Here are some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:Current polls
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 23:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi welcome to Wikipedia, I saw you r comments on references at Talk:History of Bulgaria perhaps you would like to comment further on this at [1] where there is an ongoing debate on the subject. Regards Giano 13:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I made the edit in a bout of random date and year updates, when I get into a fit finding random biographical pages and then adding their birth and death dates to the appropriate pages. So I have no idea what I added.  :) Nothing important though, I'm sure... and in fact, whenever I do that I wonder about the value of adding a minor ballerina's birth to a year page, and whether it's better left off. Bantman 01:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraph you or me can place more instructions like the subject list is split alphabetically and point to the bottom of the index to see where one should place one's name and/or subject. It should be real easy.WHEELER 14:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for sharing your opinion at WP:CFD. But I am afraid in any case if you're well-informed with the situation when you cast your vote I would recommend you to reconsider. — Instantnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll replying here, rather than on your talk. If you're interested in my views, you'll look for them. If not, the less said the better.

I'm sure you're informed on what the names should be, but I don't see how that matters. Wikipedia can't lead changes in people's perception, it must only reflect current perceptions. You're very insistent of your views, but even if you're right and everyone else is wrong, by definition of the purpose of an encyclopedia, you're still wrong. Doesn't it bother you that so many are against your views? You can't force agreement, but you can easily force resentment. By continuing to push your single-track views, your can get a reputation of being a disruptive irritant, where anything you request triggers hostility. You're doing your own cause a disservice. Please, relax and wait for the mob to die down. --A D Monroe III 17:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm here, and you know your opinion is important to me.

The reason why I cared about whether people who's cast a vote are well-informed was because the issue has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and the outcome was, I must have to say, quite different. I understand Wikipedia is a test ground for participatory democracy, but that does not equal to mobocracy. While everyone's opinion has to be respected, everyone has to be well-informed and be rational in making every single decision. And that's the true meaning of this free encyclopedia. — Instantnood 21:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I agree that in Wikipedia, as in other democracies, people vote who aren't informed. But who decides who is informed? Would you have started this particular talk if I agreed with you on CFD?

I also agree that there may even be a mob mentally against your views; some of the comments of your detractors are less than accommodating. But, remember, the mob didn't always exist; it's been created by your own actions. You push, they push back. The harder you push, the harder they will push back, and the mob grows every time. Again, you can't force agreement, only resentment. If you really care about your views getting accepted, please, lay off for a while. Idle mobs disintegrate. --A D Monroe III 22:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am not the one to decide. Not anybody. What I can do is to facilitate. I put up a list of relevant articles, discussions and precedants so that people can read a little bit more about the issues before making a decision. Thanks for the suggestion of idling for a while. I have tried to do so, but the categories kept got listed by others. — Instantnood 14:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you've edited the StarCraft storyline page recently, and you've done a good job.

Do you think you could tackle the StarCraft Prequel page as well? I haven't the faintest idea how to write a proper introduction to that page.

-- Kimera757

Thanks. It's done. Actually, the existing introduction wasn't that bad; I just added a couple sentences. I think the {{cleanup-context}} note could have been removed before. Still, the other StarCraft articles could use a similar treatment, perhaps even the same verbiage. I'll leave that to others, though. I've done enough StarCraft for now. --A D Monroe III 19:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My vote to support doesn't change. --A D Monroe III 5 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

You voted or commentd on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal revers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

I've put my thoughts on the 1000000000000000000 (number) VfD page. Rich Farmbrough 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I looked over the VFD results, taking them as a whole, and concluded "The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect". This is what I did, the redirect being from 10000000000000000 to 11th millenium and beyond, the data (such as it was) going onto the 1000000000000000 (number) article. I also disagree with this, but I did it anyway, because the VfD was about 16 days old.

(I disagree because it seems to me that someone entering 1000000000000000 is not thinking of a date but a number.) But the important point is that I did what I thought the debate lead to. Rich Farmbrough 02:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's important to understand why you thought the results were for redirect. You haven't explained your reasoning. The votes were 13 to 5 for deletion; is counting the votes not important? Why is "because the VFD was about 16 days old" important? I and others think something has gone wrong with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000. --A D Monroe III 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over everything that transpired, it seems I accidentally contributed to this mess. While Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 was going on, someone brought up 1000000000000 has having the same issues as 1000000000000000000 (note different number of zeros). I "fixed" the lower-numbered article by redirecting it; I was preparing to put it up for VFD (or rather, RFD) when the VFD on the higher-numbered article was closed. In retrospect, that was a mistake. Some people didn't notice the difference between the two articles, and thought I'd moved an article while it was under VFD -- a pretty disruptive act. Others thought that this is what I wanted for the higher-numbered article, even though I'd voted "strong delete". Some even accused me of violating WP:POINT. I'd never intentionally do that. Meanwhile, further confusing things, an admin (jnc) deleted and protected the lower-numbered article.

