User talk:Thoroughgoodness

So far, all of your edits have been attempting to add a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail in 3 (number), and one edit adding a WP:REDLINK to Christmas creep. Please discuss the former on Talk:3 (number) before attempting to add the "information", and do not add redlinks which are unlikely ever to be created. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to delete items from your talk page, but it will be assumed that you read and understood them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much as you're allowed to trash up someone else's space with formlettered fingerpointing, from which it already has been understood that you fail to consider, understand, and apply them enough to conceive how perfect was the disregarded for them that constituted the series of your own preceding initiated behaviours.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good image placement vs. spamming images

Hi there. I'm just letting you know that I removed all but one of the images from Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White. There is a difference between inserting good images and inserting tons of barely relevant images. Please limit inserting images to where they would prove useful and encyclopedic.

Also, please be aware that you are either at or close to the WP:3RR limit for making this change.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So as a compromise how about face images of those specifically referred to while I won't press to reintroduce the depiction of general activities where such depictions are not of anyone in particlar either referred to or otherwise?Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I warned you that you were at the limit. Three editors have now removed the images, I advise that you stop now, the next time you insert images into the article, you're liable to get blocked. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suspect WP:AUTO/WP:COI issues. Looking at the contribution history, and the type of edits that are being made, I strongly suspect that this is the subject of the article or someone close to her, and thus should not be contributing to the article. Xihr 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White

Hello, I've reviewed Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White against the GA criteria, and I'm afraid the article doesn't meet the standard at this time. You can find my comments at Talk:Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White/GA1. --Beloved Freak 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Julian Assange. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please get consensus on the talk page before trying to move a highly visible article like Bush tax cuts. And please see WP:COMMONNAME: it doesn't matter whether or not W. himself likes the name. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts are two different and politicall unique things. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comment?

At Talk:Bush-Obama tax cuts, with this edit. Kelly ^hi! 03:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that I effed up in removing my own considered comment, which I didn't, intend resulting in removing your addition which I doubly didn't intend. My bad, I've fixed it, sincere apologies to you & thank you for notifying. It's a result of me trying to save and reenter a comment I've prepared that's been rebuffed because of edit conflict identification.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you did it again. Kelly ^hi! 03:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. I've removed the warning and I understand what happened now. Forgiven, and apologies from me as well, and edit on! Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip - the standard procedure around here if you want to retract or modify a comment that someone has already replied to, use strikethrough instead of deleting. This is done by putting <s> and </s> around the part you wish to strike through. Drop a note on my talk page with any questions. WP:TALK has more info on talk page etiquette. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also try to use edit summaries when you make edits on Wikipedia - it will gain you points, trust me. Kelly ^hi! 05:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you still misunderstand. At no time did I intend to strike through or remove my own or anyone else's comment. I intended to -publish- comment in defence of the titling of Bush-Obama tax cuts, however that was frustrated by someone who got in ahead of me and saved thus causing me to receive the edit conflict rebuff message. I then tried to rescue mine and your comment beneath with a copy-paste from the display window back into the active, but I think I've just pasted back into the display which doesn't save at all and creates the appearance that I removed both my comment and yours for no stated or justifiable purpose. Composing an edit summary would not have been an aid in that situation either, and really isn't of great use in talkpage contribution where the published comment speaks for itself without requirement of a summarised commentary. Plus I didn't realise I'd done a hashup till alerted sometime afterward precisely by you.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Thoroughgoodness, 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
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chucklenuts?

Hi Thoroughgoodness, and it's thorough goodness to see you using edit summaries. But calling the last POTUS "chucklenuts" may land you in strife. While I've got a spotless record with the WP:CIVILITYPOLICE, there's a bulging manila folder about me down at the WP:HUMOURPOLICE HQ. Would hate to see you have the same, friend.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama probation

Per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation, I am notifying you that any further disruptive editing on Obama-related topics, such as your move warring on Bush tax cuts will result in a block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the move warring needs to stop. However, it's probably a bit of a stretch to call Bush tax cuts part of the Obama community sanctions. Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A move was done after 9 people weighed in on a move proposal (by Kelly above) without 5 of them requesting the actual move (or even something like it) that was done in violation. I'll put up with 'Obama probation' if you reciprocate by acknowledging the lack of expressed consensus for the party who commenced the 'move war' and that the article remains in the purview of Obama, particularly the article on Obama-Bush taxation policy.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]