RainBowAndArrow (talk | contribs) →SEPIL: new section |
RainBowAndArrow (talk | contribs) →State Sponsored Terror/ArbCom: new section |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
Well! Can you calm down a bit with the restoration of the SEPIL page (and associated content changes)? It's better to discuss than to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]], especially when you've already been reverted. Thanks! [[User:Falcon9x5|Fin]][[Special:Contributions/Falcon9x5|©]][[User talk:Falcon9x5|™]] 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
Well! Can you calm down a bit with the restoration of the SEPIL page (and associated content changes)? It's better to discuss than to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]], especially when you've already been reverted. Thanks! [[User:Falcon9x5|Fin]][[Special:Contributions/Falcon9x5|©]][[User talk:Falcon9x5|™]] 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== State Sponsored Terror/ArbCom == |
|||
Hello. Was having a [[WP:STALK|look]] through your contributions and saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=307359329 this] edit, which I'm fairly sure violates the ArbCom ruling against you. I've given [[User:PhilKnight]] a [[User_talk:PhilKnight#Lapsed_Pacifist_-_ArbCom_violation.3F|heads up]] about it, just so you know. Thanks! [[User:Falcon9x5|Fin]][[Special:Contributions/Falcon9x5|©]][[User talk:Falcon9x5|™]] 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:02, 12 August 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
AfD nomination of Shell to Sea Fleet
I have nominated Shell to Sea Fleet, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell to Sea Fleet. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
New MedCab Case
Well! I've put together a new MedCab case. This one should move along much faster! Thanks! Fin©™ 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to harp on about it, but in the case ground rules, you did agree to not any of the articles related to the Corrib gas project, for the duration of the case. While the ground rules are not binding, i'd ask you to honour your agreement. I also need an opening statement from you, on the case talk page. Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I've started mediation and brought up some topics if you would like to add your thoughts GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I see that you reverted an edit that I made to Zionist political violence. I believe that you misunderstood the nature of my edit. Palestinian is not an article about Palestinians, it is disambiguation page listing possible meanings for the word "Palestinian", I believe that Palestinian people is the link most appropriate for the meaning of the use of "Palestinian" that I replaced. I have reverted it back. Cheers. J04n(talk page) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Editwar warning
In Fascism your repeated deletion of material under current RfC, may be construed as editwarring. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Blue links
Hi LP, just a note about adding blue links to Exodus from Lydda. Much of what you're adding is already linked, or goes to a disambig page, or is low-value blue and likely to be removed. We're hoping to get it to FA, so the less low-value or repetitive blue, the better. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent revert
LP, please read WP:DASH before making such edits again (referring to the recent IDF edits). The redirect was my mistake, and I will leave it there. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
RDS
So what was the argument that the RDS article should use US language? It is an Anglo Dutch joint venture... --BozMo talk 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
edit summaries
What, precisely, did you intend by using the edit summary of "If you're a Nazi, sure it is)"? Collect (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to enter an edit war. Please see Talk:Kettling cheers. Smartse (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cuban assistance to the FSLN
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cuban assistance to the FSLN. 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 "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/Cuban assistance to the FSLN. 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) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist
time for appeal.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Collect
I am currently involved with an arbitration involving User:Collect at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect, which was established after mediation failed to resolve disputes between Collect and many other users. The arbitrators want to know whether Collect has continued the practices discussed in order to decide whether to proceed. I noticed that in the last week you have come into conflict with this editor and would appreciate if you could comment on it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit War at Dick Cheney
Please, rather than simply reverting edits at Dick Cheney, can you actually talk about the issue on the talk page. Please explain wny you believe your version is better. Thank you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me
I would be grateful if you could kindly contact me: john@shellnews.net (John Donovan) Johnadonovan (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Pat O'Donnell
I have nominated Pat O'Donnell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
I have nominated An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Changes to Rush Limbaugh not compliant with American English
In a recent edit to the page Rush Limbaugh, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. --Allen3 talk 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Examples of the edit in question are [1]], [2], [3]. The correct demonym for citizens of the United States of America is "American" not "United States". --Allen3 talk 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have noticed that you disagree with a number of people on this issue. In addition to the various people who have reverted your efforts at Rush Limbaugh, you can add the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which shows United States only as a noun while American has an accepted adjective form. Similar results are available from Dictionary.com ([4] & [5]). --Allen3 talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am contending that every grammar guide and dictionary of American English I have checked shows "American" is an accepted demonyn while "United States" is only used as a noun. This has nothing to do with your ability to extrapolate a new word usage from the first part of a proper name. Are you contending that your personal knowledge and expertise in American English is superior to publishing houses such as Houghton Mifflin, Merriam–Webster, Random House, and Simon & Schuster? --Allen3 talk 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I did answer your question although perhaps not in the manner you would have preferred. Your premise is that it is possible to extrapolate a usage based upon just part of a proper noun. This is a false assumption that is contradicted by multiple published sources such as the two online dictionaries I cited above. --Allen3 talk 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Seems that you have a conflict interest given your involvement in an anti-Shell campaign. You should be more careful to include both sides and avoid sentences that objectively do not give much information, but suggest and force a certain conclusion upon the reader. Stepopen (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shell Nigeria. 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. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Fascism in the political spectrum
The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:
- Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.
- Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.
Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC
The Four Deuces (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".
- Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.
- Please take a look: here.
Image cleanup
There is a copyvio purge going on, well it is not all about copyvios but a general image cleanup trying to save images. Maybe you can help out because while quickly looking through some of the pages I noticed that several of your images have no descriptions and some have broken information templates. Perhaps you can fix them yourself as you know what you uploaded and I am sure you will describe them far better than I. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Rossport Solidarity Camp
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rossport Solidarity Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossport Solidarity Camp. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GainLine ♠ ♥ 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
My User and Talk Pages
As mentioned here:- [6]. Nothing has changed since then, I also include my user page in this. Please do not edit either of these. If you wish to engage constructively then please do so on articles talk pages. GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
SEPIL
Well! Can you calm down a bit with the restoration of the SEPIL page (and associated content changes)? It's better to discuss than to be bold, especially when you've already been reverted. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
State Sponsored Terror/ArbCom
Hello. Was having a look through your contributions and saw this edit, which I'm fairly sure violates the ArbCom ruling against you. I've given User:PhilKnight a heads up about it, just so you know. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)