User talk:Westie Boy

Speedy deletion of Rich Merritt

A tag has been placed on Rich Merritt 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rich Merritt has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://richmerritt.wordpress.com/But) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Merritt in the BJU article

The addition of material advertising Rich Merritt's book in the popular culture section of the BJU article is spam and therefore forbidden under Wikipedia rules.--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not spam, it is a reference in popular culture. Your definition is spam is erroneous. I am not advertising my book here, sir, I am simply making a note that it refers to Bob Jones University.

See Editor_assistance/Requests. (You can sign your posts by adding four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt's credit transfers

The statement that Merritt's credits only transferred to Clemson from BJU because of the intervention of Strom Thurmond is unproven. I don't question that Thurmond was on both the Clemson and BJU boards, only that he had to intervene in Merritt's behalf to insure that Merritt's credits transfered. Clemson regularly accepted BJU credits during the 1980s (and vice versa).--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent reversions at Bob Jones University violate WP:3RR.Hi540 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Hi540 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Bob Jones University. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{ }} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Westie Boy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a new user / editor and was not aware of the policy. I was surprised at the speed at which those opposed to my selections have attacked them by deleting them. Given that, I need to know how to get assistance from Wikipedia to stop them from deleting my entries. Their deletions are purely due to homphobia and prejudice.

Decline reason:

You were given a WP:3RR warning before the block, so it's not convincing to say you were "unaware" of the policy. After your block expires, avoid edit wars by seeking consensus on the talk page first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Westie Boy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not receive (or see) the warning until after I had reverted the edit, therefore I was unaware of the policy.

Decline reason:

I almost unblocked you til I noticed you DID revert again after the warning was posted to your talk page; if you did not click the banner saying you had new messages, that does not change that you were notified of the policy. You were first notified at 9:16 my time, and blocked at 13:56; you reverted at 11:13, between the two instances. As for needing assistance, please read WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:3O and WP:DR in general. Edit-warring is never a valid option. — Golbez (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm being penalized for being new to Wikipedia. I did not read the message until after I had reverted. I was not aware that CORRECTING someone else's malicious mistake was inappropriate. I find that appalling. However, I will learn these complicated procedures - the editors who are attacking me are obviously much more experienced at manipulating Wikipedia's rules to further their prejudicial agenda

I have protected your talk for a few hours to stop you from misusing the unblock template. When you return off of your block, why don't you go and edit a different article to the one you were working on? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Merritt

Are you Rich Merritt? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC) NoWestie Boy (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC) you can reach him through his website link on this page (we share a love of Westies!)Westie Boy (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]