User talk:Mootros/Archives/2011/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mootros. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your opinion on this page?
I noticed your reasoning on some deletion pages and wondered what you thought of this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Booth Largely created by one user based and most of the information is sourced from the subjects personal website biography. in correcting legally inpossible statements the creater accused users of vandalism. the biographical data of the wiki creator also happens to be very close to that of the subject of her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.190.81 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about this. I see the problem. However, best to only post a link here, without a specific opinion. Otherwise it can potentially be construed as canvassing. Mootros (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you!
Hi Mootros. My work does not allow me a big contribution to wikipedia, but I hope I can give some big-quality edits to wikipedia. By!--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
watch out for 3rr
There's a WP:3RR rule that you may have broken. It's better to revert yourself, and make sure you don't break it again (they will block you). Grey Fox (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Mootros (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you don't respond reasonably there soon, I will again remove the tags from the article. You don't get to tag a page just because you don't like it. You have yet to show what the problem is with the article's sourcing. Srnec (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. I reinstated the tag not because I don't like it, but because I dispute the factuality of this article. I think I have done this in a reasonable manner. See talk page for content issues. Mootros (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you dispute the factual accuracy, please cite a factual innacurate statement from the article and a reliable source that disagrees. If you claim it is OR, cite the claims in it that are original. Otherwise, your tags will be removed. Again. You don't get to tag a page just to purposefully prevent readers from believing it either. In fact, that's borderline vandalism. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- See talk page. Source provided. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you dispute the factual accuracy, please cite a factual innacurate statement from the article and a reliable source that disagrees. If you claim it is OR, cite the claims in it that are original. Otherwise, your tags will be removed. Again. You don't get to tag a page just to purposefully prevent readers from believing it either. In fact, that's borderline vandalism. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)