So, sorry for all the confusion. I'm trying to set things right again. --A D Monroe III 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[http:// engineering.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page Engineering Wiki] is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

Thanks for the notice. I'm quite surprised by it, though! The particular edit you were talking about ([2]) was not made by me, but instead by 71.112.115.22. I described my own edit on that article, changing the JPEG NATO flag to an SVG one ([3]), quite clearly. Maybe you've misinterpreted the diff display somehow? The current edit's contributor is shown on the right, whereas the previous editor is on the left and has nothing to do with the edit you're viewing. Anyhow, thanks for the notice, I'll take that into account. –Mysid (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't we all make mistakes. –Mysid (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• NUGGET (AfD discussion)

You stated that this had "no claim to notability". Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Love your site.

I have recently made some edited (and thus far unchanged) corrections to an article entitled "Crisis on Infinite Earths." I, in fact, draw a comic book for Marvel and am an amateur comics historian.

I also included a 5 line "speculation", based on my reasoned assertion about the genesis of the story behind Crisis, and an upcoming series yet to be completed called "Infinite Crisis."

The following users...

Dyslexic agnostic

Tverbeek

...have continually, over the past few days, removed certain comments, despite the fact that at WORST, my comments do not detract from the article in any way. They simply disagree, but instead of contributing an opposing opinion, they remove my contribution.

And they have asked me to stop putting up my "lame" comments.

I don’t intend to. My understanding of the mandate site leads me to believe there is a place for my brief contribution and that the users above are being petty and abusive.

However, should you feel the text of my contribution to be inappropriate for the site, I will remove them myself. But I would like this point clarified if possible.

here is the statment in question:

" As Crisis on Infinite Earths, in an effort to clear the perceived mutli-universal clutter, became the ultimate multi-universal story, Infinite Crisis seems to be posed as an answer to the perception on the part of some fans and editors alike that the DC Universe, and comics in general, has become too dark and "gritty" to the detriment of the stories, and thus, will be the ultimate dark and gritty series that could, potentially, leave the DC Universe a happier place.

It remains to be seen."

My comments would of course, be edited after the series is completed.

The two users have been abusive and condescending and have not been responsive to an attempt to compromise, particularly Tverbeek, who I feel is operating under the illusion that he is the primary custodian of this article.

I've tried to keep up with the disputes, but it's moving faster than civil tongues can follow.

My first advice is to become a registered user. It's easy, useful, and will make needed discussions on talk pages easier to follow. It will also remove the (pointless) classification of registered and unregistered editors. (BTW, this isn't my site -- it's just as much yours.)

Second, there is a policy in Wikipedia about no original research. There may be some issue with your edits because of this, though this isn't clear-cut.

Mainly, however, all the above should have been brought up by any of the editors you encountered, and should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. The fact that they didn't is the reason things got out of hand.

I've started to encourage those editors to do just that. Since there is no police in Wikipedia, and no "right" or "wrong", this may take a while.

In the meantime, I'd recommend browsing in other areas of Wikipedia, and letting things cool off a little.

If there are more specific issues I can help with, just let me know.

--A D Monroe III 21:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[http:// engineering.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page Engineering Wiki] is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. The Engineering Wiki is in early development stages at the moment. We invite you to help devlope this wiki.

Hi, as an expert, please have a look here. Thank you. --Predator capitalism 11:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several censors/revisionists on Wikipedia who are determined to delete or gut anythign they personally do not agree with or like. One of these is an editor named Demiurge whose relentless attempts at censorship, blocked only when he is caught red-handed by third party Wikipedians, continues unabated. Please review his attempts to delete my additions to the Tim Pat Coogan wikipage. Evidently he is not the only one.

Demiurge is an Irish censor and a Catholic apologist who has attempted to delete edits to pages as various as Ante Pavelic, Tim Pat Coogan, pre-Code (related, ironically, to movie censorship in the USA by the Catholic church), Eamon de Valera (refugee policy during WWII), and many others. Is this individual going to be permitted to censor, delete, edit, sanitize, gut, or whatever he cares to do, with no one stopping him??? He has just blokced my sourced and cited additions to the Wikipage of Tim Pat Coogan.

I do not have my own computer so I am using a rental, but if you wish to contact me, please email me at karas_peter@yahoo.com (my friend's email address). I would like to receive a valid reason for his abusive attempts at censorship regarding his "pet" issues.

Thank You, 70.19.67.28 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a very black harbinger for Wikipedia, and its helplessness to block abusive editors, and certainly administrators (which Demiurge is not yet, fortunately, but he will certainly attempt to become one). 70.19.67.28 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in disk drives/computer hardware engineering for about 25 years.

Being a Wikipedian takes work. Work also takes work, especially for an engineer. I suspect that many engineers just don't have the time.

I was a fairly active Wikipedian, but on my new job, I work 60-80 hours per week -- now I barely visit Wikipedia. I like and believe in Wikipedia, but I no longer have much time. --A D Monroe III 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Monroe,

Can you please email me? My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com This is not spam. I am sending this email to four other advocates today. I am having a hard time with Wikipedia and am looking for an advocate with a lot of experience with Wikipedia to help me. Thank you.

