Michael042
However, the addition of the http://www.proto-english.org/ address to websites is a contravention of Wikipolicy. Please note that, while it is inordinately interesting, it fails the WP:SOURCE policy for original research and published works. Please do not continue to include it on articles. Thanks! CMacMillan 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Origin of the Franks edit
I'm looking at Origin of the Franks, which you just created. I'm wondering if this is an original creation of your own, or is it from somewhere else? The fact that it's in the style of a series of questions and answers makes it seem like it's a FAQ page. eaolson 15:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The text is entirely mine. - Michael042
Anglo-Saxons - English? edit
Very interesting link to your ideas that England never was Celtic - conflicts with other websites such as englandandenglishhistory.com which argue the adventus saxonem brought the english to the british isles and that it was always Germanic. I couild agree with this. Some decriptions of 'Celts' are very teutonic. Celts were short and mediteranean looking. Like Basques. Gauls were partly Germanic to be reinforced by the Germanic Franks later. Celtism is a myth invented to keep the British 'illusion' going. It has just got very confused!
September 2007 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Franks. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Liverpool Scouse 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Franks. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Why are you removing this content? If you don't have a VERY good reason, or haven't discussed it and reached a consensus for removal of the content ont he article's talk page, blanking of whole sections of content is considered vandalism. Liverpool Scouse 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This was a mistake. It has been undone.
I noticed you were the main contributor to the page (thank you). I notice it needs references. Would you be so kind as to go to the page and list your references at the bottom of the page? Thanks Goldenrowley (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
May 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Celts. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. You have added your personal website to 4 articles today, despite being told that it is a contravention of WP:SOURCE as well as a conflict of interest. Please read the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Kurdish language: citation code problem edit
Many thanks for fixing the problem that completely threw me off keel yesterday. Following your fix, I have now removed a string of intermediate vandal edits from the article, reverting it to 5 November 2008 status. --Zlerman (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add references to your own website, or arguments which derive only from your own website, to Wikipedia articles. This contravenes both the WP:COI and the WP:OR policies. --ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Morini and Menapii edit
Thanks for you message, sort of. Our personal theories should not be the basis of what we write on Wikipedia. Even if Steven Hawkings has something new to say, he can not publish it here first. WP just summarizes what the best published sources say, and I have tried to do my best in that regard. If you wish to improve upon what I have done you should be citing good published sources, proving that there is something missing or wrong in our article compared to what those sources say. (From what I can tell from the sources I have seen so far, your theories are not mainstream? Gysseling is by the way normally cited in arguments against "Celticists". Claiming that Celtic culture was highly influential in Belgium and the Rhineland seems to me to be an almost 100% consensus amongst sources I have seen.) So anyway, there is no point trying to insult me personally because my personal opinions do not come into it. Please see what sources you can come up with and then perhaps post on the article talkpages about them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Please add the page numbers to this edit to Hougoumont. Also the format for the inline citations should match the others and just contain "author year, p. number". If you put that information into the two inline citations you added I will place it into harv templates if you are not familiar with how to do that (so that the short citation links to the long citation in the references section). -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2015 (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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!