User talk:Lokifer

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Ted Kennedy[edit]

Please desist from making your POV edits to the Ted Kennedy article. Rick K 23:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) Explain how stating the fact that the water was six feet deep is a POV.Lokifer 23:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. Rick K 23:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. It is a fact. I'm not questioning if he had the ability to save her or not. But the fact that the water was only six feet deep appears nowhere. The article sounds like the water was deeper than it actually was.Lokifer 23:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please document your contention and its significance. Rick K 00:03, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, please also explain its significance. You may also want to discuss this at Talk:Ted Kennedy, as I am not the only person who is questioning your motives with this edit, nor am I the first to revert it. Rick K 00:09, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That wording is much more NPOV. Rick K 00:50, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your original editing implied that Kennedy's attempts at rescuing her were either nonexistant or half-hearted. Rick K 01:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Thanks! Appreciate the time & the details you spent in making the revisions. Still don't know what MERC is, though... --allie 11:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:World War II veterans[edit]

This category is listed for deletion and its survival is uncertain. Please don't put more articles into it while the discussion is ongoing. This only creates more work for those of us who will end up having to empty it if the decision is to delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do You Like Stalking Me?[edit]

Stop tracking my edits and reverting them. CPS 05:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sticks, stones..but political affliations hurled at me don't hurt.Lokifer 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Lokifer has tracked down 5 different pages (Right-to-work law, Geto Boys, Talk:Nolan chart, Bill O'Reilly, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes) to revert my edits. This is in the course of one or two days. I know this is his idea of being "clever" (what other people deem being an asshole), but it isn't allowed on Wikipedia and probably isn't healthy for an old fossil like him to be doing anyway. Lokifer, do you look like this? Fellow army ass-kisser CPS 04:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Micah Wright[edit]

You should stop slandering Micah Wright. He has apologized for his actions. Further, you are adding lies and fiction to Wikipedia by creating new offenses which he has not committed. Please list credible links showing him talking to anti-war rallies or universities, for example. He also never claimed to have been ordered to execute civilians... this is pure fiction and you know it. Wikipedia is not your private right-wing blog... go elsewhere to spread your hate.

Re: Spitting Image Query[edit]

The issue I see with what you added is that you have to upgrade (i.e., pay) to see the sources. Which makes them questionable as refs. However csloat is entirely wrong in saying it "smacks of original research"- WP:OR states it can be counted on as OR if: * It introduces a theory or method of solution;

   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Newspaper articles do not get killed by any of these. I'd ask you to go to his talk page and talk to the editor in question. If you need me to get involved, I'll help. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States[edit]

Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]