Michael D. Wolok 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking to some of the members of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for a review of an article that's having a wild, roller coaster ride into existance. I want to note that there's an apparent issue, IMHO, separating the subjective (opinion) from the objective (policy) --- and this willingness to speak may not be helping much either (although how I made an enemy of User:Sleepyhead81 (a web page is not an operating system) is a complete mystery to me, he has his own agenda of opinions). If you can have a look at Web operating system it points to others like WebOS and Internet Operating Systems that some editors seem to think it should be merged into. Well, that's concise! Many thanks for your time. - JohnPritchard 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your name on the Harmonious Editing Club page (great idea BTW).

I'm an Australian research student from Sydney currently writing my thesis on collaborative online communities and wikipedia is one of my case studies. As such I am looking to interview wikipedians for my research.

As someone involving extensively in editing and also in organisations like the harmonious editing club, i was wondering if you'd be interested in being interviewed (via email) for my research?

The interview can be done anytime between now and june, via email, and anonymity is ensured by the University's ethics standards.

Would love to know if you're interested, and would love to interview you if you have the time. tamsin 07:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great! Sounds like a blast. (hopefully you'll also find it interesting....)

I can send you information about the project and interview and we can arrange a time that is convenient for you to be interviewed via email--unless you live in Sydney, but that's a long shot.... ;)

If you could please email me I can give you the information (university ethics requires I don't post it to the wikipedia site) and we can arrange details: tamsin.lloyd@gmail.com.

Looking forward to hearing from you. tamsin 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Daniel_Harvey_Hill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:GURPS Supers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:KingmakerBox.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Decade Nostalgia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Decade Nostalgia is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Decade Nostalgia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so gracious as to review my article on Irregular Warfare and send me comments? Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

User:Sidna —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you please have a look at an entry called "Spellfury" it's a webseries and make sure I've proved it's notable with proper references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showzampa (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jericho may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Archaeological evidence indicates that in the latter half of the Middle [[Bronze Age]] (MBE, ({{circa}} 1700 BC) the city enjoyed some prosperity, its walls having been strengthened and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi...I saw the (WP:ERAS) and understand what it means. I would like to apologize for that mistake. I didn't know that was resolved or kind of resolved in some situations. Thanks for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerm729 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake on the Battle of Kursk article! Regards204.116.217.18 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike (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) 08:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello A D Monroe III: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Jerm729 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Plutarch: "So he marched his army along the river with seven legions, little less than four thousand horse, and as many light-armed soldiers," Italia2006 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was seven legions, but legions are not made of just legionaries. The number of legionaries given (44,000) does not equate to 7 legions, because legions have other troops (auxiliaries) besides legionaries. So we cannot say "44,000 legionaries = 7 legions". Either "legionaries" or "legions" has to go; "legionaries" was there first, so I assumed that was a better way to say this. I'll try again to correct this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you refer me to the archive with the discussion limiting the description of American Civil War to a) War Between the States and b) Civil War in the introduction's lead sentence? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It was quite a while ago. The "top two" (one pro-North and one pro-South) may have been "discussed" in a running series of edit comments instead of in talk. As I remember, the article didn't even have "American" in its title, so it must have been very early in WP history. I'll check the archives when I get a chance. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it seems I'm not remembering the title change correctly; I'm confusing it with what happened with Indian Wars. Given that, I may be misremembering the whole "discussion". It's probably best to open that discussion now anyway.

Oh, and I just now see you already have.  :) Thanks. I'll comment there. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections on OZ. Did not realize the "they" following so closely other characters than D/T could add confusion. Just goes to show how immersion in the article and the subconscious in the mind because you are writing it, can let things slip instead of getting it down on the page. I am not the greatest of writers but I hope that I get a better point across than previously what was there. But I always like for someone else to have a look over to tweak instead of those that have a heavy hand on the revert button.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 76.170.88.72; that's what Wikipedia is all about. Everything is always improved by others, because everyone is smarter than anyone. (Though, in the particular change you mention, I think that was a fix I did on text added by me. None of us are immune to being improved.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anjem Choudary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Programming language generations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First generation. 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) 09:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Rummel, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops murdered between 106,000 and 227,000 civilians in South Vietnam. For the US, there is the Mỹ Lai Massacre, a mass killing of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968. According to political scientist R.J. Rummel, U.S. troops murdered about 6,000 Vietnamese civilians during the war. In terms of atrocities by the South Vietnamese, from 1964 to 1975, Rummel estimated 1,500 persons died during the forced relocations of 1,200,000 civilians, another 5,000 prisoners died from ill-treatment and about 30,000 suspected communists and fighters were executed by ARVN forces. 6,000 civilians died in the more extensive shellings. This totals, from a range of between 42,000 and 118,000 deaths caused by South Vietnam, excluding NLF/North Vietnamese forces killed by the ARVN in combat. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. War crimes are committed in every war. None of them are considered as critical historical lessons the way World War II is, and even WWII doesn't mention it the lead. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what Super said. The war was full of horrible tragedies; so much so that, unfortunately, the horrors of war crimes don't make the top 10 when viewed on a global scale. Maybe they should be, but we can't change that here. We go by what balance is reflected in WP:RSs, only. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you might not remember me because this was a new account I made a little while back after account: Jerm729, but I would like to thank not just for you contributions on Wikipedia, but for assisting me when I first started off on Wikipedia here: [4]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Care Bears. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello A D Monroe III, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War on Terror. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Information Age, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Z3. 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) 08:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Easy Living (1949 film). Legobot (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC:: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday a disruptive editor improperly changed one of the entries on the RfC at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

He changed

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

to

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious (as opposed to anti-religious) nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

During the period when the question was changed, two !votes were cast, including yours.

