Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 9 October 2009

Welcome!

Hello, CraigMonroe, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

CFB championships

Hi Craig,

You may want to familiarize yourself with the archives of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football (and perhaps join the project, too), especially this one regarding the reversions you've been making regarding the number of team titles. It's not a set issue as to what number(s) is/are appropriate to list. It may be worth re-opening the discussion. — Scientizzle 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural-born citizens

The material which you correctly removed from the Article Two discussion was not only uncited, it was completely without a basis in fact. I put the fact tags on it in the first place, because I was willing to wait for someone to offer evidence of the existence of this "dispute" even if the dispute was without merit. The reason it sat uncited for two months is that there is no "dispute" among reliable scholars of the Constitution about the natural-born citizenship of persons born in US territories (everyone agrees that they qualify). Thanks for your work on the page. JTRH (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Actually, the fact that he killed them IS in question. The murders were not proven and they can't be, since everyone believed to be involved is dead. "Authorities concluded" =/= fact. I'm not doubting that he killed them. There's only a fool's chance that he didn't. But it's not a fact, so the article should not be presented as such. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. News sources are not exactly my forte and generally don't work on controversial issues such as this. That being said, others have expressed the same concerns as myself, so I've asked for some input on the article talk page. That being said, I've been on Wikipeida for over two years, so I do for the most part understand it's inner workings. In addition, there is nothing wrong with me contacting you on your talk page rather than article talk page, since the message was directed to you and not just a general message. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Craig, first you need to stop claiming that people are vandalizing the page by changing what you think should be the wording. Second, saying "Benoit is believed to have" does NOT violate NPOV (despite your claims that it does). In fact, it's more neutral than the wording you want to have in the article. Benoit will never be convicted or murder since he killed himself, that means authorities can determine he did it and thus believe he did it. That means it's more accurate to say he is believed to have done it. TJ Spyke 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ and I are separate users. You responded to him on my talk page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering you've responded so far, it seems obvious to me that you check your talk page when Misplaced Pages notifies you about a new message. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Benoit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)