Common Sense7

Original research tag on Western Europe

I have removed your {{originalresearch}} tag from the Western Europe article. Its not clear to me why you believe this article is original research. Please discuss this on the article talk page before re-adding the tag. Thanks, Gwernol 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad Brains

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Bad Brains are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I just provided some more sources. Sorry, but I assumed it was common knowledge among music fans and critics that the Bad Brains are an influential pioneering hardcore group. I did not realize it would cause an uproar. I realize you need more than "common knowledge" on Wikipedia, so I added more sources. 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, reverting over greatest on marciano

This guy keeps on inverting info about rocky, as one of the greatest, i never said he was, i said something else, also included 2 links with interviews, see that word stays here, again nobody is greatest, impossible to say. Different time eras. But perfect record speaks for itself, he beat the best of his times.

Angel Dust

I would love to hear why you removed the Rolling Stone review. The discussion is at Talk:Angel Dust (album). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your agenda

You seem to have some issues in dealing with the subjects of Italian-Americans, Europeans, and race. You change articles on a whim, and never leave behind an edit summary to explain to the rest of Wikipedia your thinking or any actual facts behind the change. When I look at your contributions I see a lot of unsourced POV. You don't agree the several names deleted here are Italian Americans? Italians are not White Americans[1]? You dispute the "dignity and stability" of parts of South Philadelphia[2]? Frank Rizzo was not the Mayor[3]? European Americans are not white[4]? You don't think Nancy Pelosi is a European American[5]? People should not know these external articles and stories exist[6]? I could go on. Please take your beliefs and theories to the article talk pages for discussion and debate, and do not make unsourced changes to match your POV. I hope you will change your approach to building an encyclopedia. --CliffC 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)