Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Monica Crowley has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Monica Crowley was changed by 173.77.0.185 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.933709 on 2017-03-09T04:11:06+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Caine Mutiny (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Casino Royale (2006 film)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that Ivy League education to good use again, I see. Terry Foote (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You kinda remind me of this guy. Just replace "Cornell" with "Columbia" and "A Capella" with "Philoexian" and this is you. Come on, you must know that at some Manhattan cocktail party there's someone who has said "if he talks about Columbia or the Philolexian Society one.....more....time..... You and I both know that you work in the publishing industry! Which is it - a publishing house, the NYT? Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting your moribund industry or your friends. And I use the word moribund with a great degree of sadness, as I think the changes have been a net loss for the quality of American journalism and publishing. Some of your edits are quite good - you obviously have a gift with the language and wording, which is often need of correcting on Wikipedia. You're quite welcome to use your gifts in this capacity. How about this for a deal; if you can convince me how your edits are not Deborah Copaken propaganda, I'll let them stand? Terry Foote (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was one shocking, utterly lacking in class edit you made, Mr. Philolexian. You do know that by implication in this edit you're defending Weinstein.....and maybe giving away your hand that your employer is the New York Times. It's a very sad state of affairs that someone's $150,000 education in today's dollars at an Ivy League institution is spent making edits of this caliber. Terry Foote (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does a quote from the NYT about the NYT really have any credibility, particularly in light of this? [1] Just because you want to discredit Waxman's claim doesn't give you any justification for putting this on WP. Terry Foote (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my comment to you doesn't make it any less true. Furthermore, if you really want to be fair and neutral, you must also add this quote in response to your employer's claims about her: "Mr. Weinstein had his own enablers. He built his empire on a pile of positive press clippings that, before the internet era, could have reached the moon.” [The New York Times was one of those enablers. So pardon me for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times." Your edits have ulterior motives (albeit poorly disguised) and contrary to the interests and purpose of Wikipedia. [2] Terry Foote (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - Breitbart....one of the few things you and I have in common is that we probably both find Bretibart abhorrent. I'll give a big however to this - just as Fidel Castro and the Ho Chi Minh had a large following in part due to the vast excesses of Western capitalism, so too does Breitbart have a significant following because of the excesses of the mainstream media, including and especially the New York Times. My point? American capitalists and the New York Times have no one but themselves to blame for the existence of their enemies. However, in humanity's almost infinite capacity for hubris, I doubt the guilty parties take a deep look at themselves. So, now to my point: what do you think Breitbart would think of the New York Times have someone surreptitiously try to make it look like on the Sharon Waxman article that she didn't have a story about Harvey Weinstein and the New York Times? That sounds like nice, juicy Breitbart red meat, to me. Do you understand now just how much worse you're making things for yourself and your benefactor? Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you suck at the game you're playing - University of Alabama 156, Columbia 0. If you're going to continue editing, can you please work on making yourself a little less obvious, a bit more subtle - it takes the challenge out keeping the Vandals and Visigoths from sacking Wikipedia. Take it easy, Terry Foote (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, you make a simple, proper, uncontroversial edit every 5 or 6 days in the hope I'll eventually forget. Then, when your benefactor needs some SEO by having a link to their article on Wikipedia, or you need to put your benefactor's slant into an article, you can put one in with impunity. You've stepped up your game a bit, but this ain't gonna happen. Do I have to come right out and tell you how to cover your tracks better? Terry Foote (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Nora Ephron, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, explain. How do you figure that a single passing reference to a person eating a cheese constitutes stilton having a notable influence on that work? The other examples, that you appear to think are equivalent, are a poem written using stilton, its character and its place of origin as major themes; a significant recurring character in a series of books being named for the cheese; a fragrance designed to evoke the specific scent of the cheese; an entire eposide of a sitcom on a major national TV networked centred around the cheese and its production; and an assessment of the cheese's place in British in British cuisine made by a major cultural commentator of the 20th century. Got to say, the 007 passing reference does look a lot like trivia. Pyrope 00:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]