Welcome!
Hello, Ndickinson1, 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:
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!
Ndickinson1, it's a good idea to separate your questions or comments on a Talk page from all the other sections. The easiest way to do this is to click on the "New section" link on the left side of the page. Then be sure to include a brief section title. I have already sectionized
your question to Ckatz. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. The article could be made viable, and I'll shortly paste the text here for you to work on before reposting. Have a look at the welcome section above for tips on formatting. In particular, there should not be any bare urls in the text, and in references they should be formatted like this [url description] to make them more intelligible. use wikilinks to other wikipedia articles where appropriate.
I think you need to explain where the term originated. You define it, but I get no sense of who first used the term. Also, make it clearer that this seems, as far as I can tell from the text, to be a usage largely restricted to the US. If you need any help with formatting etc, let me know. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Fathers' rights movement, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebikeguy ( talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the law review article I cited? It's all about parental rights, and fathers are parents. How about the article citing the data about divorce rates?
I don't see how citing a well-respected law professor's well-regarded article offering a different perspective to Warren Farrell's uncited viewpoint, a perspective that is actually much less biased and more accurate, is considered "original research" or a Non-"neutral point of view".
It is actually Warren Farrell's assertions that are not a neutral point of view. He is not presenting a children's rights perspective. This whole page contains a number of pieces of "original research" and non-"neutral points of view". It is those you should be focusing on, not the two articles I cited which are well-established. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ms. Dickinson,
Your recent addition to the Father's rights article suggested that an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center lableled Father's Rights groups as Hate Groups. In reviewing the article, I noted that it suggested nothing of the sort, so I reverted your edit. I have opened discussion of the matter on the article's talk page. Please join in the discussion if you like. In the future, please refrain from publishing your conclusions about the material in an article as though the article had made such conclusions on its own. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy ( talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not a "synthesis" I created; it's the definition used by the SPLC and quoted in the Wikipedia SPLC page text I quoted. Not sure why a Wikipedia editor is blocking a statement like this. Perhaps you do not have objectivity on this matter for some reason? Are you identified with the MRAs? I don't get it. Very disappointing and destructive to the credibility of Wikipedia, not to mention the risk this poses to women when the way this group's activities have led to violence against women, simply for being women, does not get accurately identified. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 11:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack; it's a question. Are you objective about the Father's Rights page? Ndickinson1 ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added citation needed tags to the lede section of Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, which does not cite any sources for the claims contained therein. If the statements made in the lede are supported by any of the referenced sources from the rest of the article, please include these references in the lede section as well. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ndickinson1, I just improved your good entry in the article Gender equality. You can find more about me on my User page. I edit about anything and everything on Wikipedia (WP), but currently don't have much time to do it. Both you and Ebikeguy seem to me to be reasonable and well-motivated to help our WP readers. Keep up your good work!
You asked, "I would like to ask though: is there someone else I can talk to about the editing?" And I just happen to have recently learned a good answer to your Q. Just type WP:Teahouse into the WP search box, see what you get and go from there. I think the originator, the User:SarahStierch, had an excellent idea, and of course I like the name Teahouse.
