MusicInTheHouse (talk | contribs) |
Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) →Northern Ireland Flag: last warning |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:Do you need me to call an admin to explain the policy behind this or will you just stop making your changes?[[User talk:MusicInTheHouse|<font face="Mistral">'''<font color="000000">M</font><font color="770000">I</font><font color="BB0000">T</font><font color="FF6600">H</font></font>]] 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
:Do you need me to call an admin to explain the policy behind this or will you just stop making your changes?[[User talk:MusicInTheHouse|<font face="Mistral">'''<font color="000000">M</font><font color="770000">I</font><font color="BB0000">T</font><font color="FF6600">H</font></font>]] 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::No need, I'm here already. C of E, I'll make this plain: stop adding flags against policy and/or without achieving consensus. The alternative is that your next block is your last, as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and will not tolerate this single-minded disruption. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:53, 23 June 2009
Your recent edits
April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carefree (chant), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia isn't censored, but we kind of draw the line at anything uncited, non-notable and defamatory. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no standard about where to reply to talk page messages. Some people like to keep everything together; some people like always to post on the addressee's talk page so they get a 'You have new messages' warning. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Your "addition" amounted to putting up different lyrics, ostensibly sung in derision by that team's opponents. Besides what Philip Trueman already pointed out, Wikipedia is not a blog and it's not a soapbox either. The songs and responses sung back and forth, between opposite fans, can be practically infinite. -The Gnome (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Carefree. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Thank you.-The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Talk:Evolution page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — Scientizzle 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Red shirt security
A tag has been placed on Red shirt security 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. Blowdart | talk 07:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
my grandad george hayward referee of british wrestling
hi there im writing to u to get some back ground on my grandad i was just wondering if there is anyone how remembers him his name is george hayward married to margret hayward and also my uncle was dedicated one of dig daddies god children but that is what my grandad said and now he has pasted i just want to find out about his days as a referee.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhayward (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Greensleeves
I would be grateful if you could stop exchanging the word Myth for Legend. This entire text (using Myth) was agreed a while back when discussing and rewriting the whole aspect of Henry VIII and Greensleeves. As I said in my note, a Myth is a popular belief. A legend is an unverified story (handed down from earlier times). In this instance the use of the word legend is inappropriate because a) there is no story to be verified (Henry clearly did not write Greensleeves) and b) there is no evidence that gives longevity to story of Henry VII and Greensleeves. In other words, it's not a legend - it's a myth. And a complete one, at that. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- (your quote) I'm sorry but Experts have said can't prove Henry VIII didn't write it and since Henry VIII is the only name they have as the composers name and its been known by most people for 500 years that Henry VIII wrote it which is longdetivity.
- Please provide me with the necessary references / evidence that show that
- a) Experts have said "can't prove Henry VIII didn't write it"
- b) Any Experts who have said that Henry VIII is the only name they have as a composers name
- c) The story that Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves is at least 500 years old.
- Please provide me with the necessary references / evidence that show that
- There are existing references on the Greensleeves page that give a completely opposite story. Obviously if you are able to provide new information it will be an important development for the page. I look forward to receiving them. David T Tokyo (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Greensleaves edit war
A look at the edit history of Greensleaves shows that you both have made three reverts to the article. Either stop or you you may be blocked for violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- As per this request I looked to see which word would be a better fit. After reading through both legend and mythology, I think, that of the two, "myth" appears to be the better fit. However, I don't have any reference works, nor does there appear to be anything that would be classified as reliable on Google, about Greensleaves to indicate or source either one. There is a reference at the end of that section and it may be able to clear it up. Having said that, I really don't think that either word fits properly. I think that the word "belief" would be more correct in the sentence. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- As both of you agreed I made the change. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Treason Felony Act 1848
Thank you for pointing out that the infobox did not say what the status of the above Act was. I have put it right.James500 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Medieval Total War
Hello, your recent edits to Medieval: Total War seemed to revert the article to its inferior quality of several months ago. As with all potentially controversial edits such as these, an explanation as to why it was reverted should be made on the talk page and at least be mentioned in your edit summary. You may also want to look at WP:VGSCOPE, which points out inappropriate material in articles - such as the faction list that you re-added. In the meantime I have restored the article. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)#
- Well, video game articles should not contain long lists of concepts, such as factions, the other Total War game articles that contain faction list have not been cleaned up yet. I also would not recommend creating an article devoted to factions and game play tips, wikipedia is not a guide, such an article would likely be quickly deleted. I would say to review Empire: Total War's talk page for the same discussion on why factions should not be included. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've just remembered, an article about Medieval Total War's factions was in fact created - and quickly deleted - before.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_factions_in_Medieval:_Total_War QueenCake (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re:
Just add User:UBX/Christian to your page; do it like this, though, ---> {{User:UBX/Christian}} Also, you're welcome. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FA Cup 2008–09. 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. Peanut4 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Forget what Peanut4 says he is an idiot any way (and there are lots of idiots on wikipedia like him anyway). The FA site list the game to be played 17 March 2009. Arsenal-Hull. I also do not get way offical club site cant be usued as wald prove. DoctorHver (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the League Cup goal from the infobox as it was not scored in a LEAGUE game. There is no dispute as to the validity of the goal, which is fully described in the text. For reasons I won't go into here, mainly because they would take too long, it has long been established that only League appearances and goals should be noted in player infoboxes. Happy editing. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
2009 British and Irish Lions tour of South Africa
You are correct, Ireland do use a version of the four provinces flag. However, they do not use the four provinces flag. So you did not add the correct flag. – PeeJay 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I said in my edit summary "see Talk". Please see Talk. This is a biography, so reliable sources are non-negotiable. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see you edit-warring on whether he is Jewish or Atheist. The correct procedure is not to risk being blocked for this, but to discuss the matter on Talk:Alan Sugar. Please do so. Rodhullandemu 16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Initially, I reverted your edit as good faith. Subsequently, I rolled back with an explanation. Now, after seeing others have also highlighted your inappropriate or misguided edits, I regard you efforts on this page to be not too far short of vandalism. Is there any particular reason that you insist in claiming Alan Sugar adheres to Judaism when clearly he claims not to. It's a bit like saying your religion is English. Mannafredo (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of of Lord Sugar
A tag has been placed on Lord Sugar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MrMarmite (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not create this redirect again. He is not a Lord yet. And when he is, the existing article will be changed to reflect this. Then, and only then, you may create the redirect. If you like, you can bagsy/call shotgun, whatever you want to call it. Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 07:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Northern Ireland Flag
Hi. Do you have any particular reason to defy community consensus and the fact that Northern Ireland does not have an official flag?MITH 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of European stadia by capacity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BigDuncTalk 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you need me to call an admin to explain the policy behind this or will you just stop making your changes?MITH 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- No need, I'm here already. C of E, I'll make this plain: stop adding flags against policy and/or without achieving consensus. The alternative is that your next block is your last, as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and will not tolerate this single-minded disruption. Rodhullandemu 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)