User talk:ExclusiveAgent

Welcome!

Hello, ExclusiveAgent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.
Again, welcome! --CherryX

Obama's america

Hello, thanks for helping keep the article up to date.

Note that when you update the Box office, [1] you should also update the "accessdate=" field to reflect the date you retrieved the data. Cheers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Moran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tiny Tim (A Christmas Carol), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Donaldson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TMZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi. Is this how I talk to you? As you can see, I am new to this and this was my first edit.

I tried to remove a section from Adolph L. Reed's page. The section is inappropriate--please give me a chance to prove this.

Please help me--it can't be right that this paragraph could be allowed to stay. The *paragraph* is vandalism. It is completely inappropriate and the purpose is clearly to defame the person the page is about and if i could have time and space to show you why, i believe that you would be convinced, if you don't already also have an agenda to insult and defame this good man.

He wrote an op-ed. he has written more than half a dozen books and many, many articles and he has a 40-year history of publication. This op-ed should not be so over-emphasized over that whole body of work--as it is in this case, where the *only* paragraph with any real prose discussion is this paragraph. Furthermore, this paragraph *only* summarizes the arguments of a couple of extreme right-wing attacks on it--rather than summarizing what is in the article itself. Those attacks claim that Reed said things that he simple didn't say, and distort the meaning and intention of the op-ed. Surely you can see that this is not an objective or fair representation of a man who--i can tell you--is a very good man. I have said that this is like allowing your enemies to put a defamatory tattoo on your face. Please help me right this terrible wrong.

Thank you!!! Judy99 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Judy99[reply]

You don't need the {{help me}} tag when asking a specific editor a question, this is for general questions. Also new talk page sections go at the bottom of the page. -- Patchy1 02:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donna Campbell.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Campbell

Hi,
I'm afraid there was a rather unfortunate situation at the Donna Campbell article: the original creator is an effectively banned editor who caused a lot of copyright problems for us over the last years; he often copies sentences from sources, or only makes superficial changes. As it was, there were such problems in the article, and although you rewrote large parts of it, I believe there were still fragments of the tainted text (or derivatives thereof) in the article. To protect the project and our re-users I believe I had no choice but delete it.
I noticed that you had your own article prepared at 'Articles for Creation' and took the liberty to move that draft to mainspace, as a new starting point. I'm very sorry your work was caught in the middle of this mess. Hopefully you can redo the modifications made since then.
If you have any questions about this, please ask.
Kind regards, Amalthea 10:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren

I see your edits are being changed by FurrySings. I believe this person has some kind of political agenda. I support your efforts and will do whatever I can to help. Odestiny (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the article is that some of the editors only see the Cherokee issue from the perspective of the last campaign. They think that it is only Warren's political opponents that are questioning her claims of Cherokee and, and to a lesser extent, Delaware ancestry. They refuse to point out in the article that Warren has never participated in Indian Country activities, has never taken on Indian political issues, etc. They are trying to argue that she called herself Cherokee one time and that it is being blown out of proportion for political reasons. As you know it is a big deal in Indian Country when people claim Indian ancestry and they can't prove it, and especially if it looks like they used that claim to receive benefits from the claim in job searches--as it certainly appears in Warren's case. They whole section is written from her perspective and the other side is not being put in the article, or when it is then certain editors remove it. Hopefully, you can assist in bringing balance to the article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Phelps

Hello, I'm MrX. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Fred Phelps seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Mr X 15:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revmqo

I noted with interest your comments on Revmqo's talk page. I'd be a little more careful with accusations of sockpuppetry, if I were you. Have a good day! Arbor8 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you've never edited as Edmonton7838, Corbridge, MikeJackson, Palmtree6600, Distressed, InaMaka, JobsElihu or Keetoowah? Arbor8 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke. Arbor8 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ExclusiveAgent. You have new messages at Gilderien's talk page.
Message added 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ExclusiveAgent. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth Warren shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newsweek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fool's errand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz 3RR

I don't know if you want to deal with the neo-birther shifting IP on the Cruz page or not. If you don't I'll take care of it on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm just jammed for time and can't allocate much for the perpetually stupid right now. Let me know? TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to deal with it on the 3RR board, but I have been worried that I would get slammed for 3RR myself. I would appreciate it if you could handle it. I also attempted to raise the issue of sockpuppets but it was not taken seriously by the admin. That's ok. I did not do a good job of making the case. But the Cruz article has been edited in exactly the same way--neo-birther--by 70.184.93.12, 70.192.195.88, 70.192.195.219, 70.192.208.61, and 70.192.203.171. Seems pretty clear there is some kind of sock puppet game or IP shifting, as you stated. Thank you for the assistance.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you uneducated about laws of nations in consider who is and who is a citizen from whom they claim duties? see Jus soli and the map clearly contains bboth US and Canada in Blue. Each nation can decide whom the consider their subjects. Iran does not recognize the categories of otter nations as to people they consider iranian citizens. But for Canadian and US law, those two nations claim anyone born within their jurisdiction, i.e. citizen by birth within their countries. 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Lingust (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbridge, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.