My own quick answer to your Q is "Monkey see, monkey do." I often can learn what I need to know that way (ie, by looking at the Edit page of other articles). I don't think you'll find any other editors listing more than one book in each source reference entry, where your first two source refs in the article Peer Marriage have several books. So now your first source ref, 1, will become maybe 4 source refs, 1 2 3 and 4. And each time you reuse all of them, all 4 will appear again, and that will be just fine –– more impressive if anything. Let me add that I'm pleasantly surprised to learn there are so many books on the topic of Peer marriage, which is a new topic to me. If you look at the article Matriname, you'll see I am similarly the only author for it since I split it off from Matrilineality. One more thing I'll mention: you can go back and re-edit you own entries above (or in any talk page, I believe), apparently that's fine in WP. In particular, I would add 4 tildes (~'s) to each of your entries above –– I suppose then the date will be wrong, but you might be able to then re-edit the date.... And I should mention my surprise (and dismay) that no other editor besides Ebikeguy has answered your Q above, so that he was the only editor giving you inputs. Thus you had no way of judging whether he was just making a personal attack on you (I think he was sincere and well-motivated, and I can be certain from your reasoning that you are sincere and well-motivated.) And to help readers like me you could put in another redirect for "Peer marriage" (in addition to the redirect for "Peer Marriage"). We humans are very complicated, For7thGen ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ndickinson1, when I read-again the above entries, I see that you were not asking for editing help. But on behalf of WP readers, I have to agree with Ebikeguy that you do need to separate the first 3 books, and the next 5 books, so that at that point you'll have 8 separate footnotes, the first 3 of which are used multiple times as a group. When I later did read your whole article, I was frustrated and I think any other reader would be too. I can understand why you might think it more reasonable and more helpful to the reader to have the group together, but I have to agree with the rules at that point, it really is easier for readers to see them separated. The readers will still see the first 3 together as a group in the text, multiple times , as 1 2 3, and that will be not only fine but also impressive to the reader. I agree with Ebikeguy and with the rules about this. And I suppose he is right that you should add page numbers to some of your other book references, but only where appropriate. I feel sure that Ebikeguy and I and you would all agree that no page numbers are needed for your first 3 books for the first three of the four times where you now have your footnote 1. Also, it appears that for the book Badalament, John (2010), the weird Special ISBN number includes the longer and the shorter version of the ISBN just thrown together, which I suppose you should either understand or you should just try one of the two versions, online, and then decide how to handle it. But you are responsible, and what you have now is not working, it is inadequate because the reader can't understand it. And I join Ebikeguy in commending you for your good work on this article –– which was sorely needed on WP, considering how long it has been since your source books were published. And a different topic: I'll now add the source footnote that you don't have yet for your paragraph mentioning The Seven Daughters of Eve, since I have a photocopy and thus have access to the page numbers. And I still think you should go back and add your 4 tildes where they are missing, above, on your own Talk page, to help other editors. Still trying to help the WP readers, For7thGen ( talk) 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me clarify, Ndickinson1, about helping WP readers. The idea is that many tens of thousands of readers will be reading your Peer Marriage article, which makes a big multiplier effect. Say that a pinpoint citation (pincite) saves each of them even just 1 minute – multiplying this by 10,000 yields a savings of more than 100 hours just due to that one item of careful work you did, multiplying your work by many times.
In addition, you apparently need to apply the golden rule to your readers, by imagining yourself in their position as they read this article in its present form, with a poor job of handling the source references (sorry to say that, I know it’s not pleasant for you to hear). For example, if you had looked at your first two references from the viewpoint of the readers, you would have concluded that your readers needed some help to tell where each source ended and another began, within each group of sources. Thus you might have numbered the sources in bold, such as:
(Imaginary) Group footnote: 1. First source. 2. Next source. 3. Next....
Also you couldn’t help noticing that readers would have trouble with the ISBN for the John Badalament book; you would then have helped the readers by looking at your editing for that source reference and would have seen that WP somehow managed to give you a message (if I recall correctly, WP said the last digit of your ISBN number did not agree with its calculated value) and you would have gone back to the book itself to check whether you had entered the correct ISBN number. So it is clear you did not work hard enough to help the readers. Being a good WP author is more than just creating a great article and then enjoying how well-written it is. Namely, it also includes putting in all the pincites the readers will need and doing everything else you can think of to make it easy-as-possible for the readers. As you can see, my standards go beyond just following the rules, such as Ebikeguy insists that you do (and I agree with him, on behalf of all WP readers). I want you to also help the readers in every way as much as you possibly can, yielding an even-more-useful article.
After all, isn’t that your goal in writing the WP article at all?
Hopefully, on behalf of WP readers, For7thGen ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ndickinson1,
I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.
For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!
Thanks! MarchionessGrey ( talk) 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will correct the problem. 174.51.93.173 ( talk) 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Eyre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scandinavian people and John Dickinson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot make heads or tails of what you have added to the article Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (diff: [1]). When you write, "Others consider this a profound misreading of Dickinson's views," what do you mean by "this"? Also, what does patriarchy have to do with the Letters, and how does the distinction between "Person" and "Man" relate to the letters? I ask not to attack you, but because I really can find no relation between what you've added to the article and the subject of the article, which is Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania." Maybe you meant to add this material to a different article. Could you please clarify what your edits mean on the talk page? Until then, I am removing the seemingly unrelated content. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manumission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dickinson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paternal age effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Crow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the material you added needs some sort of reference, to the percentage of household purchases by women and also possibly to the impact of the Fair Tax. This has been in the past a very contentious article, and it would be better to keep everything very much above board. Brianyoumans ( talk) 16:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will add a couple cites in the next couple days. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Ndickinson1, 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:
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!