Are you still OK with your !vote, or would you prefer to change it because of the question changed?

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Discuss-Dubious interfering with RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood something that was stated. I am sorry. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's okay. My "shenanigans" comment wasn't really directed at your single action, but the more general tone of many editors that seem to be trying to squirm out of getting consensus. (But you can get yourself a WP:TROUT if you think that helps.) Happy editing! --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I answered you on the battle of Cowpens talk page. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you somewhere other than the soup of Borodino. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waldorf education. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the RFC. I'm hoping for some more specifics, if it's not too much trouble.

First: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Can you give a couple of actual examples of this within this article so we know what you are talking about?

Second: You suggest that "Sources that may not be neutral are used". Please clarify this one...because

1. I don't understand what "may not even means in this context -- don't take this the wrong way, but frankly, it sounds like a pretty weaselly way of making a vague or ambiguous claim. Or else you are just being really, really polite. In which case:
2. It is a fundamental principle of WP (and of contemporary thought generally) that sources are never neutral, though articles should strive to be. Everyone has a standpoint or bias: that's why WP:NPOV reminds us that "neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view."
3. Most importantly, which of these sources is actually even remotely problematic? Please give concrete examples of problematic usages of sources so we can make improvements. HGilbert (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this a content discussion? If so, it belongs on the article talk page.

If it's about me, and what motivates me to make such comments, I'll just say that it's obvious there is a problem with the article; it almost reads like a brochure for the schools. I think this is obvious to others; that's why it gets "drive-by" tags. You may be well-versed in the particular points, and skilled in defending them, but the net result of your efforts is counter-productive to your apparent aims; no one likes ads.

I'm on a wiki-break, and may not get back to this for some time. I hope you take these comments seriously, and see what you can do to address them. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in the least questioning your motives -- on the contrary! I was just hoping to get concrete examples of passages/sources that stimulated the critiques you offered, which I'm very open to exploring. Perhaps you'll have a chance to follow up some time on the content page. Best wishes -- HGilbert (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Current disaster. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schizoaffective disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 November 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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox character. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are objections to the superdelegate process because of the concern that it violates the premise that our country is built upon "one man = one vote." In order to understand this, the example I've provided helps in the understanding of it.

In addition, how does one reference simple math?

This criticism far outweighs the popular belief that the controversy of the process lies just in the fact that superdelegates can change their support at anytime. (The fact is pledged delegates can also change preference groups at conventions.) The flexibility of the superdelegate is a minor flaw in the system; it's the fact that their delegate vote can equal as much as 10,000 "regular" voters.

BDLA1111 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BDLA1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDLA1111 (talk • contribs)

I agree there are concerns. I expect those concerns are well-documented by respected authorities. We need to cite references to those authorities to include any information in Wikipedia. This is core of how Wikipedia is kept functioning as a massive ever-checked encyclopedia. These principles are explained in WP:V and WP:RS. If you provide links to respected published sources to support the arguments you want to include, then those arguments can be included; in fact, they must be included. Without them, however, they must not be included. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charge (warfare), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike. 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) 10:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armoured car. 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) 09:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Starchild Skull, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Given that this is a controversial paranormal subject, we should stick to reliable secondary sources for any facts about the skull. McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Does it bother you to sound so condescending to experienced editors? Anyway, I put the info back with the secondary site stated explicitly. Please continue on talk if you have more, for the sake of consensus, since this is a content dispute. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for giving you the default template there, I should have looked more closely. This article just has a particularly bad history of sock/meatpuppets dropping in to add content sourced only to starchildproject.com. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

NP; it just made sigh once.  ;) --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shield wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scuta. 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) 09:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Analog. 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) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The RFC you recently participated in has had a further proposal. Please consider reviewing and commenting at it here. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have posted an explanation of the capitalization of Scrum terms on the Scrum (software development) Talk page. The use of these terms specific to Scrum are generally capitalized. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". On that basis I will be progressively capitalizing all Scrum terms. Rather than reverting my edit please take part in a discussion on the article's Talk page. Thank you. Davidjcmorris  Talk  21:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem; this is typical BRD; one revert is enough. Reply on article talk. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi AD Monroe.

