Misplaced Pages

User talk:Johnmajames: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:34, 13 January 2009 editKukini (talk | contribs)55,597 edits editing concern← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:00, 6 February 2009 edit undoNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 editsm →Global Strategy Group: typo 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 74: Line 74:
Hi John. I am a bit concerned about your recent edits, as a portion of them seem to be deleting the references that once existed on the article. I hope you plan to put the references and referenced material back on the article before you finish for the day. Hi John. I am a bit concerned about your recent edits, as a portion of them seem to be deleting the references that once existed on the article. I hope you plan to put the references and referenced material back on the article before you finish for the day.
] <sup> ]</sup> 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ] <sup> ]</sup> 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:Hi, I've again added back material you removed that came from the New York Times. I've kept almost all of the material you added to the History section, except for a sentence or two that gushes about the organization and which violates ]. Please look over the edit and if you still have problems with it, let's discuss it rather than simply revert each other's edits. Information which is negative about any subject covered in a Misplaced Pages article belongs in the article if it's fair, well-sourced and doesn't overemphasize some aspect of the subject. I think the information you removed from the article meets all of those standards. If you have information contradicting any of this, please bring it up. I don't have any interest in hurting GSG, just in describing it as accurately and fully as possible, including both the positive, the negative and information that isn't either. Let's work together on this. -- ] (]) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:00, 6 February 2009

edit count | edit summary usage

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello Johnmajames! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Misplaced Pages rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


Global Strategy Group

Hi John. I am a bit concerned about your recent edits, as a portion of them seem to be deleting the references that once existed on the article. I hope you plan to put the references and referenced material back on the article before you finish for the day. Kukini 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've again added back material you removed that came from the New York Times. I've kept almost all of the material you added to the History section, except for a sentence or two that gushes about the organization and which violates Misplaced Pages's no-point-of-view policy. Please look over the edit and if you still have problems with it, let's discuss it rather than simply revert each other's edits. Information which is negative about any subject covered in a Misplaced Pages article belongs in the article if it's fair, well-sourced and doesn't overemphasize some aspect of the subject. I think the information you removed from the article meets all of those standards. If you have information contradicting any of this, please bring it up. I don't have any interest in hurting GSG, just in describing it as accurately and fully as possible, including both the positive, the negative and information that isn't either. Let's work together on this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)