Ndickinson1, it's a good idea to separate your questions or comments on a Talk page from all the other sections. The easiest way to do this is to click on the "New section" link on the left side of the page. Then be sure to include a brief section title. I have already sectionized
your question to Ckatz. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. The article could be made viable, and I'll shortly paste the text here for you to work on before reposting. Have a look at the welcome section above for tips on formatting. In particular, there should not be any bare urls in the text, and in references they should be formatted like this [url description] to make them more intelligible. use wikilinks to other wikipedia articles where appropriate.
I think you need to explain where the term originated. You define it, but I get no sense of who first used the term. Also, make it clearer that this seems, as far as I can tell from the text, to be a usage largely restricted to the US. If you need any help with formatting etc, let me know. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Fathers' rights movement, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebikeguy ( talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the law review article I cited? It's all about parental rights, and fathers are parents. How about the article citing the data about divorce rates?
I don't see how citing a well-respected law professor's well-regarded article offering a different perspective to Warren Farrell's uncited viewpoint, a perspective that is actually much less biased and more accurate, is considered "original research" or a Non-"neutral point of view".
It is actually Warren Farrell's assertions that are not a neutral point of view. He is not presenting a children's rights perspective. This whole page contains a number of pieces of "original research" and non-"neutral points of view". It is those you should be focusing on, not the two articles I cited which are well-established. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ms. Dickinson,
Your recent addition to the Father's rights article suggested that an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center lableled Father's Rights groups as Hate Groups. In reviewing the article, I noted that it suggested nothing of the sort, so I reverted your edit. I have opened discussion of the matter on the article's talk page. Please join in the discussion if you like. In the future, please refrain from publishing your conclusions about the material in an article as though the article had made such conclusions on its own. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy ( talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not a "synthesis" I created; it's the definition used by the SPLC and quoted in the Wikipedia SPLC page text I quoted. Not sure why a Wikipedia editor is blocking a statement like this. Perhaps you do not have objectivity on this matter for some reason? Are you identified with the MRAs? I don't get it. Very disappointing and destructive to the credibility of Wikipedia, not to mention the risk this poses to women when the way this group's activities have led to violence against women, simply for being women, does not get accurately identified. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 11:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack; it's a question. Are you objective about the Father's Rights page? Ndickinson1 ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added citation needed tags to the lede section of Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, which does not cite any sources for the claims contained therein. If the statements made in the lede are supported by any of the referenced sources from the rest of the article, please include these references in the lede section as well. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ndickinson1, I just improved your good entry in the article Gender equality. You can find more about me on my User page. I edit about anything and everything on Wikipedia (WP), but currently don't have much time to do it. Both you and Ebikeguy seem to me to be reasonable and well-motivated to help our WP readers. Keep up your good work!
You asked, "I would like to ask though: is there someone else I can talk to about the editing?" And I just happen to have recently learned a good answer to your Q. Just type WP:Teahouse into the WP search box, see what you get and go from there. I think the originator, the User:SarahStierch, had an excellent idea, and of course I like the name Teahouse.
My own quick answer to your Q is "Monkey see, monkey do." I often can learn what I need to know that way (ie, by looking at the Edit page of other articles). I don't think you'll find any other editors listing more than one book in each source reference entry, where your first two source refs in the article Peer Marriage have several books. So now your first source ref, 1, will become maybe 4 source refs, 1 2 3 and 4. And each time you reuse all of them, all 4 will appear again, and that will be just fine –– more impressive if anything. Let me add that I'm pleasantly surprised to learn there are so many books on the topic of Peer marriage, which is a new topic to me. If you look at the article Matriname, you'll see I am similarly the only author for it since I split it off from Matrilineality. One more thing I'll mention: you can go back and re-edit you own entries above (or in any talk page, I believe), apparently that's fine in WP. In particular, I would add 4 tildes (~'s) to each of your entries above –– I suppose then the date will be wrong, but you might be able to then re-edit the date.... And I should mention my surprise (and dismay) that no other editor besides Ebikeguy has answered your Q above, so that he was the only editor giving you inputs. Thus you had no way of judging whether he was just making a personal attack on you (I think he was sincere and well-motivated, and I can be certain from your reasoning that you are sincere and well-motivated.) And to help readers like me you could put in another redirect for "Peer marriage" (in addition to the redirect for "Peer Marriage"). We humans are very complicated, For7thGen ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ndickinson1, when I read-again the above entries, I see that you were not asking for editing help. But on behalf