Thanks for your comments on the panini talk page. I agree 100% with your proposal that the page be left in the version that became stable at the end of the previous RfC: This version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panini_(sandwich)&oldid=723217892

However, everytime I try to reistate this change, skyring edit wars with me. I think there is probably a case for taking this to ANI, as he is being extremely disruptive and I don't believe he is editing in good faith and is simply trying to side-step the RfC and force his personal preference onto the page. He is a "prescriptive linguistic", as can be seen by his initial comment here, and this is the agenda he is trying to enforce with no regard for proper protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panini_(sandwich)&diff=718671028&oldid=717818359

I would prefer not to take this to ANI, however he clearly has no intention of respecting any change I make to the page. Perhaps, however, if you were to revert the page to the last stable version, then he might think twice about edit warring with you as well?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Py0alb (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My views are that we must follow process. I don't mind if an RfC goes against me; that just means that we got enough eyes on a difficult question to find an answer. I do mind when one editor tries to push through his own opinion regardless. You yourself suggested an RfC, so we are now going through process, and who knows, we might find your opinion prevails. Probably best to keep discussion on the talk page, BTW. --Pete (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As you well know, that whilst an RfC is in progress, the page should remain at the last stable version established in the previous RfC. Yet whenever I implement this protocol, you edit-war and immediately reintroduce the bold changes. This is a contravention of protocol, and yet you keep doing it. PS: butting into a conversation on another user's talk space is not really particularly friendly, it smacks of intimidation. Quit it. Py0alb (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm, but I don't think process or protocol is what's driving you on this. I think it's something a little closer to home. Feel free to move all this to the talk page. Discussion is good; it allows us to bring things into the light. --Pete (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Does "mmmm" mean yes, you admit I am correct about the protocol and you have been knowingly and flagrantly ignoring it over the past week? TBH, I am not really interested in paninis at all, I just don't like ignorant prescriptivists attempting to ride rough-shod over Wikipedia protocol thinking they are above the system. You know very well you've been attempting to subvert protocol here from day 1, and you've been trying to bully me away with your personal attacks on my talk page. Enough is enough. Stop edit warring and stop intimidating other editors Py0alb (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about panino/i(s). I got called by your RfC. I saw a lot of editors discussing sources and working through the problem, and I saw one editor, pants on fire to have his preferred version stand immediately. That's always far more interesting. Again, what's the hurry? --Pete (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Taking something to any Noticeboard that primarily presents as an edit war will likely reflect poorly on both sides. Here, I don't see any hard policy that being violated, just a couple of editors that are willing to repeatedly revert without achieving consensus. Let's get a well-formed RfC, wait for the results, and then implement it and move on. I don't think any comments outside the article talk page are going to help do this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, WP:BRD is unambiguously being violated here by skyring. Ibrahidam made bold changes, I reverted and initiated a discussion. So far, so good, and all done by the book. However, Skyring then took it upon himself to get involved. WP:BRD says "Don't restore your changes" until consensus is reached, yet that is EXACTLY what skyring is doing, continuously and despite having had WP:BRD protocol explained to him several times. It doesn't present at an edit war, it presents as one editor attempting to follow protocol and initiate discussion and seek consensus, and another repeatedly ignoring protocol, editing disruptively and acting aggressively (eg posting personal attacks on my talk page). I would encourage you to get involved here as a neutral third party. Py0alb (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Py0alb, I tend to think you're right, but I haven't bothered to delve into all the details, because being "right" isn't a reason to edit war. Based on that, I'll participate in an RfC and discussions to resolve this on Talk:Panini, but refrain from reverting while this is in progress. If you want to start an ANI, I'll participate in that as well, but I don't think that will solve anything. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unprecise, I'm not a native speaker. Thank you.Xx236 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, it was just a funny coincidence I enjoyed sharing. No worries! --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Bulge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division. 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) 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No problems with your hatting the text you did. Sorry to have said you were "bitey" / may have been so. If I find myself in a similar situation with a different editor I'll find a different way to express the concern if necessary, like simply asking who/what the subject of frustration is. Separately, I'm still concerned that the editor hasn't picked up some of the core issues of citing properly/OR/etc., and I'm concerned that he'll get reverted, frustrated, and quit. But I'm backing away since you were already addressing some of those. Thanks and best, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I also have concerns for the OP's tolerance for WP based on this experience there. I've commented on their talk, though I don't know how successful I've been in balancing directing and yet encouraging them. Maybe some additional non-bitey-ness would help. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "War of 1812". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 September 2016.

A D, are you still following the article on Diesel engine and/or the RfC? It looks a little to me like iMotorhead64 is going ahead and adding material about Brayton one sentence at a time while the RfC is still open (which is OK, but his critics may then take that badly??) A whole lot of edits that I haven't had time to roll through, but hopefully will tomorrow. I'm afraid he'll get a mass revert or worse... And he may still be hooked on the idea that since he's an expert he can introduce his own OR or SYNTH, as others indicated pre-RfC. Or maybe I'm being an old woman in kilts. Plus, I did notice a problem with the first large quote that was split - there's no close quote on it. So I'm wondering if that's a large verbatim quote there or if he's introduced his own conclusions to the second half of the paragraph. I'm letting you know about that since you helped him separate out that part of it (which has nothing apparent to do with Brayton.) And I took those concerns first to his talk page rather than cluttering up the article talk further. If you're completely detached from it now, though, sorry to have concerned you. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 03:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've still got the page on my watchlist, and I'm following it, but I cringe whenever I do. The RfC is now a near hopeless mess, the Brayton connection additions still aren't sufficiently sourced, and all sorts of common WP procedures are being bypassed. Worse is the new editor may be learning that WP:FILLIBUSTERing is the way to get things done here; other editors seem to have given up. I myself don't know what to do at this point, other than mass reverting with harsh words, waiting for the expected walls-of-text and eventual reinstatement, and then dumping the whole thing on some noticeboard where everybody loses.

