Your recent edit to User:Sellick666 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if your username, when taken in conjunction with the fact that the only three edits you have made are reverting (directly or indirectly) edits by User:Calton is in breach of the username policy, as it is not a huge leap to read it as being aimed at that user. Is this the case? Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. NoCal is short for Northern California, where I hail from. Reading your above comment as well as the one you left on the administrator's noticeboard leads me to believe you are not assuming good faith. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to Kate Mulgrew reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to User:Sellick666 where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring at the above page.
While I'm here, I should point out that my apology above was conditional - "if your edits are entirely coincidental then I happily apologise". You added your "Northern California" userbox after my comment, and after your edits at List of fictional ducks, User:Sellick666, Kate Mulgrew - all of which were edit warring with User:Calton - I don't harbour any thoughts that your edits are in any way coincidental. In the case of List of fictional ducks in particular, you're merely continuing another edit war over Croppy the Puletide Duck that a number of other editors and IPs have been involved in with Calton over the months.
Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. GBT/C17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess if you try hard enough, you can twist and turn everything into an anti-Calton statement. I am not British, and have never heard of the ton=100 slang until you brought it up here. Give me a few weeks, and I'll show you how Giles Bennet is in fact a some contortion of the same. Frankly, I find you lack of good faith, as well as one-sidedness, appalling. As you note, several editors (I count at least 3, other than myself) , who have opposed Calton on that article, yet for some strange reason, you come here to warn me, not Calton, about edit warring, and on Calton's page, rather than telling him to cease his disruptive behavior, you encourage him to continue and oppose me, while making baseless accusations of sock puppeting against me. Please review your own behavior in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The obligation is to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary - given your contributions from the outset of your editing here, I feel I have enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith on your part. I have no issue with my behaviour in this case, nor, actually, do I have any issue with Calton's behaviour on List of fictional ducks - the entry you are warring over is completely non-notable, the article to which it relates has been removed, and there is no practical justification for its entry. Perhaps you could take time out from your unrighteous indignation to explain your first four edits, and why, all of a sudden, you have turned up at List of fictional ducks if not to stalk Calton's edits? GBT/C05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see any problem with your behavior, perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge about our blocking policy, seeing as you've already made threats to have me blocked. The policy on blocks for edit warring clearly says, in case you missed it, 'In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.' - you have failed to do so, coming here to warn me about edit warring, and going to Calton's page not to issue a similar warning, but rather to encourage his disruptive edit warring. Now, you may have several reasons to come here - perhaps you would like to take Calton's side in this content dispute, as an editor - in which case I suggest you take this to the appropriate place - the Talk page of the article, and make your point there. Perhaps you are just here to let me know you are Calton's friend - in which case - I got your message, move along. But if you are here as an administrator supposedly concerned with putting an end to edit warring - then you have failed in your job miserably - you have issued one-sided warnings, and intervened on behalf of an editor who is edit warring against consensus - you have conceded there are numerous editors other than myself who disagree with Calton's position on that page. Please review your conduct. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't believe I've made any threats to have you blocked for edit warring, nor have I encouraged Calton's actions - I have suggested that he take you to WP:RFCU, as your contributions give rise to sufficient suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of another account to merit a checkuser. The fact that you war with him on two separate articles within your first four article edits are a bit of a giveaway, frankly, something which you fail to address...but since you fail also to address your coincidental arrival, and automatic adoption of a position opposite to Calton, at List of fictional ducks then I'm not particularly surprised.
