Jim1138. And Thank You to whoever answers this. I'm not exactly brand new, but it's been so long since I added anything here, it's all new. Again.

Editormichaelmorrison (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Editormichaelmorrison[reply]

Putting it here suffices, yes. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hospers

Hello, Editormichaelmorrison. Please stop making edits such as this at John Hospers. Your edit removed properly cited information (the fact that the Libertarian Party was poorly organized in 1972) without justification, and also added uncited content, in violation of WP:VERIFY, which requires that content added to Wikipedia be supported by a reliable citation. I attempted to explain to you on the article's talk page why your edits were unhelpful, but as you ignored me, I see no choice but to contact you here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to John Hospers, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page John Hospers has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. The problem with your recent edit summary is that the edit did not correct any spelling error, despite what you stated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]