Wyclefj

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Paul Shirley, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Paul Shirley was changed by Wyclefj (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.96193 on 2011-10-25T17:26:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the above automated message was probably not very helpful, so here is a human-written message, which I hope will help to clarify things. First of all, comments about what should or should not be in the article ("Shouldn’t there be some discourse ...") belong not in the article Paul Shirley, but rather on the article's talk page (or discussion page) at Talk:Paul Shirley. Secondly, messages to other people not related to work on building the encyclopaedia ("Dear Haitians...") do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a web forum or blog, and posting your own personal ideas, opinions, or suggestions not related to building the encyclopaedia is out of place. There are plenty of places where that sort of thing is fine, but Wikipedia is not one of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm quoting the article itself, not editorializing.

Yes, so I see. I just saw your edit, and didn't check its context in the article, which of course I should have done. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)