I've read your section on the editor talk page. I'm not sure if that's helping. It's still about article content (at least as it's going now), so probably still belongs on the article talk.

I guess I'll still watch and wait to see if things drift in some direction where I can figure some useful contribution. But I'm not super hopeful. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how well I'm doing with it, either. I took the other to the user talk because I thought putting it on the article talk would make it incendiary. But just taking up my little issues in that first paragraph turned into a wall of text. But, we'll see, I suppose. And I'll keep up with him on his user talk. I'll let my last in the article talk sit for a bit. (Though I saw at least one of his timeline additions for Brayton at an educational timeline separately as I was noodling around looking at independent sources myself... maybe MIT? and maybe sourced as such in the article but didn't have time to check all the tiny edits he made and not sure if I will.) Maybe it's victory if we get that first paragraph good and locked and everything else gets mass reverted, dunno... And he's still very civil about it, anyway. I'll take civil and recalcitrant over uncivil and recalcitrant, at least.  :) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning War of 1812, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

FYI Battle of France and terminological inexactitude on the milhist page might be of interest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ezra Pound. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Monroe,

I merged part of WP:BANDNAME into MOS:THECAPS in an attempt to make things less confusing, only to have it rudely undone without any explanation by Prickzi, I have asked him or her to please, then, discuss the reversion on the talk page, which he/she has so far refused to do. Will you please enter your opinion on if we should leave the merger in place or why not to have it in place, here: [5]? Nancy Pantzy (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:A D Monroe III, you are hereby invited to a newbie wikiproject: WikiProject Tanks! We are a group of Wikipedians who help improve tank articles (i.e., generally). Check us out at our main page! ^∞ Target360YT ^∞ (talk · contribs) 06:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I laughed so hard I had to copy your legalese goodies, the sincerest form of flattery. Great stuff! Doug (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How long before your ideal picture of Rommel is ready? Britmax (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Emiya1980 is the one that proposed fixing this image to use. I'm giving that some time, though I did change the article to the 2nd best pic in the meantime. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Family Guy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Monroe III,

I am currently working on a book that is set during the year 1650 in Europe. I saw on your account, that you have edited a few pages on the Thirty Years' War, so I thought you would be the perfect person to ask. First off, I am interested in understanding what kind of a role England and Scotland play in the war, and any effects it had on those countries. My second question: was there any trading going on between England and the countries along the Rhine River during the years after the war? I would also like to know how illnesses or other injuries during the war would have been taken care of (was there a special “sick house” in the towns where the solders or locals would go to, and were there any doctors or trained medicine makers)? For my fourth question: how was the modern day region of Nordrhein Westfalen, Germany affected by the war? (If you can give me specific towns that were impacted, that would be wonderful!) And for my final question: what would daily life have been like for those living in Southern Germany shortly after the war?

I know these were some pretty specific questions; if don't have the answer to some of them, but do know someone who does, I would love to get in contact with them!

Many thanks for your help!

~ Occurrence of Magic

Occurrence of Magic (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a home for experts; experts typically want to champion their own new independent ideas, while encyclopedias only summarize the widely-established (old) published ideas. Like most WP editors, I edit articles on which I have some general knowledge, only -- in this case, military history.

I know foreign mercenary companies were common; there's even a pic of Scots mercenaries employed by Sweden in the article. I think no one would be surprised to find companies of English or Scottish mercenaries fighting for either side in any campaign, based on the way armies were constituted back then.

Most of what you ask involves details of society of common people back then, of which I know nothing. Since this is before literacy was very common, there may be little that anyone knows for sure. Maybe try reading Samuel Pepys' diary? He was middle-class, not common, but he did write about his day-to-day life in extensive detail.

Good luck with your book! --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A recent edit commented "there's got to be thousands of these sorts of tools -- no reason to identify any one." while reverting a recent edit I made.

While I agree with that statement, it seems to contradict with what that edit actually did -- it appears to me that the article identified 2 such tools, and your revert changed the article so now it lists 1 such tool.

If there are thousands of these sorts of tools, I agree that this C (programming language) should not specifically name one specific tool, and certainly should not list 1000 or so tools, but I feel that the article *should* link to some other Wikipedia article that says some general words about those sorts of tools.

Is there a name for these sorts of tools? What Wikipedia article(s) discuss these sorts of tools? --DavidCary (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On leaving one such tool, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look into it, and may delete that one as well.

