User talk:Dflav1138

Waverly Senior High School[edit]

Answer on my talk page. JoJan (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Spoiled brat appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lansing, Michigan. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at the Glenn Beck talk page[edit]

Maybe you should bother reading the article before you come walking in with a bunch of non-RS references and a couple that are already mentioned in the article. Just an idea. Also, as the Goldline "scandal" is not an example of bias, you might want to rethink the alternative posting spot. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have actually been helpful instead of instantly getting upset about it. Don't come to my talk page when you already answered on the Glenn Beck discussion page. Dflav1138 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read some guidelines before you go posting stuff on Wikipedia. I got "upset" because it is expected of editors to have at least a vague grasp of the rules before they go editing articles, especially articles of a controversial or contentious nature (i.e., Glenn Beck's BLP, or Media bias in the United States. If you had bothered to read Wikipedia's Guidelines on Reliable Sources, you would know that this, this, and this are blogs or satire are are not allowed to be used as RS's, and this one is a borderline opinion piece, and should be discussed before using. And it wouldn't have been all that hard to check the other two before posting them. I have no problem with people asking questions-and you are absolutely right, I should have been more clear on what I thought you were doing wrong-but I do have a problem with people not following the guidelines. I will post some helpful places to go on this page, in the hope that you will read some of them. I apologize for not being clear before, and for giving the appearance of not being helpful. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologizing, I am sorry as well for not checking the article before I edited the discussion section. It wasn't in the article yesterday and I messed up by not checking to see if it was on today. However, I did not edit the article in any way. I simply added in the discussion section that there were several sources (some reliable, some not) about Glenn Beck's gold sponsors. And the Daily show is mentioned in the article itself, so maybe adding the video of the segment would help readers get their information. I'm not trying to create a disturbance or anything, I'm really just trying to help. Dflav1138 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Dflav1138! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Carmel (film)[edit]

As you performed some work on it, I invite you to now revisit both the article and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel (film). Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YES! I like what you did, and i think there now is a very good chance this article can change. Am I allowed to change my vote on the decision? Dflav1138 (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is always alowed to change one's opinion based upon article improvements or sources found. Perhasps together we can make it better yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 11 January 2010 (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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]