3rr |
Financeguy222 (talk | contribs) your disallowed sources require no further input, and have been proved disallowed in the past by others. |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
==N21 article== |
==N21 article== |
||
I have made a request for informal mediation, please make no further edits to the article until we have resolved it there - [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne]] |
I have made a request for informal mediation, please make no further edits to the article until we have resolved it there - [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne]] |
||
==Amway Australia== |
|||
{{uw-3rr}} |
|||
==Talkback== |
==Talkback== |
||
{{talkback|Fiftytwo thirty|ts=02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)}} |
{{talkback|Fiftytwo thirty|ts=02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 04:55, 22 April 2011
|
March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Network TwentyOne has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline 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. I removed the following link(s): http://network21amway.blogspot.com/ (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). 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. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Network TwentyOne
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not make mass deletions to an article without discussion in the talk page. If you believe something needs better sourcing (and I absolutely agree with you on that for some of this article) then it's better to add Wikipedia Template Tags --Insider201283 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, again, please refer to Talk:Network_TwentyOne rather than make wholesale deletions. I will discuss your concerns there. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Network_TwentyOne. I don't want have to take this to dispute resolution. The sources explictly support what you're saying they don't --Insider201283 (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Reversion of other users edits
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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- For crying out loud FG222 - READ THE TAG ...You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Financeguy222
F., please stop reverting edits. If you do so again your account will be blocked fro 24 hours. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Will Beback talk 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the process. You're not adding WP:CORP - that's a guideline not a tag. The tag you've been added is WP:PROD. Proposed deletion tags may be added to any article once, but if they're removed they should not be restored. The next step would be to nominate the article for deletion, WP:AFD. If you'd like to do so you're welcome to. But I suggest it'd be better to wait a few days for the article to settle a bit, and to give the other editor an opportunity to find whatever sources are available. Will Beback talk 03:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Yes, trying my best to understand it all, and do what's best for WP. I was re-adding it since the editor did not give any reason in the summary, as is required, but they did in the last. Financeguy222 (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for stepping back. See WP:CONTESTED for the details of removing PROD tags, but that's now a moot point so you needn't worry about it. One of the quickest ways to get blocked is by violating WP:3RR, which has only a couple of narrow exemptions. It's best to avoid reverting entirely. Will Beback talk 07:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Network TwentyOne
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Network TwentyOne. 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").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
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) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please use Talk
Again I request that you please use the talk page of articles to discuss issues you may have with them. This is of particular importance regarding controversial topics. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do we have to got to edit warring again? Or do you want to try the mediation/arbitration path? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I again request you review Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and discuss issues in talk rather than edit warring. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the actual sources instead of blindly deleting. N21 sued for copyright violations and won. Amway sued for defamation and won. The sources say this, even if you have to use google translate you can see that. The Amway aspects of the case are what make it independently notable from the sources we have, and are required for context and balance. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The lead should contain notable controversy. As you yourself have pointed out, these two "controversies" have received very little coverage. As such they are not notable enough for the lead and including them there is WP:UNDUE - indeed the UK case isn't even notable enough for the main body of the article. However, in the interests of achieving some kind of consensus with you, I've been including the information. However you continue to insist, with regard UK, on removing the fact the case was dismissed in the lead (which makes it even less notable). You also continue to refuse to discuss issues in talk, either on your page or on the article page. If you persist in this kind of disruptive behaviour I will take this to WP:DISPUTE --Insider201283 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the actual sources instead of blindly deleting. N21 sued for copyright violations and won. Amway sued for defamation and won. The sources say this, even if you have to use google translate you can see that. The Amway aspects of the case are what make it independently notable from the sources we have, and are required for context and balance. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I again request you review Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and discuss issues in talk rather than edit warring. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
My arguments have already been made clear, and my points in edit notes continue to be ignored, and suddenly you're just edit warring the last week after a month of nothing, without discussing it, and continually reverting back in the broken link, and unsourced data, you obviously have not checked them. Go ahead, dispute. Financeguy222 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- (1) No links I am aware of are "broken". (2) your "points" are often outright lies (3) Check N21 talk page, you have barely contributed to discussion. I am submitting the case to informal dispute resolution.
N21 article
I have made a request for informal mediation, please make no further edits to the article until we have resolved it there - Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne
Talkback
Message added 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.