My initial thought is that an article on all the "Help-Write-C" tools is possible, but not easy. C's extensive support for low-level programming (assembly like) is one of C's strengths, but also its main weakness; thus there's a lot of tools were made to "fix" this about C, starting with lint (software) created almost as soon as C itself. As C became super popular, a lot of other tools were made, and then came IDE's which absorbed the functions of many of those tools. So the problem is that "all those C tools" is not a good definition for inclusion in the proposed article, made worse by their being so mixed with IDE's and larger systems that support C, C++, and even additional languages that have replaced C in many uses. There's no clear cut-off on what not to include. But I'll look into this as well.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Just in passing one of the early books I read on C, the author stated that "C is a very powerful language. You will appreciate this the first time you write the alphabet in the middle of your operating system". -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of meta-programming, also known as self-modifying code, or attempts to have Skynet create itself. I never quite achieved a true "halt and catch fire" with C, but did once get "halt, scream horribly, attempt to eject hard disk and self-destruct". Those were the days. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@DavidCary: I checked on "leaving one tool" in the article, and I'm guessing you mean Lint. Being the grandfather of all such programs, it's allowed to have special mention. Any other tool rivaling Lint in notability would be equally deserving, but I doubt that's possible.

I see you got a response on Talk:C (programming language) that covers this discussion. If there's any more, let's continue there. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Lint has exceptional notability and deserves special mention.

I guess I should have been more explicit -- instead of ambiguously saying "now it lists 1 such tool", I meant "now it only lists 1 such tool: MISRA C". Sorry for the confusion.

I agree that Talk:C (programming language) is a better place for this discussion. --DavidCary (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I would appreciate it if you could add a me too comment (or whatever you think appropriate) to my explanation to the edit on talk:Scaled Agile Framework. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I'll also watch for any further discussion. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. I have protected the page Machine by enabling pending changes settings for a week. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiffyClyroFan13. -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks! --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Rommel myth, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW re [6], it's a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Much thanks for investigating this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television channel. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Failed to disentangle from the mess. Monstrelet (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The article is improving. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi A D Monroe III. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell what "From this evolved star forts, also known as trace italienne." means?

Is it incorrect to expect that From this evolved star forts, also known as trace italienne, something happen?. Thanks.Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 23:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bather you again, but I am translating the article to Portuguese, and the way the phrase is now written, floating with out an ending ("From x to blank space, period."), the translation is impossible. The wiki-pt translation's rules, require me to provide an explanation in order to insert translation that doesn't make sense in Portuguese. Your explanation is too short. Can you elaborate and give me further explanation? Thanks again. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 00:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to improve the wording in a way that fits your needs. Here's a more basic English version?

This evolved into Star forts. Star forts are also known as trace italienne.

In this case, "this" refers to the subject of the previous sentence: permanent artillery bastions used for defense. Does that help any? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized that the confusion may be that "evolved" is being used in the sentence as a verb, not a adjective. I'm not sure why that's clear to most English readers; it now does read slighting odd to me now with this in mind. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! NOW it makes sense! "evolved" is being used in the sentence as a verb. I should have seen it. Anyway, thanks again for your help. (Luizpuodzius - not logged) 65.34.252.138 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

...you've been mentioned on the ARBCOM page in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nathan_B._Forrest, however the filing party apparently didn't bother to notify the people in the statement section, hence the message. If you'd like you are welcome to leave your two cents on the page, otherwise feel free to disregard this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, To be clear I am not complaining, and I appreciated your reversion After all this time I am still trying to work out how Wikipedia works as I mainly wander around reading and fixing reference and making NPOV!

1. am still not sure whether I should ask questions do this on the Caltrop talk page but it is dormant since 2014

2. Just so I don't make the mistake again, can your reference for wiki to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References_dos_and_don%27ts My logic was to avoid link rot it was best to ref once

3. I think what I was trying to do was refer from Horse Chestnut to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_caltrop but I didn't know how to it and would appreciate your help. Do I have to set up a redirect because I don't know how to that either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Wikilinks_.28internal_links.29

4. I am still looking for a ref for the Australian light horse usage of caltrops and giving to the French for bullets becuase google books does not involve any Australian libraries. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/library/partners.html

with thanks

Wakelamp

Wakelamp, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions here. I call myself a WP:Wikignome; I focus on small changes, just like you.

(1a) Asking a "how to" question is just fine for user talk pages, since it's not about a specific article. WP:Teahouse also handles such questions, but has many editors that can quickly respond (and correct each other to give the best answers).

(1b) Article talk pages aren't really "dormant"; any editor that is watching the article is automatically watching its talk page as well.

(2) Linking to another WP article (a wikilink) has a simple basic syntax; just enclose the article name in double brackets: adding the text [[Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts]] creates Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts. See Help:Link for all the details and extra tricks.

(3a) To link the text "horse chestnuts" to the article Water caltrop, you can use [[Water caltrop|horse chestnuts]] (follow the page name with a bar and the reader-visible text), which is rendered as horse chestnuts.

(3b) To create a redirect requires creating a new page. See Help:Redirect. But note that horse chestnut currently redirects to Aesculus hippocastanum, apparently the more common meaning of "horse chestnut".

(4) I'm no help with finding sources for Australian light horse, and I don't know who might be. Maybe browsing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history may give some direction.

