Hello, Muinchille1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BigDuncTalk 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello--I just reverted your addition of a section to Nash equilibrium. It's clear you were trying to improve the article, so I don't want to discourage you and maybe you should try again. The section you added was more like an essay in tone than encyclopedic. I'm also not sure how much is needed in the article. Perhaps what you want to do is flesh out the section on the prisoner's dilemma a bit? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to pull it out again, and we can work it out at the article's talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello-Might as well try to keep personal discussion in one place, rather than back-and-forth between our talk pages. Discussion about specific articles should probably be on the article's talk pages so others can see and participate as well.
I'm sorry I've shocked you--I don't want to bite a newcomer. I appreciate that you're trying to improve the Nash equilibrium and other articles. I guess I'm not good enough at ascii-talk. I don't think your attempted improvements are really improvements, so while I know you're working in good faith, I don't want to leave in the article material which I think harms the article. Since we disagree about what's good, that's what article talk pages are for.
I've noticed that you've just made changes to Game theory as well. Your changes aren't quite accurate. I'll bring it up on the talk page rather than reverting right away on this one, so that maybe we can work it out rather than getting hostile. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so easy to find such a kind editor as Cretog8. Please consider it. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit was reverted, it has no references, or any clue as to it being true, it is not lost, however it is still availible, here Reverted Edits—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frozen4322 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Court (Ireland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
