User talk:Skeptical Dude

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Verbal chat 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theory. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you on my talk page, you need to justify your edit on the article talk page and get agreement there. WP:BRD. Verbal chat 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Morningside Drive (Wasington DC), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Morningside Drive (Wasington DC) was moved to Morningside Drive (Washington DC) by Skeptical Dude (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-07-04T22:19:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to English language. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTVAND. That edit is clearly not vandalism. Your can revert it and ask for justification, but it is not vandalism and this template is unjustified. Please strike. Verbal chat 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him the Vandalsim warning because of the "silly fools" comments in his edit summary, and the content of his edit. It's not a legitimate edit, as "Anglo-Saxon" is a valid term in reference to the England of that time, not the belief of "silly fools". He needs to be warned for something here, so if you can suggest a more-appropriate warning, I'll cahnge it. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being mistaken is not vandalism, nor is a rude edit summary. The {{uw-vandalism2}} template is not justified. Please strike. If you want to give him a message write it in your own words without the implication the his edit was in bad faith. —teb728 t c 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it wasn't bad-faith, and from reviewing his edits, I decided not to extend GF. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saxony is quite simply not a location inside England, anyone who says otherwise is errant and foolish. Skeptical Dude (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the article whose link you keep deleting, Anglo-Saxon England, and also Anglo-Saxons. The term refers to England under the Anglo-Saxon invaders, some of whom were from Saxony; it's not about a particular place in England! My apologies if you genuinely didn't know this, but please inform yourself before making further changes to this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saxony is quite simply a place in Germany, not England. Are British people anglos? Skeptical Dude (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance, or some kind of game, but I'm done wasting my time trying to convine someone whose mind is already made up, one way or another. Further such edits will be treated as dispruptive (vabdalism), and handled accordingly. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you BilCat are an admin you should have your admin priviledges revoked for your inappropriate comments here on my talk page. You failed to note at least some other editors agreed with my changes. It is a fact that Saxony is a small part of Germany not England. Skeptical Dude (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other editors agreed with your change. Your change was simply wrong; we other editors just thought it might be a good-faith mistake. As BilCAt explained above, Anglo-Saxon England is not in Saxony but in England. Read the article. Your latest edit cannot be taken as good faith. So I retract my previous edit and add my own vandalism warning. —teb728 t c 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you actually are as ignorant as you portray yourself here, let me explain. Although some of the Anglo-Saxons may be descended from people who lived in Saxony, by definition they are not called “Anglo-Saxons” until they arrived in England The Anglo-Saxon Saxons lived in Wessex, Sussex, and Essex in England. The Old Saxon language of the continental Saxons is rather different from the Old English dialects of the Anglo-Saxons. —teb728 t c 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at English language, you will be blocked from editing. —teb728 t c 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is errant to imply as "Anglo-Saxon England" does that Saxony is a part of England because it is a part of Europe/Germany and I guess it to be very unlikely that a language developed in a location in which the two sub locations are separated by an English channel, language is more likely to develop on land. Also Saxony is rather small. Are you a sock puppet of user BilCat? The article must disassociate between ethniticy and geographical location. No one has responded to my critique of English being of "West Germanic" origin as possible lingering cold war propaganda? Do the kids these days even know what the cold war was? Skeptical Dude (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-saxon refers to the culture in England following the anglo-saxon invasion and before the norman conquest. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Morningside Drive (Washington DC)

The article Morningside Drive (Washington DC) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is not clear how this subject meets the notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]