I'm not here as an editor (although you are notable by your own absence from the talk page of the article) nor am I here as a friend of Calton (perhaps you should have a look through our historic encounters to work out why I think that's one of the more amusing suggestions I've come across). I'm here because as with, say, User:Former User 2 before you, I think you're only warring to make a WP:POINT and to deliberately cross swords with Calton. That it happens to be on List of fictional ducks this time is irrelevant - it is merely a continuation of whatever grudge you harbour from earlier in this account and your previous accounts. The more you moan and groan about others' actions, whilst failing to address or explain your own, the more evident this becomes. GBT/C11:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite amusing that someone who has already violated 3RR on that page, by edit warring and reverting 3 different editors, comes here to lecture me about edit warring, for my single revert. Don't you? Have you read this article yet? NoCal100 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am helping with the project, which is more that I can say for you. Thanks for the link - now get to work, editing within policy, and without edit warring. NoCal100 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, NoCal100, don't think we've met. While I'm past horrified at William Connolley's behavior (he deleted the comments of many editors on that page already), it was only a matter of time before Eleland deleted your comments anyway, You can do as I did, and complain on Phil's talk page. That would have the advantage of putting him on the record (assuming he actually gave a meaningful reply, which is perhaps hoping too much). It would have the disadvantage of almost certainly not changing his behavior. Cheers. IronDuke02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a few weeks ago you indef blocked the account ofUser:Obaminator, and remarked that "Creating sockpuppet accounts to question other people's accounts" is not appropriate. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harrass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. Notice the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, thesame insinuations with regard toUser:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. At a minimum, you should privately communicate to him/her that such behavior will not be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undatedcomment was added at 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the notice NoCal100. It's late over here. I'll be looking in depth at the situation and consult the view of some admins (mainly the ones participating in that thread) by tomorrow. Regards. -- fayssal - wiki up®03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NoCal100! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re this comment: It seems to me that possibilities include a misunderstanding, difference of opinion, or typographical error ("hasn't" instead of "hadn't"). Please assume good faith; it's quite fine to point out incorrect statements by other editors but I see no need to use words like "disingenuous". Also please try to move most of that type of discussion to user talk or someplace so it doesn't distract people from discussion of article content. Thanks. I'm also putting a comment on PR's talk page about a comment on that article talk page. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
Hi,
All the following group actions are considered as terrorism acts by their enemies and resistance, fight for freedom or legal acts by their supporters. So, you cannot put any of these whether in the category terrorism whether in the category fight for freedom. The only opportunity is political violence. That is the way I understand the recommandation words to avoid :
I am fine with removing all the named groups from their respective "terrorism" categories (and those categories as well) because I agree that this opens the door to many disputes. What I am opposed to is the creation of 2 categories "Zionist terrorism" and "Palestinian terrorism", and then depopulating just one of them - which is what I saw you doing. Perhaps you simply weren't aware that these two new categories were created. NoCal100 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed (for the second times) all the articles that were in Zionism terrorism category
I am not after the admiration of the Jews. I don't need their love. I have to study and write, and I intend to ensure that my writings will live as well. With or without the blessing of Kahane and the other religious leaders from Jerusalem. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against wp:rs sources, I will destroy him and his pov, with or without our famous neutrality of point of view. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law.(*)
Sorry, I'm quite new to editing wiki and I'm not familiar with the three-revert rule. I have no intention to start an "editing war". I simply thought that my edit didn't go through (unfortunately there is no confirmation page), so I tried to edit the page again. After that I realized (through the history page) that someone has been revising my edit, so I used the undo function to restore my previous edit.
Lets make it simple. Taiwan is NOT a country. Period. It is not recognized by the UN, and that's probably the most fair standard to make a judgment on this topic.
I have no intention to argue with Jayjg (or anyone) on this topic (Taiwan is/isn't a country) using the talk page.
If he/she is allowed to state that Taiwan is an independent country, I have the right to state that it isn't (with the fact that UN and most of the countries do not recognize Taiwan as a country).
The reason why I chose not to discuss/argue with the editor(s) over the Taiwan issue is because I know it is not going to get anywhere. This is a well known controversial problem. However, as stated by the UN, Taiwan is NOT a country, and to me that is more than enough to conclude that "Taiwan is not a country", at least up to this moment.
People who support Taiwan Independence will just claim that UN + most of the countries in the world are wrong/affected by China.
The point is, Wikipedia has to build up/maintain its reputation. I don't think ignoring UN's opinion and claim that Taiwan is an independent country is going to help.