of WP readers, I have to agree with Ebikeguy that you do need to separate the first 3 books, and the next 5 books, so that at that point you'll have 8 separate footnotes, the first 3 of which are used multiple times as a group. When I later did read your whole article, I was frustrated and I think any other reader would be too. I can understand why you might think it more reasonable and more helpful to the reader to have the group together, but I have to agree with the rules at that point, it really is easier for readers to see them separated. The readers will still see the first 3 together as a group in the text, multiple times , as 1 2 3, and that will be not only fine but also impressive to the reader. I agree with Ebikeguy and with the rules about this. And I suppose he is right that you should add page numbers to some of your other book references, but only where appropriate. I feel sure that Ebikeguy and I and you would all agree that no page numbers are needed for your first 3 books for the first three of the four times where you now have your footnote 1. Also, it appears that for the book Badalament, John (2010), the weird Special ISBN number includes the longer and the shorter version of the ISBN just thrown together, which I suppose you should either understand or you should just try one of the two versions, online, and then decide how to handle it. But you are responsible, and what you have now is not working, it is inadequate because the reader can't understand it. And I join Ebikeguy in commending you for your good work on this article –– which was sorely needed on WP, considering how long it has been since your source books were published. And a different topic: I'll now add the source footnote that you don't have yet for your paragraph mentioning The Seven Daughters of Eve, since I have a photocopy and thus have access to the page numbers. And I still think you should go back and add your 4 tildes where they are missing, above, on your own Talk page, to help other editors. Still trying to help the WP readers, For7thGen ( talk) 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me clarify, Ndickinson1, about helping WP readers. The idea is that many tens of thousands of readers will be reading your Peer Marriage article, which makes a big multiplier effect. Say that a pinpoint citation (pincite) saves each of them even just 1 minute – multiplying this by 10,000 yields a savings of more than 100 hours just due to that one item of careful work you did, multiplying your work by many times.
In addition, you apparently need to apply the golden rule to your readers, by imagining yourself in their position as they read this article in its present form, with a poor job of handling the source references (sorry to say that, I know it’s not pleasant for you to hear). For example, if you had looked at your first two references from the viewpoint of the readers, you would have concluded that your readers needed some help to tell where each source ended and another began, within each group of sources. Thus you might have numbered the sources in bold, such as:
(Imaginary) Group footnote: 1. First source. 2. Next source. 3. Next....
Also you couldn’t help noticing that readers would have trouble with the ISBN for the John Badalament book; you would then have helped the readers by looking at your editing for that source reference and would have seen that WP somehow managed to give you a message (if I recall correctly, WP said the last digit of your ISBN number did not agree with its calculated value) and you would have gone back to the book itself to check whether you had entered the correct ISBN number. So it is clear you did not work hard enough to help the readers. Being a good WP author is more than just creating a great article and then enjoying how well-written it is. Namely, it also includes putting in all the pincites the readers will need and doing everything else you can think of to make it easy-as-possible for the readers. As you can see, my standards go beyond just following the rules, such as Ebikeguy insists that you do (and I agree with him, on behalf of all WP readers). I want you to also help the readers in every way as much as you possibly can, yielding an even-more-useful article.
After all, isn’t that your goal in writing the WP article at all?
Hopefully, on behalf of WP readers, For7thGen ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ndickinson1,
I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.
For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!
Thanks! MarchionessGrey ( talk) 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will correct the problem. 174.51.93.173 ( talk) 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Eyre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scandinavian people and John Dickinson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot make heads or tails of what you have added to the article Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (diff: [1]). When you write, "Others consider this a profound misreading of Dickinson's views," what do you mean by "this"? Also, what does patriarchy have to do with the Letters, and how does the distinction between "Person" and "Man" relate to the letters? I ask not to attack you, but because I really can find no relation between what you've added to the article and the subject of the article, which is Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania." Maybe you meant to add this material to a different article. Could you please clarify what your edits mean on the talk page? Until then, I am removing the seemingly unrelated content. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manumission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dickinson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paternal age effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Crow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the material you added needs some sort of reference, to the percentage of household purchases by women and also possibly to the impact of the Fair Tax. This has been in the past a very contentious article, and it would be better to keep everything very much above board. Brianyoumans ( talk) 16:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will add a couple cites in the next couple days. Ndickinson1 ( talk) 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)