User talk:Eldesign87
BP
[edit]I have reverted your edit to BP. What you have raised is a legitimate parody of the BP logo; and possibly has a place in that article. I reverted it as you had included in the section on the current BP logo. If included, it needs to be clearly shown as a parody. It may also be better in the article about the oil spill?. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance. I was confused that have you referred to the Oil spill section in the BP logo article? Or have you suggested the Deepwater oil spill article? I have now added my contribution in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Can you please tell me is it ok now?
I have had a quick look at Deepwater Horizon oil spill and there is a section on Public opinion, which is where it should go. Your edit has been removed by someone else as 'not notable'. The problem is that BP is getting a lot of critism at the moment and the logo competition is just one of very many reports that could be included. Note that I said it was legitimate, meaning it was not vandalism, but not everything can go into Wikipedia. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: please sign your edits with four tildes (~)
July 2010
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Beagel (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The link to the blog has been spammed in the past; see also Special:Contributions/Flaminia, Special:Contributions/Aly pirani and Special:Contributions/221.132.112.182. --Ckatzchatspy 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Ckatzchatspy 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Bal Thackeray, you may be blocked from editing. Dolphin (t) 07:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Bal Thackeray, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Bal Thackeray was changed by Eldesign87 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85867 on 2011-03-08T07:33:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.