User talk:Cpl Syx

Talkback

Please leave your talkback boxes here.

---

---

Previous edit/unconstructive.

Sorry about that previous edit that has already been reverted. Was not constructive in the least, however it was a tad entertaining. Thanks for putting it back and not taking it completely serious.

- Some random Wiki user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.72.252 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Stop reverting at such a quick rate! There are other vandal-fighters trying to get their share of edits. I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 13:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That has to be one of the best comments left for me in quite some time! Keep up the good work, and hopefully we can stem the ever-flowing tide of vandalism :D Cpl Syx ^[talk] 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from 70.162.90.165

thats what i got from the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.90.165 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

i do declare sir that you have not read the wikipedia rules and they state that you may edit what you belive are facts in the article and thats what i did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.90.165 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Access Denied is Back

Is almost definitely a sock of Access Denied (talk · contribs), a notorious puppetmaster. Watch him get blocked very, very shortly... GiantSnowman 02:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would expect nothing less! ;) Cpl Syx ^[talk] 02:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Occupiers Liability Act 1957

The amendment i made in this page at the end of the section headed 'Independent contractors' to the word 'ensured' was a legitimate correction. You might like to learn some law and common sense to note that "there was no "free-standing duty" to take reasonable steps to ensure an independent contractor was Insured(not Ensured)" before undoing my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.101 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct; I incorrectly read the paragraph upon verifying it. My apologies - however I do not appreciate your tone as we are all invited to be bold. Cpl Syx ^[talk] 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the andrews osborne academy equestrian section because I attend the school and they have just discontinued the program.