Do you mean that as long as I post the the discussion onto the editor's talk page, whether or not we come up with an agreement on the topic, I can edit the page at my own will (while not violating the three-revert rule) and not get banned/blocked?
I've noticed some comment about the Apartheid article but I'd rather avoid a possibly unproductive conflict. In general, I thought it would be worth noting that Kuwait Times is not the best of wiki-sources (I can't see it as WP:RS for Israeli affairs) and that proper sources would use proper terminology. JaakobouChalk Talk12:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marlith (Talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I just stumbled on the SSP report but didn't see the AN/I report. I hear the RFCU is backlogged big-time and thus is probably a waste of time. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, just wanted to congratulate you on your response to the ANI report filed against you by AK3 ... You couldn't have been more succinct, and I believe it is sufficient response for all but the most blatantly biased among us. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, I blocked Ashley kennedy3 (talk·contribs) for edit-warring at Banias. Of your own involvement, I am less certain. It's obvious that someone came in anonymously to do the final revert which pushed Ashley over the edge to 4RR. Since the anon reverted to your last version, it would seem plausible that it was you. Since I am not certain though, I have posted at ANI to ask for more admin opinions. If you have any comments on the matter, I am very interested in them. --Elonka23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to commend you for not jumping to any hasty and unwarranted conclusions while I was offline. My comments are simple: I am not the anon IP who reverted prior to Ashley's 4th revert. I have no problem with you blocking that IP address, or running a checkuser to confirm what I am claiming. If you'd like, I can also e-mail you, in private, my IP address and how to validate it without needing a CU. I realize I was drawn into an edit war and reverted more than I probably should have (though, as you note, I did not violate 3RR, nor did I revert after your warning on the Talk page) - due in part to being quite upset at having Ashley come off his 5 week block for personal attacks against me, and immediately continuing his personal attacks - calling me a vandal, and a sockpuppet, without a shred of evidence. As a gesture of goodwill, I am willing to withdraw from the Banias article for the duration of Ashley's block, so it does not seem like I am taking advantage of his block to "win" the content dispute. NoCal100 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NoCal100. :) I have a request, concerning the Israeli settlement article? Per WP:LEAD, the top section of the article is supposed to be a summary of what is elsewhere in the article. As such, any sources there should really be extra references to what's already in the body of the article, rather than being sources which appear only in the lead, and not anywhere else. As such, per this change,[1] could you please find some other location in the article to put the actual citations? Then in the lead, a named ref can simply be included, such as "<ref name=samaria/>". I think that might help clarify the dispute here, so it's not a page of text constantly being added and removed. Make sense? :) --Elonka16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're going to be reverting on an article, you really need to be participating in the discussions on the talkpage of that article. I checked, and you haven't posted anything at Talk:Israeli settlement in weeks. Please try to remedy that? Thanks, --Elonka16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I see that you are also reverting at West Bank, but again, without participating at the talkpage. This is disruptive. Please consider this a warning, that if you continue this practice, then per WP:ARBPIA, your account may be banned from editing in this topic area, or blocked entirely. --Elonka16:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zarqa River, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Ah, the person didn't sign off his/her post so I assumed it was you. I thought you were simply attacking me and then telling me not to be personal....lol.
Hi,
I explained why the title was pov-ed. Explain me why it is not on the talk page and I could change my mind. Provide wp:rs sources of higher quality than mine with the current title if you have any.
If you revert me, this will not be considered as a content issue anymore but typically a behaviour issue and refusal of respecting wp:principles of discussions. Ceedjee (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Following the normal process for dispute resolutions, I asked Gatoclass to come and give his mind. Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with Tarc on The Serenity Now, I do agree that it's seriously uncool to follow him from an unrelated dispute. I'm too involved to feel comfortable getting more involved, but if I weren't, I'd ask you to keep your dispute contained to I-P articles, and not follow him around. Those of us who don't find the battle as exciting as you two do would like to not have to deal with it everywhere else. --barneca (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded at the AN/I thread. In a nutshell, checking an editor's contribution history in an attempt to find and correct problems similar to those encountered in another article (e.g- WP:BLP violations) is explicitly described as appropriate at WP:HOUND. NoCal100 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using the talk page to explain my edits. The other party to the dispute has not. For some reason, you chose to warn me but not him. go figure...
Could you please have a look at these articles because what happens there seems to me not very wise and a little bit not in compliance with wp:npov but rather more with wp:soap. Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not acceptable. He appears to be flaming out right now, violating 3RR, attacks in edit summaries, etc. I think it's going to come to a head soon. Jayjg (talk)04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to know that coming as close to violating the 3RR as you did a few times tonight is looked down upon, especially when performing them so quickly. WP:BRD is fine, but WP:Edit warring like that will probably half the time result in a block if the edit-warring is noticed by admins. I'm not gonna block you here, but please keep this in mind. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You undid an edit of mine, with the following personal attack - "tighten lead - remove irrelevant material, material sourced to TAlk page discussions , and POV-pushing
You removed references to the Ottoman empire, the Yishuv, or Palestinian Jews, and Muslim and Christian Palestinians. I could not find the deleted material on the talk page. Nor could I see any recent comments by you.
you also deleted the following section -
Attacks, such as the Deir Yassin massacre and market bombings, are widely described as terrorism by historians. During the last months of the Mandate, there were also forced expulsions of whole villages of Arab Palestinians followed by the destruction of the villages.
It is debated whether Zionist political violence ceased or intensified following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948[2].
Please can you explain your reasoning on the talk page for the article, explaining which information you consider to be irrelevant, and which to be POV pushing, and have the courtesy to copy any referenced material you wish to delete there.
I was particularly puzzelled by your deletion of the brief definition of zionism.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed reverted your edits, but there was no personal attack on you. I have explained my edits on talk, please read WP:BRD and don't redo them until you have consensus for your changes on talk. NoCal100 (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry - I didn't mean to put rvv - I was typing something along the lines of revert to non-unilateral version, but the fill in box popped up and selected rvv - unfortunately you can't edit edit summaries.
I do strongly disagree with your reversion of my edit to the Lieberman article - "Jewish cities on disputed territories" is horribly weaselly, and is something to be avoided big time (and as such, I've restored the proper wording). пﮟოьεԻ5720:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i don't want to keep converting colourinthemeaning's disruptive "crusade" in those neighborhoods - gilo, neve yaakov, pisgat zeev, east talpiot, har homa, ramot, but he is determined to make this change even though it has no encyclopedic signficance - it already says that the u.n didn't support annexation, but they are not settlements per se, and they're obviously neighborhoods. hope you as an experienced wiki editor can stop that...
There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[3].
I have not been deleting any material and have provided a multitude of WP:RS sources that fully support the inclusion of the material contained in my edits. Deliberate attempts to remove facts or reasonable interpretation of facts degrades the encyclopedia and may be considered vandalism. harlan (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.
This article IS being discussed on it's talk page. So I'm not really sure why you've issued me with a warning and not the other user?Wodge (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee thanks, I find your concern for newbies truly overwhelming. Just one thing though perhaps you might like to read the talk page, next time, and check whether a reversion dispute is actually ongoing before issuing warnings. Wodge (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wikifan12345 Talks like he was God Almighty. I took your note to heart and removed a reference in the Berkely piece that didn't refer to her. And will not re-insert it. Now, tell me where in the Heavenly hierarchy does Wikifan12345 pluck his harp. Because if he is God Almighty I'm packing it in ofcourse. You can't argue with the deity. But maybe he's just a "douche" which is how someone signed an anonymous note to me on my talk page. The first note I recieved there. But like I said, he he rules here at WicciWorld I'll just crawl back to Google News and mind my own business. your Whippersnapper1(talk) 10:02PM PST, 22 March 2009.
So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that, and I see that he's been systematically trying to push Cole's view into every article he can find. I don't really have time to argue with him on every article; as it is, even on the MEMRI article, as you can see, he is willing to repeat the same opinions an infinite number of times, despite having been soundly refuted again and again. Of course, we've also seen that at A land without a people for a people without a land. If he continues in this way, he'll probably have to be brought to the attention to one of the Admin or related boards. Jayjg (talk)03:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and leave me alone, you got something to complain about take it somewhere else. though a serial wikihounder making a complaint that one user reverted one edit might not get the reception you are looking for. Nableezy (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, it is much simpler, you just leave me alone. And consider this a formal notice of being in danger of violating the 3RR rule on my talk page. Nableezy (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure i did, look at the history of the article. I had that on my watchlist since you baited Nickhh into a block. Now leave me alone Nableezy (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mount Hebron. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Removal of sourced content from this article using false and misleading edit summaries is disruptive. please stop it. --neon whitetalk06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NoCal100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
really, do you have an issue with notifying users when you file a report? Or should I just do the same whenever I need to report you for something? Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this user colourinthemeaning [6] comes every once in a while and changes the lead of several articles to fit his POV in a very strange way. Even CNN and New York Times don't call them settlements which is clearly POV [7]. I don't know why he insist to say "settlements and neigborhoods". Neighborhoods is not disputed. Settlements are discussed in later sentences. He does this incessantly and he must be stopped, and watched. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input into this topic. You may or may not be aware that Mediation is due on these articles. I'd ask that if you are going to edit on these articles that you do so with care. There has been quite a lot of confrontation already and I personally would like to try and avoid it as it just seems to spiral things to a point where nothing is achieved. Your input is more than welcome though and please feel free to contribute on the discussions page as well. Look forward to it. Cheers! GainLine ♠ 15:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi NoCal. I have Ramot watchilisted and have noticed that you have reverted 3 times in the last two days to "remove redundancy" [8], [9], [10]. I don't agree with your rationale and neither do Colouinthemeaning and LapsedPacifist. Could you refrain from repeating this edit again and instead work on improving the article which is very poorly sourced and lacking in in-line citations? If you feel that the issue you are raising needs to be discussed further, please open a section on the talk page. Thanks. Tiamuttalk04:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Could you also please remove the NPOV tag at Lydda Death March. My nomination of it for a DYK was given preliminary approval just about an hour before you tagged it. I think I've addressed the concerns you raised there and would appreciate it if the article wasn't needlessly defaced by the tag when it appears on the main page. Thanks. Tiamuttalk05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that I have this talkpage on my watchlist. I'm learning lots of new stuff. I looked through the Lydda Death March article, and while the article is well-written and interesting, I also have some concerns about the article's neutrality. All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans. Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims. Ideally, such outstanding claims should be supported by reliable and mainstream sources that have a reputation of neutrality. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.
In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.
Hi, merge discussions take place on the page we merge to. The link on the template led to the talk page of the Vulcan (race) article. It reminded me though of the merging idea, I had completely forgotten about it. Alastairward (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: diff: .. ;), OK, you caught me. I admit that I did indeed see your post with that point. I guess I'll have to plead guilty of plagiarism, since I thought it was a very good, valid, and relevant point to make. — Ched : ? 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, re what we were talking about on the AE page about whether arbs could pass the test they were holding others to. You might think about posting to each arbs' talk page and asking them what they think, in terms of whether they could pass that test. It would be important, of course, not to be or to seem combative or unpleasant... but I myself would very much like more guidance on what's expected in these areas, because I don't really know anymore. IronDuke20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On June 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polestar Racing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flash Engineering, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Capital Athletic Foundation. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Polestarracing.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Non-notable class of model airplanes. Neither of the reference currently included in the article appear to be from reliable sources. Searching for additional sources comes up with a few additional mentions, no actual coverage in reliable sources that would pass the WP:GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your recent edit to User:Sellick666 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Palestine Liberation Organization has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Flying Aces (magazine) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
