|
Hi ZHurlihee,
Thanks for your solid work on the article on hydraulic fracturing. I was a little confused by one of your deletions, though. You deleted a large chunk of well-sourced text (which someone had no doubt worked hard on) under the rationale that it was redundant with the article on the FRAC act. However, that text wasn't to be found in the latter article, nor was an even remotely equivalent section. I agree that it's good to cut down redundancies and tighten up articles, but valuable information can get lost if we're overzealous with deletion. I've added the text you deleted to the FRAC act article, and added a template - ((main|Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act)) - to the section in the hydrofracking article so that interested users can know that there's another article that deals with the subject in more depth. I hope you find this solution satisfactory. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, before an edit war started, I posted on the JWL Talk page my reasoning for why the National Geographic link should be kept on the page. Feel free to discuss it with me there! jlcoving (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
For your contributions and adding a dose of reality to the Phoenix Program |
Well done on your up hill effort to bring a little balance to the article. The tough part is trying to keep it balanced. V7-sport (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jamie Leigh Jones. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have re-added the False accusation of rape article to the see also section of Jamie Leigh Jones today. You are already in violation of the 3RR, but I won't block you at this point, though should you continue, the odds are great of you being blocked. Courcelles 20:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What RFC is that? I can only help if it is quick, since I am very late in delivering a university project. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
These edits by yourself appear to have copy and pasted some material (entire, or almost entire sentences) from this source, without directly quoting the source. It is likely that this is a copyright violation. Would you be able to re-write in your own words, any additions to the article that were copy and pasted from copyrighted sources, and have not already been directly quoted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Z! Noticed your work on Koch articles, and also that there is no nav box for Koch-related articles. There are plenty of articles, see Category:Koch family. Wondering if you were up to creating a box? – Lionel (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For any appeals, please contact BASC. –xenotalk 01:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)