User talk:Reacespeaces
Welcome!
[edit]
Your contributions
[edit]Try and make some constructive contributions to Wikipedia. You're griping excessively and uncivilly about an article to which you have contributed bugger all. Toirdhealbach (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well you've made a start; "Preservation of edible eggs is extremely important, as an improperly handled egg can contain salmonella. a bacteria that can cause severe food poisoning."
I suggest you now go back to the article and state a) what kind of mishandling can introduce salmonella bacteria in an egg, b) provide a citation for this information.Toirdhealbach (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave Camp/Aharon Friedman
[edit]Please discuss your edits on the Dave Camp talk page so we can figure out how best to add any necessary content to the article without a revert war. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All you are doing is defaming Camp and his staff and vandalizing and obstructing when the truth of the situation is covered. DesistReacespeaces (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Dave Camp shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please engage in discussion on the Dave Camp talk page. Your additions appear to be violations of WP:BLP and must be discussed before being added. Gobōnobo + c 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You're insane. Writing the truth is not vandalism. Erasing it is. Reacespeaces (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at David Camp shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wikipelli Talk 18:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
David Camp
[edit]You have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule. I notice that you were warned about this earlier today. You may be blocked from editing for a period of time as a result.
The subject of the article is something you obviously feel strongly about. I urge you to discuss the changes/additions you wish to make to the article on the talk page. There, you and other editors can come to consensus on the content to include. Simply reverting edits over and over will result in a block. Wikipelli Talk 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Reacespeaces (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I added factual and well researched material that was inconvenient to a far right religious group that was attacking a congressman over a beef they had with his aide. They kept erasing my edits without cause. Reacespeaces (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit warring. Wikipedia does not tolerate edit warring. The contents of your edits are irrelevant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
They kept erasing my edits for political reasons (to cover up their crimes) and I was simply trying to repost. I asked a moderator to protect the page as soon as I could. I don't see how I was edit warring as opposed to them.
- Had nothing to do with me being part of 'a far right religious movement', I don't even have a connection to the religious movement to begin with, either right left or moderate. It has everything to do with spending more time on the topic than this article should given the magnitude of relevance on the article subject. If you want to distill the counterpoint to one sentence, that's appropriate length, not 8 sentences. Otherwise, you could always create a stand-alone article on the subject, but I don't think it's notable enough. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ron wexler, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://copycatsedu.org/Bio%20-%20Ron.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ron wexler
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ron wexler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ten Commandments Commission
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Ten Commandments Commission, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. West Eddy (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ron wexler
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ron wexler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. West Eddy (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Ron wexler
[edit]Hello. Concerning your contribution, Ron wexler, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/RonWexler_MediaKit.pdf. As a copyright violation, Ron wexler appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Ron wexler has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ron wexler and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Ron wexler with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ron wexler.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ron wexler and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
[edit] Your addition to Ron wexler has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ron Wexler
[edit]A tag has been placed on Ron Wexler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Noom talk stalk 20:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)