Hope that helps; you can reply here for any follow-up or additional questions. Happy editing! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You posted on my talk claiming users have the prerogative to issue "talkpage bans". To be sure, I have no intention of posting on Talk:Beyond My Ken... I wouldn't wish to appear lame, or have any potentially valid arguments undermined by said lameness... Nevertheless, my curiosity was piqued and now I really want to get to the bottom of the issue: is your claim backed up by any policy or guideline? Could I trouble you to point me to it? -- Director (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It's harassment, obviously. If a user says don't contact me, and you do, that's harassment, and can get you blocked. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

So merely "contacting" a user can be construed as harassment in and of itself? I'm skeptical. Certainly if you pester somebody or post insults or provocations... that doesn't equate to a right to bar people from your talkpage.
You see, in the past I too was under the impression one could do it. People just sort of said "I banish thee from mine page!" etc.. (I did it).. Then the thing ended up on a noticeboard at one point and a couple admins came out and explained "no.. you can't really do that as such". Which is why I'm interested if its explicit somewhere?

I mean, you can remove the post and if the guy starts revert-warring over it then sure, but... -- Director (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose a single posting following a "don't post" warning, without any history of poor interaction, wouldn't qualify as harassment. But if it's a part of a history of interaction that might qualify as harassment, then the "don't post" warning is a clear indication that the editor considers it harassment; if the other editor then disregards this, that basically proves both the intent to harass as well as the effect. I've seen editors blocked for this.

Seriously, it's no good to toy with some theoretical gray area here. Actively and purposely increasing disharmony is against the five pillars (WP:5P4). --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll have the references for Fifth-Generation Warfare in 6 months (I'm actually writing a thoroughly-documented book about it). In the meantime I'll refrain from editing that page. Thanks for your guidance! Kashifv (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This comment would be of interest to all editors of Generations of warfare, not just me, so I've copied it to a the article talk page under a new section: Talk:Generations of warfare#5th-generation warfare. Responses should go there (unless it's something just about me). Thanks for your comment and understanding, and good luck with your book! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

please having a look at the debate here.Axxxion (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking, and while I agree with your article edits, I'll stay away from discussions of editors' motivations. If this conflict continues, you might want to break the discussion into separate changes for each affected article section, like one just on "results", etc. I think I'll continue to watch for a bit before jumping in cold. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Moroe A D Monroe III, first I do agree a conversation is needed to make the Kanban page more useful to the general public. The page showing now, is not a good reference to people, it lacks current developments, and it is in my view deficient even in basic concept. Let's talk about how we can improve it, I first was going to undo your changes, but that leads nowhere. A conversation is better. What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to Talk:Kanban (development), as this will be of interest to all editors there, not just me. Let's continue there. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, OrangeLeanVoice, please sign your comments on talk pages (automatically done by adding four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your comment). --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

--OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | Thanks Mr. Moroe A D Monroe III I am still learning, but appreciate the guidance, I hope we can improve that page soon, I will do some very focused updates, so it's easier to guide the page to a proper neutral update. OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For the Kaban parts, I'll reply on that pages talk. Here, I'll just point out the next thing about talk pages: WP:THREAD. Basically, we like each new comment to start with its own paragraph (on a new line), indented one level more than the previous comment (the one it replies to); this is done by adding an additional colon : for each successive reply. This makes it easy for others to tell which comment is replying to which other comment. You can check out Help:Talk pages. Don't worry about taking the whole thing in at once; just glance through it now and again. There will be a more bits like this to learn, but it's fine to just tackle one at a time. All editors started by learning as they go, so this is just as expected. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, A D Monroe III. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanban (development), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for totally removing my addition, without infantile shilly-shallying over such things as posting a challenge or contacting me. I am very sorry for having intruded my own thoughts, which in your obviously better informed opinion were clearly ill-founded, and shall sincerely try not to upset you in future or in any way suggest you are not omniscient. Clifford Mill (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're okay, then so am I. If not, please discuss it on the article talk page. Venting here won't help the article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robin Hood. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, A D Monroe III. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, A D Monroe III. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

[Moved from User talk:A D Monroe III/Discussions‎ subpage]

I have added a new section on "Total War". Perhaps it is something.

Regards.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Undid revision 866005227 by Keith-264 (talk); 1917 not part of 2nd World War" Whoops ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, been there, done that. I rely on a thousand other wikipedians for my edits. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Where would we be without them? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @A D Monroe III: Thank you @A_D_Monroe_III for taking a look at my proposed edits to the Western Digital "History" section. Per your request, I have provided explanations and proposed edits on the Western Digital Talk page. The motivation for these edits was that the currently published Western Digital History section has several flags indicating that additional citations from reliable sources need to be added. These proposed changes adds reliable sources where possible and removes statements where sources cannot be found. Thank you for your time, consideration, and assistance in this review.(AnneElizH (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC))

Hi @A D Monroe III: Thank you @A_D_Monroe_III for taking a look at my proposed edits to the Western Digital "History" section. Per your request, I have provided explanations and proposed edits on the Western Digital Talk page. The motivation for these edits was that the currently published Western Digital History section has several flags indicating that additional citations from reliable sources need to be added. These proposed changes adds reliable sources where possible and removes statements where sources cannot be found. Thank you for your time, consideration, and assistance in this review. (AnneElizH (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC))